# Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?



## Luddly Neddite

Why did we invade Iraq?







Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable. 

Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

What do you mean vets have to fight for every crumb?????
Obama has been President for 5 years...he hasn't fixed this???


----------



## Luddly Neddite

You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?

He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god. 

Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats

*One million Vets wait for care &#8211; A National Disgrace*



> ...   For example, in 2010 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki announced that three diseases &#8212; ischemic heart disease, Parkinson&#8217;s disease and b-cell leukemia &#8212; would be considered the result of Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in Vietnam. More than 240,000 claims for those diseases have been filed since that announcement. ...
> 
> ... the VA spent 4 years and $537 million on a new computer to streamline the claims process. It was less than a resounding success; 97% of veteran&#8217;s claims are still filed on paper, and that&#8217;s the single biggest reason that stands out for the backlog &#8211; they VA is literally being buried in a mountain of paperwork....










> That [photo above] the mountain of paperwork at the Winston-Salem NC VA office, the weight of all that paperwork compromised the structural integrity of the building &#8211; they were worried the floor would collapse.



Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.


.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Luddly Neddite said:


> You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?
> 
> He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god.
> 
> Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats
> 
> *One million Vets wait for care &#8211; A National Disgrace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...   For example, in 2010 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki announced that three diseases &#8212; ischemic heart disease, Parkinson&#8217;s disease and b-cell leukemia &#8212; would be considered the result of Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in Vietnam. More than 240,000 claims for those diseases have been filed since that announcement. ...
> 
> ... the VA spent 4 years and $537 million on a new computer to streamline the claims process. It was less than a resounding success; 97% of veteran&#8217;s claims are still filed on paper, and that&#8217;s the single biggest reason that stands out for the backlog &#8211; they VA is literally being buried in a mountain of paperwork....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That [photo above] the mountain of paperwork at the Winston-Salem NC VA office, the weight of all that paperwork compromised the structural integrity of the building &#8211; they were worried the floor would collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I am not blaming him...I am merely pointing out he has done nothing more for them than any other President - besides lip service.
You are the one that said "especially NOW vets have to fight for crumbs"
I assumed by "now", you meant now.


----------



## aplcr0331

*



			XXXXXXXXXX No Altering Quotes
		
Click to expand...

*
FIFY.

We did not need to go to Iraq, it was a mistake from the get go. We should have been out of A-Stan the day after we killed OBL too.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

What the heck is "FIFY"?


----------



## aplcr0331

Fixed It For You

It's when you edit the post above yours. In my case I edited the Quit blaming whoever I support statement made above my post. Just blame everyone else. Not people I support. The key here is that he is right and everyone else is wrong, unless they agree with him.

*Altering Quotes here, is against Site Rules. -Intense*


----------



## longknife

You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.

I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.

Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.


----------



## aplcr0331

longknife said:


> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.



I'm a vet as well and I agree with your thoughts on it to.

We (you, me, our families and particularly the friends and brothers we lost) pay the highest price for these wars.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

&#8220;It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.&#8221;


----------



## iamwhatiseem

longknife said:


> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.



For the most part I agree, especially "internal conflicts".
Where I am Ok with U.S. involvement is if that conflict is getting outside of their border threatening a strong ally or the "internal conflict" is extremely egregious. (Mass genocide as an example) 
You touched on one topic that is SOOOO ignored and understated and *Holy COW* under-appreciated is U.S. troops on the ground world-wide providing security globally.
This is very expensive, and completely necessary. 
 The world needs U.S. leadership and security. Without it - someone else fills the void. As we see today with China and Russia. 
HAVING SAID THIS - the world should be paying for that security. Every single European country benefits economically tremendously by having U.S. military in their country as a regional stabilizer. This affords them to not spend copious taxpayer dollars of THEIR MONEY on their own strong military - they have ours. Therefore they should be paying for our protection.
Not the other way around like it is.


----------



## PredFan

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



Because the Democrat run Congress wanted them there.


----------



## eflatminor

Luddly Neddite said:


> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out,



Of course, we've not incurred far more debt under Obama...not at all.  He just HAD to spend more money than all previous administrations...'cuz of Bush  

And those "cronies"...would they include the Democrat controlled House and Senate Bush dealt with during several years of his presidency???



> the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.



Yep...I too am just as pissed off at the 82 Democratic House members and the 29 Senators that voted to go to war in Iraq...every bit as much as the Republicans that voted for it.

What was it you said..."unforgivable"?  Or are they forgiven because everything is Bush's fault???



> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



Was it not the Republicans that recently put forth a bill to NOT cut military pensions...a vote that was put down by the Dems in favor of maintaining benefits to illegals?

Why yes it was.

Point being, I too despise the debts and wars incurred by the central planners, but I'm mature enough to realize that both parties are at fault.  Your bias is so overwhelming, you can't see reality.  For once, you might consider not sucking a the Democratic tit.  You'll realize it's both parties that are to blame for what you claim to hate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *

Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



Because, as I and many others have been saying all along, if you fight for America now you're not fighting to protect American freedom, you're fighting to make corporations who supply everything used in wars, richer. 

US hasn't had a justifiable war since 1812. If no one's invading the mainland US, stay out of it.


----------



## eflatminor

JakeStarkey said:


> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *
> 
> Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.



Those  82 Democratic House members and the 29 Senators that voted for the Iraq war...were they neo-conservatives too?


----------



## eflatminor

Delta4Embassy said:


> US hasn't had a justifiable war since 1812. If no one's invading the mainland US, stay out of it.



We may have disagreed about other issues, but with regard to this point...

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

John Q Adams


----------



## JakeStarkey

eflatminor said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *
> 
> Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those  82 Democratic House members and the 29 Senators that voted for the Iraq war...were they neo-conservatives too?
Click to expand...


They were certainly fooled by them as was Bush.  We are not assigning blame YET, only the outcome: we failed.


----------



## eflatminor

JakeStarkey said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *
> 
> Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those  82 Democratic House members and the 29 Senators that voted for the Iraq war...were they neo-conservatives too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were certainly fooled by them as was Bush.  We are not assigning blame YET, only the outcome: we failed.
Click to expand...


Fair enough.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

War is always a failure unless conducted in self defense. It's a total negative undertaking. It kills, it maims and it displaces. It causes debt and it ultimately causes more violence.

This nation could use a heavy dose of the NAP.


----------



## whitehall

The official reason that 36% of democrats in congress agreed to was that we invaded Iraq to enforce UN sanctions against Saddam and president Bush gave Iraq about a year to comply. You could make a case that more Americans were killed because the democrat party undermined the mission with hateful propaganda with ads like "betray-us" and treasonous statements like "the war is lost" from the democrat senate majority leader as well as the crazy anti-war demonstrations that disappeared after Hussein was elected. For some perspective, about 6,000 Marines were killed in a single month taking a shitty little island that we could have bypassed four months before the Japanese surrender. Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea with nothing but an (illegal?) executive order and we lost 50,000 Troops in three years during the bungled mission. LBJ thought he had a better idea and he bailed out of Vietnam just when Americans needed leadership.


----------



## Bloodrock44

Delta4Embassy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as I and many others have been saying all along, if you fight for America now you're not fighting to protect American freedom, you're fighting to make corporations who supply everything used in wars, richer.
> 
> US hasn't had a justifiable war since 1812. If no one's invading the mainland US, stay out of it.
Click to expand...


You are a fucking idiot. I guess we should have just said thank you to Japan for Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

And siding against Japan with China (Flying Tigers ring a bell) or embargoeing their oil imports wasn't an act of war requiring military response? Pearl Harbor was in response to prior provocations and what we term now acts of war. To say nothing of we then shot first at Pearl Harbor sinking a Japanese midget submarine before the planes arrived or were even known about. 

Study history so not drinking the cool-aid all your life.


----------



## whitehall

What can you say about democrats when they were in charge of every Military conflict in the bloody 20th century that resulted in an estimated 20 million total deaths and they pretend to be fooled about their authorization of Boots on the Ground in the Bush administration while they undermined the mission? Stupid or freaking treason? Either way modern democrats are not fit to serve in government.


----------



## Luddly Neddite




----------



## Luddly Neddite

Bloodrock44 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as I and many others have been saying all along, if you fight for America now you're not fighting to protect American freedom, you're fighting to make corporations who supply everything used in wars, richer.
> 
> US hasn't had a justifiable war since 1812. If no one's invading the mainland US, stay out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot. I guess we should have just said thank you to Japan for Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...


That's not just apples compared to oranges.

That's apples compared to tennis rackets.


----------



## JenT

For freedom. Every soldier that ever died for freedom, bought time with their lives. Nobody died for freedom forever (except Christ), freedom on this side of heaven on a national level is continually fought and sacrificed for.

Nobody died in vain. Nobody will ever know how much time was bought for so many Iraqi children, but it was. And with the war in Iraq, it was removed from our shores just a little bit longer. God bless our troops.


----------



## tinydancer

No man has ever died in vain fighting for freedom. 

Now maybe we don't have perfect outcomes. I've been known more than once to let go a primordial scream in the middle of the wilderness. And we can be upset on both sides of the aisle. But that is political. Not of these good men and women. Luddly please stop. 

These beautiful men and women who've fought the good fight on our behest not one has died in vain.

Freedom is a dream. And these good men and women are our dream warriors.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Every single death, American and otherwise, in Iraq was "in vain". 

The US does not fight for freedom. 

We go into third world countries, devastate them beyond any hope of recovery and then give them money forever.


----------



## gipper

Luddly Neddite said:


> Every single death, American and otherwise, in Iraq was "in vain".
> 
> The US does not fight for freedom.
> 
> We go into third world countries, devastate them beyond any hope of recovery and then give them money forever.



And yet you think Big Ears is better than W.  Why?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

tinydancer said:


> No man has ever died in vain fighting for freedom.
> 
> Now maybe we don't have perfect outcomes. I've been known more than once to let go a primordial scream in the middle of the wilderness. And we can be upset on both sides of the aisle. But that is political. Not of these good men and women. Luddly please stop.
> 
> These beautiful men and women who've fought the good fight on our behest not one has died in vain.
> 
> Freedom is a dream. And these good men and women are our dream warriors.



No!

Now is when they need us the most. 

They have given their bodies, their lives, their futures and our country is turning its back on them. 

NO, I will not stop fighting for our vets. Just as I wish other Americans would fight for them.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

gipper said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every single death, American and otherwise, in Iraq was "in vain".
> 
> The US does not fight for freedom.
> 
> We go into third world countries, devastate them beyond any hope of recovery and then give them money forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you think Big Ears is better than W.  Why?
Click to expand...


I have no idea who you're talking about but it was George Bush who sent our people to their deaths and to be maimed for nothing at all. It was George Bush who put us into debt and all but bankrupted us. 

The worthless little asshole didn't even get the oil he was really after.


----------



## AquaAthena

JakeStarkey said:


> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *
> 
> Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.



And because of 9/11. 

Without the benefit of hind-site, who knows HOW they would have handled the attack on home soil, killing more than 3000 innocent people.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AquaAthena said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *
> 
> Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because of 9/11.
> 
> Without the benefit of hind-site, who knows HOW they would have handled the attack on home soil, killing more than 3000 innocent people.
Click to expand...


That was certainly part of the linkage.  Now we have the hindsight.  But we had it after Korea and Vietnam as well.  If we do it again, there will be no excuse.


----------



## Sunshine

Everyone who died in Iraq was a volunteer.  Given that fact, all that old 70s rhetoric just doesn't work.  I have worked with veterans of all wars since WWII.  The younger veterans simply don't have the bitterness toward the government that the draftees of the 60s and 70s had.  

Vietnam got cranked up when JFK was going to pull out because LBJ had a financial interest in that war.  He made millions off it.  You libs got issues with a war?  Take that one on.


----------



## Sunshine

Luddly Neddite said:


> You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?
> 
> He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god.
> 
> Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats
> 
> *One million Vets wait for care  A National Disgrace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...   For example, in 2010 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki announced that three diseases  ischemic heart disease, Parkinsons disease and b-cell leukemia  would be considered the result of Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in Vietnam. More than 240,000 claims for those diseases have been filed since that announcement. ...
> 
> ... the VA spent 4 years and $537 million on a new computer to streamline the claims process. It was less than a resounding success; 97% of veterans claims are still filed on paper, and thats the single biggest reason that stands out for the backlog  they VA is literally being buried in a mountain of paperwork....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That [photo above] the mountain of paperwork at the Winston-Salem NC VA office, the weight of all that paperwork compromised the structural integrity of the building  they were worried the floor would collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


A it's just as childish to blame Bush because your 'friends' who volunteered to go to war were killed.  The kill is on them.  They were not required to go.

That being said, I doubt you personally know one person who died in that war.  The type of friends people like you have don't volunteer for the military, they don't work, and they sure aren't productive people of any stripe.


----------



## Sunshine

iamwhatiseem said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part I agree, especially "internal conflicts".
> Where I am Ok with U.S. involvement is if that conflict is getting outside of their border threatening a strong ally or the "internal conflict" is extremely egregious. (Mass genocide as an example)
> You touched on one topic that is SOOOO ignored and understated and *Holy COW* under-appreciated is U.S. troops on the ground world-wide providing security globally.
> This is very expensive, and completely necessary.
> The world needs U.S. leadership and security. Without it - someone else fills the void. As we see today with China and Russia.
> HAVING SAID THIS - the world should be paying for that security. Every single European country benefits economically tremendously by having U.S. military in their country as a regional stabilizer. This affords them to not spend copious taxpayer dollars of THEIR MONEY on their own strong military - they have ours. Therefore they should be paying for our protection.
> Not the other way around like it is.
Click to expand...


Those little European bergs have fabulous social programs because WE pay for their defense.  Personally, I think if we provide their defense they should pay us for it or provide their own defense.  If they did that you would see all the stuff they throw up to us on message boards that they have and we do not go into a nosedive and disappear, while our taxes could be greatly reduced.


----------



## whitehall

JakeStarkey said:


> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *
> 
> Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.



Misunderstanding? Every war in the bloody 20th century happened during a democrat administrations and life was cheap. Woodie Wilson had no business using American Troops to bail out France but maybe his wife was really calling the shots. We did it again twenty years later when FDR wasn't paying attention. Harry Truman appointed a possibly senile field commander when he ordered US Troops to Korea and MacArthur led Americans into the biggest ambush in history. JFK was a freaking idiot who thought he could use the CIA to invade Cuba after his friends in organized crime lost their table stakes. LBJ thought he had a better idea of waging war. He set up the rules in Vietnam so that we could win all the battles and lose the freaking war.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Sunshine said:


> Everyone who died in Iraq was a volunteer.  Given that fact, all that old 70s rhetoric just doesn't work.  I have worked with veterans of all wars since WWII.  The younger veterans simply don't have the bitterness toward the government that the draftees of the 60s and 70s had.
> 
> Vietnam got cranked up when JFK was going to pull out because LBJ had a financial interest in that war.  He made millions off it.  You libs got issues with a war?  Take that one on.



That (not)war cost me more than I ever thought possible. 

You bet I have "issues" with it. 

I think its wrong for us to desert our vets.

Period.


----------



## Intense

When we stand for principles, No One dies in vain. When those principles are abandoned, those that remain are living in vain. Some here, are their own worse enemy, and they still don't get it. I guess that as long as they have someone else to sell out, they are convinced that they won't be next, and that works for them. Just don't stand next to me. You would not know Justice, Honor, Integrity if it bit you in the ass. If you do not even get the obligations involved with Treaty or Alliance, your word is worth shit. It's that simple.


----------



## Sunshine

Luddly Neddite said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who died in Iraq was a volunteer.  Given that fact, all that old 70s rhetoric just doesn't work.  I have worked with veterans of all wars since WWII.  The younger veterans simply don't have the bitterness toward the government that the draftees of the 60s and 70s had.
> 
> Vietnam got cranked up when JFK was going to pull out because LBJ had a financial interest in that war.  He made millions off it.  You libs got issues with a war?  Take that one on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That (not)war cost me more than I ever thought possible.
> 
> You bet I have "issues" with it.
> 
> I think its wrong for us to desert our vets.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


LOL.  How many vets have you EVER worked with?  My guess is zero.  You are a puffed up pontificating toad frog and all you do is sit and  post on a message board all day.


----------



## gipper

Luddly Neddite said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every single death, American and otherwise, in Iraq was "in vain".
> 
> The US does not fight for freedom.
> 
> We go into third world countries, devastate them beyond any hope of recovery and then give them money forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you think Big Ears is better than W.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea who you're talking about but it was George Bush who sent our people to their deaths and to be maimed for nothing at all. It was George Bush who put us into debt and all but bankrupted us.
> 
> The worthless little asshole didn't even get the oil he was really after.
Click to expand...


I agree, but how is Big Ears any different?


----------



## Sunshine

Luddly Neddite said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every single death, American and otherwise, in Iraq was "in vain".
> 
> The US does not fight for freedom.
> 
> We go into third world countries, devastate them beyond any hope of recovery and then give them money forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you think Big Ears is better than W.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea who you're talking about but it was George Bush who sent our people to their deaths and to be maimed for nothing at all. It was George Bush who put us into debt and all but bankrupted us.
> 
> The worthless little asshole didn't even get the oil he was really after.
Click to expand...


All of 'our people' who went to Iraq volunteered.  No one forced them to go.  Get that straight first.


----------



## HenryBHough

The "why" depends on whether they died when Bush was president or after Obama had been anointed.

If under Bush then the obvious answer, in lib-speak, is "for nothing".

If under Obama - well, they couldn't have died there because He brought everybody safely home before the stroke of midnight on January 9, 2009.

Didn't He?


----------



## Intense

Too bad Iraq did not end up with a Constitution that guaranteed equal Rights and Protection for All without Partiality, be they Male or Female, Believer or Non Believer. Without that, Everyone loses. Some are just either too stupid to see that, or were too busy trying to undermine the Bush Administration for Political gain, during War, to give a shit about doing the right thing. You threw it all away, like you do everything else.


----------



## tinydancer

Luddly Neddite said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every single death, American and otherwise, in Iraq was "in vain".
> 
> The US does not fight for freedom.
> 
> We go into third world countries, devastate them beyond any hope of recovery and then give them money forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you think Big Ears is better than W.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea who you're talking about but it was George Bush who sent our people to their deaths and to be maimed for nothing at all. It was George Bush who put us into debt and all but bankrupted us.
> 
> The worthless little asshole didn't even get the oil he was really after.
Click to expand...


Luddly please and I mean it truly stop lying.

Canada is your supplier of oil. 

Bush was not after oil.


----------



## Spoonman

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



seems to me the republicans were only echoing the same cries made by the Clinton administration before them.  seems to me the democrats were in agreement with the decision to go to war and continued to vote to fund the war as it progressed.


----------



## Sunshine

Spoonman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me the republicans were only echoing the same cries made by the Clinton administration before them.  seems to me the democrats were in agreement with the decision to go to war and continued to vote to fund the war as it progressed.
Click to expand...


Damn.  I'm out of rep.  IOU.


----------



## Bloodrock44

Delta4Embassy said:


> And siding against Japan with China (Flying Tigers ring a bell) or embargoeing their oil imports wasn't an act of war requiring military response? Pearl Harbor was in response to prior provocations and what we term now acts of war. To say nothing of we then shot first at Pearl Harbor sinking a Japanese midget submarine before the planes arrived or were even known about.
> 
> Study history so not drinking the cool-aid all your life.



I repeat. You are a fucking idiot. And a blame America firster. So we should have done nothing about Pearl Harbor and waited until they invaded the west coast? And we should have let their sub wonder about the harbor? Talk about drinking cool-aid.


----------



## Bloodrock44

Luddly Neddite said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as I and many others have been saying all along, if you fight for America now you're not fighting to protect American freedom, you're fighting to make corporations who supply everything used in wars, richer.
> 
> US hasn't had a justifiable war since 1812. If no one's invading the mainland US, stay out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot. I guess we should have just said thank you to Japan for Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not just apples compared to oranges.
> 
> That's apples compared to tennis rackets.
Click to expand...


What the fuck are you mumbling about ,Comrade? You agree we should have done nothing about Pearl Harbor because the mainland wasn't attacked? Killing 2700 Americans was not cause to retaliate?


----------



## rdean

iamwhatiseem said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?
> 
> He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god.
> 
> Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats
> 
> *One million Vets wait for care  A National Disgrace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...   For example, in 2010 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki announced that three diseases  ischemic heart disease, Parkinsons disease and b-cell leukemia  would be considered the result of Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in Vietnam. More than 240,000 claims for those diseases have been filed since that announcement. ...
> 
> ... the VA spent 4 years and $537 million on a new computer to streamline the claims process. It was less than a resounding success; 97% of veterans claims are still filed on paper, and thats the single biggest reason that stands out for the backlog  they VA is literally being buried in a mountain of paperwork....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That [photo above] the mountain of paperwork at the Winston-Salem NC VA office, the weight of all that paperwork compromised the structural integrity of the building  they were worried the floor would collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not blaming him...I am merely pointing out he has done nothing more for them than any other President - besides lip service.
> You are the one that said "especially NOW vets have to fight for crumbs"
> I assumed by "now", you meant now.
Click to expand...


Republicans kept first responders from health care for 10 years.  What makes you think they don't work tirelessly to block anything that would help veterans?

Senate GOP blocks veterans jobs bill - CBS News

Senate GOP Obstructionists Throw Veterans Under The Bus-Vote Down Bill To Help Vets In Need Of Jobs - Forbes

GOP Looks at Cutting Veterans Health Benefits for 2011-12 Session to Fulfill Pledge | Veterans Today


----------



## Sunshine

Bloodrock44 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot. I guess we should have just said thank you to Japan for Pearl Harbor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not just apples compared to oranges.
> 
> That's apples compared to tennis rackets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you mumbling about ,Comrade? You agree we should have done nothing about Pearl Harbor because the mainland wasn't attacked? Killing 2700 Americans was not cause to retaliate?
Click to expand...


IOU rep!


----------



## rdean

Bloodrock44 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot. I guess we should have just said thank you to Japan for Pearl Harbor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not just apples compared to oranges.
> 
> That's apples compared to tennis rackets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you mumbling about ,Comrade? You agree we should have done nothing about Pearl Harbor because the mainland wasn't attacked? Killing 2700 Americans was not cause to retaliate?
Click to expand...


Of course it was.  That's why Republicans should have kept their eye on Bin Laden, not let him get away to go live in a villa in Pakistan and not invade Iraq for their oil which went to the Chinese anyway.


----------



## rdean

Spoonman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me the republicans were only echoing the same cries made by the Clinton administration before them.  seems to me the democrats were in agreement with the decision to go to war and continued to vote to fund the war as it progressed.
Click to expand...



Bush let Bin Laden go.  Did they end up on the same side?  Considering the damage both did to the country, it could be.


----------



## Sunshine

rdean said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me the republicans were only echoing the same cries made by the Clinton administration before them.  seems to me the democrats were in agreement with the decision to go to war and continued to vote to fund the war as it progressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bush let Bin Laden go.  Did they end up on the same side?  Considering the damage both did to the country, it could be.
Click to expand...


The title of this thread is not 'why did Bush let bin Laden go.'  The title of this thread is 'Why did my friends die in Iraq.'

The answer is simple:  *Because they volunteered to go. * That's why.  No other statement answers the question, nutcase.


----------



## rdean

Sunshine said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me the republicans were only echoing the same cries made by the Clinton administration before them.  seems to me the democrats were in agreement with the decision to go to war and continued to vote to fund the war as it progressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush let Bin Laden go.  Did they end up on the same side?  Considering the damage both did to the country, it could be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is not 'why did Bush let bin Laden go.'  The title of this thread is 'Why did my friends die in Iraq.'
> 
> The answer is simple:  *Because they volunteered to go. * That's why.  No other statement answers the question, nutcase.
Click to expand...


And why did they volunteer to go?

85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks

Zogby: Troops think Iraq was retaliation for 9/11

Now where on earth would they get such an idea?  From Democrats?


----------



## Publius1787

longknife said:


> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.





aplcr0331 said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a vet as well and I agree with your thoughts on it to.
> 
> We (you, me, our families and particularly the friends and brothers we lost) pay the highest price for these wars.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid libertarianism only works with what you can control domestically. International relations is not a libertarian strong suit. The vacuum created would destroy the United States as a Super Power!


----------



## Publius1787

whitehall said:


> The official reason that 36% of democrats in congress agreed to was that we invaded Iraq to enforce UN sanctions against Saddam and president Bush gave Iraq about a year to comply. You could make a case that more Americans were killed because the democrat party undermined the mission with hateful propaganda with ads like "betray-us" and treasonous statements like "the war is lost" from the democrat senate majority leader as well as the crazy anti-war demonstrations that disappeared after Hussein was elected. For some perspective, about 6,000 Marines were killed in a single month taking a shitty little island that we could have bypassed four months before the Japanese surrender. Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea with nothing but an (illegal?) executive order and we lost 50,000 Troops in three years during the bungled mission. LBJ thought he had a better idea and he bailed out of Vietnam just when Americans needed leadership.



Garbage! They could have limited the parameters of the funding. they did not! That gave him complete authority.


----------



## Publius1787

Luddly Neddite said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every single death, American and otherwise, in Iraq was "in vain".
> 
> The US does not fight for freedom.
> 
> We go into third world countries, devastate them beyond any hope of recovery and then give them money forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you think Big Ears is better than W.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea who you're talking about but it was George Bush who sent our people to their deaths and to be maimed for nothing at all. It was George Bush who put us into debt and all but bankrupted us.
> 
> The worthless little asshole didn't even get the oil he was really after.
Click to expand...


No, the Democrats created a bill that would prevent US based oil companies from drilling in Iraq. Now the Chinese and the British drill there as Iraq has no significant firms of their own.


----------



## Publius1787

Sunshine said:


> Everyone who died in Iraq was a volunteer.  Given that fact, all that old 70s rhetoric just doesn't work.  I have worked with veterans of all wars since WWII.  The younger veterans simply don't have the bitterness toward the government that the draftees of the 60s and 70s had.
> 
> Vietnam got cranked up when JFK was going to pull out because LBJ had a financial interest in that war.  He made millions off it.  You libs got issues with a war?  Take that one on.



Correct. All of us who served in Iraq in combat arms are overwhelmingly conservative. Liberals become administrative clerks, supply clerks, or go in to comm. We knew what we were getting in to and it was our pleasure to do it.


----------



## Publius1787

JakeStarkey said:


> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *
> 
> Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.



See video below


----------



## Publius1787

rdean said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not just apples compared to oranges.
> 
> That's apples compared to tennis rackets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you mumbling about ,Comrade? You agree we should have done nothing about Pearl Harbor because the mainland wasn't attacked? Killing 2700 Americans was not cause to retaliate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was.  That's why Republicans should have kept their eye on Bin Laden, not let him get away to go live in a villa in Pakistan and not invade Iraq for their oil which went to the Chinese anyway.
Click to expand...



BLAM!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8]Democrats before Iraq War started.... - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Publius1787

Intense said:


> Too bad Iraq did not end up with a Constitution that guaranteed equal Rights and Protection for All without Partiality, be they Male or Female, Believer or Non Believer. Without that, Everyone loses. Some are just either too stupid to see that, or were too busy trying to undermine the Bush Administration for Political gain, during War, to give a shit about doing the right thing. You threw it all away, like you do everything else.



Iraq went from a tyrannical dictatorship to a democracy. If it were a stable democracy your criticisms would be unfounded. A stable democracy is better than a tyrannical dictatorship an day of the week. Small steps.


----------



## Publius1787

rdean said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?
> 
> He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god.
> 
> Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats
> 
> *One million Vets wait for care  A National Disgrace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not blaming him...I am merely pointing out he has done nothing more for them than any other President - besides lip service.
> You are the one that said "especially NOW vets have to fight for crumbs"
> I assumed by "now", you meant now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans kept first responders from health care for 10 years.  What makes you think they don't work tirelessly to block anything that would help veterans?
> 
> Senate GOP blocks veterans jobs bill - CBS News
> 
> Senate GOP Obstructionists Throw Veterans Under The Bus-Vote Down Bill To Help Vets In Need Of Jobs - Forbes
> 
> GOP Looks at Cutting Veterans Health Benefits for 2011-12 Session to Fulfill Pledge | Veterans Today
Click to expand...


Hogwash, that program was so rife with fraud and abuse for most survivors.


----------



## Stephanie

Luddly Neddite said:


> You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?
> 
> He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god.
> 
> Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats
> 
> *One million Vets wait for care &#8211; A National Disgrace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...   For example, in 2010 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki announced that three diseases &#8212; ischemic heart disease, Parkinson&#8217;s disease and b-cell leukemia &#8212; would be considered the result of Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in Vietnam. More than 240,000 claims for those diseases have been filed since that announcement. ...
> 
> ... the VA spent 4 years and $537 million on a new computer to streamline the claims process. It was less than a resounding success; 97% of veteran&#8217;s claims are still filed on paper, and that&#8217;s the single biggest reason that stands out for the backlog &#8211; they VA is literally being buried in a mountain of paperwork....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That [photo above] the mountain of paperwork at the Winston-Salem NC VA office, the weight of all that paperwork compromised the structural integrity of the building &#8211; they were worried the floor would collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


But you can blame Bush and act like DEMOCRATS didn't have a hand in sending our troops to war in Iraq... and that isn't childish and counter-productive
stop using our vets for your hate agenda...they are volunteers and know what they are signing up for...Ask your dear Leader Obama why he hasn't taken care of these vets...He can ram a new Government Scam on us called OScamCare in five years and we all resigned ourselves to he is god afterall


----------



## rdean

Publius1787 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not blaming him...I am merely pointing out he has done nothing more for them than any other President - besides lip service.
> You are the one that said "especially NOW vets have to fight for crumbs"
> I assumed by "now", you meant now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans kept first responders from health care for 10 years.  What makes you think they don't work tirelessly to block anything that would help veterans?
> 
> Senate GOP blocks veterans jobs bill - CBS News
> 
> Senate GOP Obstructionists Throw Veterans Under The Bus-Vote Down Bill To Help Vets In Need Of Jobs - Forbes
> 
> GOP Looks at Cutting Veterans Health Benefits for 2011-12 Session to Fulfill Pledge | Veterans Today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hogwash, that program was so rife with fraud and abuse for most survivors.
Click to expand...


So these programs were so bad, Republicans offered better ones?  Come on.  Not even you believe that.


----------



## BlackSand

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



*Why did your friends die in Iraq?*
Because you were not there helping cover their asses.

.

_"You Are Lost ... But Not Forgotten.

For all the soldiers who have traveled to fight in foreign lands,
Know the only comfort is to have their friends close at hand.

In the heat of battle it ceases to be an idea we fight for ... Or a flag.
Rather ... We fight for the man on our left ... We fight for the man on our right.

When all the armies retreat and go home ... And all the Empires fall away,
The only things left are memories of those precious moments we stood side by side."_

*Jack's Speech - Four Feathers* (referring to the four feathers of cowardice)

.

None of my fellow soldiers died in vain ... But then again, we weren't fighting for political gain.
We weren't fighting for oil, not for freedom, no fighting to strip away rights of people here or there and no Imperialistic desire to rule the Middle East.
We fought for each other ... And the primary mission was not getting home yourself ... But doing all you could to see that the man or woman next to you got home alive.

*They were more than my friends ... They were my brothers and sisters in arms.*

.


----------



## georgephillip

longknife said:


> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.


Africa and Russia appear to be the golden bulls-eye for those who profit from war and the private debts required to pay for it. Private war profits for defense contractors requires socializing the costs of combat onto the backs of an overwhelming majority of a country's citizens, many of whom do not support war in the first place.

In the US, the citizens are offered a "choice" between elected Republicans OR elected Democrats whose election campaigns and retirements are funded by the 1% of the population most likely to profit materially from War and Debt.

War can be taxed into extinction today in the same way chattel slavery could have been exterminated in the decades between Valley Forge and Cold Harbor.

Why shouldn't those institutions and individuals who amass vast fortunes from War and Debt pay the total cost of supporting those who volunteered to fight the wars?


----------



## Pennywise

We should have never gone into Iraq, but if anyone thinks it's a Bush thing, you are fucking stupid beyond all words.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Publius1787 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad Iraq did not end up with a Constitution that guaranteed equal Rights and Protection for All without Partiality, be they Male or Female, Believer or Non Believer. Without that, Everyone loses. Some are just either too stupid to see that, or were too busy trying to undermine the Bush Administration for Political gain, during War, to give a shit about doing the right thing. You threw it all away, like you do everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq went from a tyrannical dictatorship to a democracy. If it were a stable democracy your criticisms would be unfounded. A stable democracy is better than a tyrannical dictatorship an day of the week. Small steps.
Click to expand...


It went to an Islamic democracy, which is a perversion of constitutional democracy.

Women were sent to third class status.

The great religious war between Islam's two wings continue.

Iraq wills support Iran over our US interests.

Neo-con intervention was a failure.


----------



## Truthmatters

iamwhatiseem said:


> What do you mean vets have to fight for every crumb?????
> Obama has been President for 5 years...he hasn't fixed this???



because you creeps filibuster everything


----------



## Truthmatters

Pennywise said:


> We should have never gone into Iraq, but if anyone thinks it's a Bush thing, you are fucking stupid beyond all words.



dear fucking idiot,

Bush was president and was the decider at the time huh


----------



## Truthmatters

Oh and BTW Cheney fooled him into lying about the intell on Iraq.

they lied to all of us 


you liked it I guess


----------



## Pennywise

Truthmatters said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have never gone into Iraq, but if anyone thinks it's a Bush thing, you are fucking stupid beyond all words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear fucking idiot,
> 
> Bush was president and was the decider at the time huh
Click to expand...


Honestly, you are not even remotely intelligent enough to be posting about anything. What a simpleton.


----------



## Stephanie

Pennywise said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have never gone into Iraq, but if anyone thinks it's a Bush thing, you are fucking stupid beyond all words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear fucking idiot,
> 
> Bush was president and was the decider at the time huh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, you are not even remotely intelligent enough to be posting about anything. What a simpleton.
Click to expand...


 and in her simply world, Obama is now the decider but everything is still bush's and Republicans fault

what a reality to live eh?


----------



## Bumberclyde

*Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*

For Dick Cheney and his oil buddies.


----------



## Stephanie

Bumberclyde said:


> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*
> 
> For Dick Cheney and his oil buddies.



not like we haven't heard that before..shocking


----------



## Sunshine

Truthmatters said:


> Oh and BTW Cheney fooled him into lying about the intell on Iraq.
> 
> they lied to all of us
> 
> 
> you liked it I guess



Who forced Congress into believing it?


----------



## Sunshine

Stephanie said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*
> 
> For Dick Cheney and his oil buddies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not like we haven't heard that before..shocking
Click to expand...


Vastly different than LBJ making millions off Vietnam.  LBJ's corpses were drafted.  Bush's volunteered.  Mucho difference there.


----------



## Stephanie

Sunshine said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and BTW Cheney fooled him into lying about the intell on Iraq.
> 
> they lied to all of us
> 
> 
> you liked it I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who forced Congress into believing it?
Click to expand...


it confirms on thing we already knew, the elected idiots Democrats in Congress are all STUPID...they can fall for a lie

it's nice to hear their sheep followers confirm it for a change


----------



## Dot Com

people "volunteer" (I did) based on trust that our leaders wouldn't fight "voluntary wars for profit" that only profit well-connected, arms manufacturers & shameless portfolio managers.


----------



## Sunshine

Dot Com said:


> people "volunteer" (I did) *based on trust that our leaders wouldn't fight *"voluntary wars for profit" that only profit well-connected, arms manufacturers & shameless portfolio managers.



The purpose of the military is to fight.  A person would have to be patently stupid to miss that fact. But then it was YOU who made the post, so no surprise.  In addition to veterans, I also worked with Reservists, so I am well versed in how eager an army sitting on 'ready' is to fight.


----------



## Stephanie

That's why the military men and women are largly Republican/conservative

they have so much FAITH in Democrats....

take this thread as an example...Instead of blaming Obama and Democrats who are IN CHARGE now they are all over the place putting the blame on everyone else


----------



## Dot Com

fight? For a just cause, yes. For profit? No.

Our leaders are civilians for a reason dummy. Diplomacy is supposed to be strenuously applied first. Military is always a last resort UNLESS you're a Republican that is  THEN its "shoot first & ask questions later" Thats how we end up w/ a $3-4 TRILLION unpaid-tab & 10's of 1000's of permanently maimed/scarred vets.

Sunshine attacking former, active-duty vets like me


----------



## Bumberclyde

Stephanie said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*
> 
> For Dick Cheney and his oil buddies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not like we haven't heard that before..shocking
Click to expand...


I know, but that's the reason. It's weird how everyone knows, and no one really cares, and he's never been arrested or anything.


----------



## Truthmatters

Don't forget the war crimes of dropping white phosphorous on Falugia.


the US army melted men women and children with it.

Its a HORRIBLE death.


why did no one get wars crimes convictions?


----------



## Truthmatters

Oh BTW it also causes deformaties for years to come in births


----------



## Truthmatters

Pentagon Reverses Position and Admits U.S. Troops Used White Phosphorus Against Iraqis in Fallujah*|* SHOAH


----------



## Sunshine

Dot Com said:


> fight? For a just cause, yes. For profit? No.
> 
> Our leaders are civilians for a reason dummy. Diplomacy is supposed to be strenuously applied first. Military is always a last resort UNLESS you're a Republican that is  THEN its "shoot first & ask questions later" Thats how we end up w/ a $3-4 TRILLION unpaid-tab & 10's of 1000's of permanently maimed/scarred vets.
> 
> Sunshine attacking former, active-duty vets like me



So you disagree with the underlying principles of this great country.  The founders fought for money or were you absent from school the day they taught 'taxation without representation?'  And I hate to tell you, but the laws of this country favor commerce.  Commerce and money are why we are here.  I guess you missed that little 'Life, liberty, and pursuit of property' thingy too.  

Sunshine attacking a veteran.  That's just damn funny as much as you have trolled and stalked me on this forum.  You are not a veteran.  You are nothing but an asswipe.


----------



## Sunshine

Truthmatters said:


> Oh BTW it also causes deformaties for years to come in births



So does cannabis.


----------



## Stephanie

Sunshine said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh BTW it also causes deformaties for years to come in births
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does cannabis.
Click to expand...


man, I think I have to place that rambling AND vulgar nonsense from (TM) on ignore
nothing has changed since she was gone that's for sure..just as


----------



## Truthmatters

Sunshine said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh BTW it also causes deformaties for years to come in births
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does cannabis.
Click to expand...


go get your proof.


why don't you seem to care about the FACTS in this thread?


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthmatters said:


> Pentagon Reverses Position and Admits U.S. Troops Used White Phosphorus Against Iraqis in Fallujah*|* SHOAH



do you DENY this happened?


----------



## rdean

Stephanie said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear fucking idiot,
> 
> Bush was president and was the decider at the time huh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, you are not even remotely intelligent enough to be posting about anything. What a simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and in her simply world, Obama is now the decider *but everything is still bush's and Republicans fault*
> 
> what a reality to live eh?
Click to expand...


When you look at what Republicans have done being the least productive congress in history, and what they did under Bush, everything kinda is their fault.


----------



## Sunshine

Truthmatters said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh BTW it also causes deformaties for years to come in births
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does cannabis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go get your proof.
> 
> 
> why don't you seem to care about the FACTS in this thread?
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^^Coming from you?


----------



## Dot Com

Sunshine said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> fight? For a just cause, yes. For profit? No.
> 
> Our leaders are civilians for a reason dummy. Diplomacy is supposed to be strenuously applied first. Military is always a last resort UNLESS you're a Republican that is  THEN its "shoot first & ask questions later" Thats how we end up w/ a $3-4 TRILLION unpaid-tab & 10's of 1000's of permanently maimed/scarred vets.
> 
> Sunshine attacking former, active-duty vets like me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you disagree with the underlying principles of this great country.  The founders fought for money or were you absent from school the day they taught 'taxation without representation?'  And I hate to tell you, but the laws of this country favor commerce.  Commerce and money are why we are here.  I guess you missed that little 'Life, liberty, and pursuit of property' thingy too.
> 
> Sunshine attacking a veteran.  That's just damn funny as much as you have trolled and stalked me on this forum.  You are not a veteran.  You are nothing but an asswipe.
Click to expand...


I guess you told this veteran off  OK. The role of the US, since its founding, IS to fight wars to enrich the weapons manufacturers  Cheney/Bu$h II agree w/ you


----------



## Sunshine

Dot Com said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> fight? For a just cause, yes. For profit? No.
> 
> Our leaders are civilians for a reason dummy. Diplomacy is supposed to be strenuously applied first. Military is always a last resort UNLESS you're a Republican that is  THEN its "shoot first & ask questions later" Thats how we end up w/ a $3-4 TRILLION unpaid-tab & 10's of 1000's of permanently maimed/scarred vets.
> 
> Sunshine attacking former, active-duty vets like me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you disagree with the underlying principles of this great country.  The founders fought for money or were you absent from school the day they taught 'taxation without representation?'  And I hate to tell you, but the laws of this country favor commerce.  Commerce and money are why we are here.  I guess you missed that little 'Life, liberty, and pursuit of property' thingy too.
> 
> Sunshine attacking a veteran.  That's just damn funny as much as you have trolled and stalked me on this forum.  You are not a veteran.  You are nothing but an asswipe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you told this veteran off  OK. The role of the US, since its founding, IS to fight wars to enrich the weapons manufacturers  Cheney/Bu$h II agree w/ you
Click to expand...


You are not a veteran.  Veterans do not speak to women the way you speak to me on this forum.  You are nothing but an asswipe.


----------



## Dot Com

Sunny pigeonholing vets  I don't give a pass to people based on their sex. You spout-off nonsensical, rw, racist rants, I'll call you out Sugar Tits  Simple as that.

Now stop making this thread about you  This thread is about the results of an optional mismanaged war started by the last Repub admin.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Sunshine said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who died in Iraq was a volunteer.  Given that fact, all that old 70s rhetoric just doesn't work.  I have worked with veterans of all wars since WWII.  The younger veterans simply don't have the bitterness toward the government that the draftees of the 60s and 70s had.
> 
> Vietnam got cranked up when JFK was going to pull out because LBJ had a financial interest in that war.  He made millions off it.  You libs got issues with a war?  Take that one on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That (not)war cost me more than I ever thought possible.
> 
> You bet I have "issues" with it.
> 
> I think its wrong for us to desert our vets.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  How many vets have you EVER worked with?  My guess is zero.  You are a puffed up pontificating toad frog and all you do is sit and  post on a message board all day.
Click to expand...


Worked with? 
A lot.

Married to? 
Two. One killed in nam, the other came back a broken addict.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

gipper said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you think Big Ears is better than W.  Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea who you're talking about but it was George Bush who sent our people to their deaths and to be maimed for nothing at all. It was George Bush who put us into debt and all but bankrupted us.
> 
> The worthless little asshole didn't even get the oil he was really after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but how is Big Ears any different?
Click to expand...


Do you, by chance, mean President Obama who got us out of Iraq, is getting us out of Afghanistan (not fast enough imo), and kept us out of other wars by using drones instead?

Is that who you mean?

I'm sick of the idiots who say Obama has gotten us into wars when, IN FACT, he has not.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Sunshine said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you think Big Ears is better than W.  Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea who you're talking about but it was George Bush who sent our people to their deaths and to be maimed for nothing at all. It was George Bush who put us into debt and all but bankrupted us.
> 
> The worthless little asshole didn't even get the oil he was really after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of 'our people' who went to Iraq volunteered.  No one forced them to go.  Get that straight first.
Click to expand...


So, being a patriot, volunteering for your country - to you, that's just cause to be punished for the rest of their lives. 

WTF is WRONG with you?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Bloodrock44 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot. I guess we should have just said thank you to Japan for Pearl Harbor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not just apples compared to oranges.
> 
> That's apples compared to tennis rackets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you mumbling about ,Comrade? You agree we should have done nothing about Pearl Harbor because the mainland wasn't attacked? Killing 2700 Americans was not cause to retaliate?
Click to expand...


IRAQ.

The thread is about Iraq.

It makes no sense to drag Pearl Harbor into it because the two have nothing in common.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

rdean said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?
> 
> He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god.
> 
> Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats
> 
> *One million Vets wait for care  A National Disgrace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not blaming him...I am merely pointing out he has done nothing more for them than any other President - besides lip service.
> You are the one that said "especially NOW vets have to fight for crumbs"
> I assumed by "now", you meant now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans kept first responders from health care for 10 years.  What makes you think they don't work tirelessly to block anything that would help veterans?
> 
> Senate GOP blocks veterans jobs bill - CBS News
> 
> Senate GOP Obstructionists Throw Veterans Under The Bus-Vote Down Bill To Help Vets In Need Of Jobs - Forbes
> 
> GOP Looks at Cutting Veterans Health Benefits for 2011-12 Session to Fulfill Pledge | Veterans Today
Click to expand...


Oh damn.

Facts.

Bet you'll get flamed for that.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Sunshine said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me the republicans were only echoing the same cries made by the Clinton administration before them.  seems to me the democrats were in agreement with the decision to go to war and continued to vote to fund the war as it progressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush let Bin Laden go.  Did they end up on the same side?  Considering the damage both did to the country, it could be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is not 'why did Bush let bin Laden go.'  The title of this thread is 'Why did my friends die in Iraq.'
> 
> The answer is simple:  *Because they volunteered to go. * That's why.  No other statement answers the question, nutcase.
Click to expand...


That's not what you said to the ditz whose trying to make it about WWII. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/333652-why-did-my-friends-die-in-iraq-2.html#post8419999

Hypocrite.


----------



## Sunshine

Luddly Neddite said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U
> 
> Bush let Bin Laden go.  Did they end up on the same side?  Considering the damage both did to the country, it could be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is not 'why did Bush let bin Laden go.'  The title of this thread is 'Why did my friends die in Iraq.'
> 
> The answer is simple:  *Because they volunteered to go. * That's why.  No other statement answers the question, nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what you said to the ditz whose trying to make it about WWII.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/333652-why-did-my-friends-die-in-iraq-2.html#post8419999
> 
> Hypocrite.
Click to expand...


WWII veterans were conscripted.  Vietnam veterans were conscripted.  Iraq veterans AND those who died there ALL volunteered.  100% of them.

Your 1970s rhetoric is hopelessly outdate.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Dot Com said:


> people "volunteer" (I did) based on trust that our leaders wouldn't fight "voluntary wars for profit" that only profit well-connected, arms manufacturers & shameless portfolio managers.



And, you shouldn't have to pay for it for the rest of your life.

Thank you for your service.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

TakeAStepBack said:


> War is always a failure unless conducted in self defense. It's a total negative undertaking. It kills, it maims and it displaces. It causes debt and it ultimately causes more violence.
> 
> This nation could use a heavy dose of the NAP.



This is the smartest post I've read in a while.

When will we learn that the real enemy is war itself?


----------



## Sunshine

Luddly Neddite said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> That (not)war cost me more than I ever thought possible.
> 
> You bet I have "issues" with it.
> 
> I think its wrong for us to desert our vets.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  How many vets have you EVER worked with?  My guess is zero.  You are a puffed up pontificating toad frog and all you do is sit and  post on a message board all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Worked with?
> A lot.
> 
> Married to?
> Two. One killed in nam, the other came back a broken addict.
Click to expand...



Not every person who has gone to war came back 'broken.'  And I seriously doubt that you have worked with ANY veterans.  The only people who work with our veterans are people like me who get degrees and know how to help them.  If you ever worked at a veterans organization it was as nothing more than a typist.


----------



## Spoonman

Truthmatters said:


> Don't forget the war crimes of dropping white phosphorous on Falugia.
> 
> 
> the US army melted men women and children with it.
> 
> Its a HORRIBLE death.
> 
> 
> why did no one get wars crimes convictions?



falugia?  is that an italian pasta dish?


----------



## gipper

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



All the Americans who died in Iraq, died in vain.  Sadly it is nothing new.  

The Americans who died in WWII in Europe died to end Nazism, but also to give the Russian communist totalitarians Eastern and Central Europe for the next 45 years.  That is, so that that part of the world could be ruled by international socialists instead of self-described national socialists.  All in the name of &#8220;freedom.&#8221;

When will we Americans realize that our leaders are nothing but corrupt incompetent bastards?


----------



## Stephanie

Sunshine said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you disagree with the underlying principles of this great country.  The founders fought for money or were you absent from school the day they taught 'taxation without representation?'  And I hate to tell you, but the laws of this country favor commerce.  Commerce and money are why we are here.  I guess you missed that little 'Life, liberty, and pursuit of property' thingy too.
> 
> Sunshine attacking a veteran.  That's just damn funny as much as you have trolled and stalked me on this forum.  You are not a veteran.  You are nothing but an asswipe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you told this veteran off  OK. The role of the US, since its founding, IS to fight wars to enrich the weapons manufacturers  Cheney/Bu$h II agree w/ you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a veteran.  Veterans do not speak to women the way you speak to me on this forum.  You are nothing but an asswipe.
Click to expand...


agreed


----------



## Warrior102

Luddly Neddite said:


> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



Write a letter to Obama you stupid fuck.


----------



## Stephanie

Warrior102 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write a letter to Obama you stupid fuck.
Click to expand...



Now come on that's asking to much of the boy king..Nothing is HIS FAULT it's everyone else but his

remember, he's goooooooooooooooood but he's not god

these people make me sick using our vets for their ugly agendas


----------



## Bumberclyde

Sunshine said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh BTW it also causes deformaties for years to come in births
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does cannabis.
Click to expand...


But in a good way.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Pennywise said:


> We should have never gone into Iraq, but if anyone thinks it's a Bush thing, you are fucking stupid beyond all words.



Why? Whose thing is it, if not Mr Mission Accomplished's?


----------



## rdean

Stephanie said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you told this veteran off  OK. The role of the US, since its founding, IS to fight wars to enrich the weapons manufacturers  Cheney/Bu$h II agree w/ you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a veteran.  Veterans do not speak to women the way you speak to me on this forum.  You are nothing but an asswipe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> agreed
Click to expand...


If someone says they are a veteran, I take them at their word. Whether or not they are telling the truth is not for me to decide.  Republicans pretending to be human is worse than someone pretending to be a veteran.  Democrats want to help veterans.  Republicans want to crush veterans.  How many times on this board have right wingers said, "You enlisted, you knew what you were getting into"?

Beside, for a real veteran, if they hear another describe their military experience, it's really easy to spot the fakes.  I think that's why so few claim to be veterans who aren't.


----------



## Indofred

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



The arms industry, including Bush's companies, made a fortune out of it.
You should be thankful your friends didn't die for nothing; they died to make Bush and his pals rich.

Does that make you feel better?


----------



## georgephillip

Stephanie said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write a letter to Obama you stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now come on that's asking to much of the boy king..Nothing is HIS FAULT it's everyone else but his
> 
> remember, he's goooooooooooooooood but he's not god
> 
> these people make me sick using our vets for their ugly agendas
Click to expand...

It's the same agenda as Dick and Dubya and Bubba and all the previous corporate tools have followed, and it will never change by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.


----------



## Bloodrock44

Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.


----------



## editec

TakeAStepBack said:


> It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.






TakeAStepBack said:


> It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.





TakeAStepBack said:


> It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.






TakeAStepBack said:


> It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.



Some things are just worth repeating.


----------



## BlackSand

editec said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some things are just worth repeating.
Click to expand...


It also coincided with the century of Space Exploration ... Probably connected to Computers, Advanced Medicine and the progression of Liberal Sciences as well.

.


----------



## Dot Com

rdean said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a veteran.  Veterans do not speak to women the way you speak to me on this forum.  You are nothing but an asswipe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *agreed*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone says they are a veteran, I take them at their word. Whether or not they are telling the truth is not for me to decide.  Republicans pretending to be human is worse than someone pretending to be a veteran.  Democrats want to help veterans.  Republicans want to crush veterans.  How many times on this board have right wingers said, "You enlisted, you knew what you were getting into"?
> 
> Beside, for a real veteran, if they hear another describe their military experience, it's really easy to spot the fakes.  I think that's why so few claim to be veterans who aren't.
Click to expand...


agreed


----------



## mudwhistle

Luddly Neddite said:


> You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?
> 
> He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god.
> 
> Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphazsis on Southern Arizona Democrats
> 
> *One million Vets wait for care  A National Disgrace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...   For example, in 2010 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki announced that three diseases  ischemic heart disease, Parkinsons disease and b-cell leukemia  would be considered the result of Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in Vietnam. More than 240,000 claims for those diseases have been filed since that announcement. ...
> 
> ... the VA spent 4 years and $537 million on a new computer to streamline the claims process. It was less than a resounding success; 97% of veterans claims are still filed on paper, and thats the single biggest reason that stands out for the backlog  they VA is literally being buried in a mountain of paperwork....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That [photo above] the mountain of paperwork at the Winston-Salem NC VA office, the weight of all that paperwork compromised the structural integrity of the building  they were worried the floor would collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I guess Obama quit blaming everything on Bush.

Now he blames everything on Fox News or the Tea Party .

That's so friggen childish......


----------



## georgephillip

Bloodrock44 said:


> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.


For thousands of years families as rich as Saddam's or Bush's have understood the value of and preyed upon the terror produced by threatening an opponent's children with death.

It seems likely to me Bush was settling a personal score with Saddam, although it's worth asking about the timing, at least.

According to Wesley Clark, he was told by another general on or about 20 September 2001 the Pentagon had already decided to invade Iraq.

This was not some "contingency" plan.
The decision to invade had already been made.
All that remained was the politic$ and $pin and profit$

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8FhZnFZ6TY]General Wesley Clark Tells 'Democracy Now' The Truth About Middle East And War On Iraq! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mudwhistle

georgephillip said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> For thousands of years families as rich as Saddam's or Bush's have understood the value of and preyed upon the terror produced by threatening an opponent's children with death.
> 
> It seems likely to me Bush was settling a personal score with Saddam, although it's worth asking about the timing, at least.
> 
> According to Wesley Clark, he was told by another general on or about 20 September 2001 the Pentagon had already decided to invade Iraq.
> 
> This was not some "contingency" plan.
> The decision to invade had already been made.
> All that remained was the politic$ and $pin and profit$
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8FhZnFZ6TY]General Wesley Clark Tells 'Democracy Now' The Truth About Middle East And War On Iraq! - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Obama took out Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and tried to take down Syria.

So who's calling the shots?

Seems to me the same people that were in Washington during the Bush years. Was Bush smart enough to know who?


----------



## GHook93

longknife said:


> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.


We were ATTACKED by Afghanistan, that was a justifiable war, however, the war in Iraq, Libya, Somolia, KOSOVO (esp), Vietnam and Korea (however, if we didn't help Korea we would have had a communist Korean Pennisula and not the great capitalist experiment of South Korea).  But there are military incursions that are necessary. Grenda wasn't a bad one, we need to capture a state run drug kingpin. Nation building NEVER works. That is why the war in Afghanistan is turning south, that is why Vietnam didn't work. That is why no African operations ever came to fruition. Etc.



longknife said:


> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.


The foreign aid budget  (which includes the VAST contributions to the UN) is less than 0.5% of the federal budget, so it's not making or breaking us. The majority of foreign aid is for humanitarian causes, such as help have natural disasters or to fight AIDS in Africa (which has been VERY successful). With the military aid, it allows us to influence governments without invading them. See Egypt for example. They have been cooperative with us, even though they HATE our government and KING. Pakistan might have been assholic on Bin Laden, but they have been cooperative with us. I mean name a country that would allow drone strikes within their borders? Not many!

As long as foreign aid never goes about the 0.5% of the budget, I am good with that!


----------



## Jos

GHook93 said:


> *We were ATTACKED by Afghanistan*, that was a justifiable war,


*No you weren't * America Attacked Afganistan


> The War in Afghanistan (2001present) refers to the intervention by NATO and allied forces in the ongoing Afghan civil war, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to dismantle the al-Qaeda terrorist organization and to remove from power the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban government, which at the time controlled 90% of Afghanistan) and hosted al-Qaeda leadership. U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel the al-Qaeda network which was supporting the Taliban in its war with the Afghan Northern Alliance. The Taliban recommended that bin Laden leave the country but *declined to extradite him without evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.* The United States refused to negotiate and launched Operation Enduring Freedom on 7 October 2001 with the United Kingdom and later joined by other allies, to attack the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in conjunction with the Northern Alliance


War in Afghanistan (2001?present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

mudwhistle said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> For thousands of years families as rich as Saddam's or Bush's have understood the value of and preyed upon the terror produced by threatening an opponent's children with death.
> 
> It seems likely to me Bush was settling a personal score with Saddam, although it's worth asking about the timing, at least.
> 
> According to Wesley Clark, he was told by another general on or about 20 September 2001 the Pentagon had already decided to invade Iraq.
> 
> This was not some "contingency" plan.
> The decision to invade had already been made.
> All that remained was the politic$ and $pin and profit$
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8FhZnFZ6TY]General Wesley Clark Tells 'Democracy Now' The Truth About Middle East And War On Iraq! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama took out Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and tried to take down Syria.
> 
> So who's calling the shots?
> 
> Seems to me the same people that were in Washington during the Bush years. Was Bush smart enough to know who?
Click to expand...

Meyer Rothschild said he didn't care who wrote the laws as long as he controlled the money; it appears to me the same people call the shots today regardless of who occupies the White House and Congress. Whoever they are, they seem hell-bent on redrawing the borders of the Middle East that we laid down nearly a hundred years ago by Sykes-Picot.


----------



## Dot Com

Former Sec of the Treasury under bush II also said that invading Iraq was priority #1 in the cheney/Bu$h II Admin. He sat in on Cabinet meetings so he would know. He was subsequently fired, no doubt, for questioning those budget-busting tax-cuts that Bu$h II signed into law.

O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11


> In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.
> 
> "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.


quelle surprise!!! NOT!!! Kristol, employed by Fox, was pushing-it for years as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century


> The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. established in 1997 as a non-profit educational organization *founded by William Kristol* and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on *high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War*



anyone know who "William Kristol" is?


----------



## freedombecki

Bloodrock44 said:


> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.


I'm sorry that's your view of the Bush family. They're not that kind of people. I know that for sure.

Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, kept an online journal of Saddam Hussein's War Crimes. They started by observing events from the minute he took power in Iraq in a coup in which he had half the old parliament shot in the head for not kowtowing to him the minute he took power.

By contrast, President George W. Bush presented evidence he had against the regime that was backed up by Interpol and all other international agencies about Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity.

I regret those pages of Madeline Albright were removed, but they were taken out 6 months before the 2004 election for political reasons, so that the Democrats could paint President Bush as a warmonger.

Information was conveniently omitted from the entire web, with clued-in posters from DNC Party Headquarters all over the web calling all Republicans liars, particularly those of us who'd taken notes and recalled what Mrs. Albright said. It didn't all fit on one page, either. 

Saddam Hussein averaged murdering 60,000 people a year in 24 years.

With all due respect, the Cradle of Civilization had a chance for peace after the war, but with a complete withdrawal of American forces, AlQaeda is almost completely in charge, and history is sure to repeat itself, because support was withdrawn by the current executive branch based on the withdrawal of troops.  Democrat Secretary of State Madeline Albright's wise words and admonitions to this nation and to the community of nations that supported right being done in Iraq by removing Saddam Hussein from power were the truism that caused our people to look into Saddam's involvement in beating up on Americans for beating him back in Kuwait.

 The attempted murder of a United States President used to be an item of national worry and sympathy toward the family. Instead, the Press, driven by delusions of how wealth redistributions would cure the world's ills, supported the brazen humiliation of Republicans and conservatives over following the source of a lot of middle east problems to Iraq.

 Saddam received a thousand or so Al Qaeda into Iraq the night Afghanistan's Taliban was ousted by American troops. He created training camps for them and R&R carte blanche for these trained homicidal maniacs. He sent a lot of Jumbo Jets into Kabul to transport those defeated warriors to Baghdad in the middle of the night. He had his finger in every hurt-America pie. It wasn't only about President George H.W. Bush's attempted assassination by Saddam Hussein henchmen. It was about our troops taking a licking on account of Saddam Hussein's classic $25,000 checks to families of killers of Jews and $50,000 checks for killers of Americans.


----------



## rdean

mudwhistle said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> For thousands of years families as rich as Saddam's or Bush's have understood the value of and preyed upon the terror produced by threatening an opponent's children with death.
> 
> It seems likely to me Bush was settling a personal score with Saddam, although it's worth asking about the timing, at least.
> 
> According to Wesley Clark, he was told by another general on or about 20 September 2001 the Pentagon had already decided to invade Iraq.
> 
> This was not some "contingency" plan.
> The decision to invade had already been made.
> All that remained was the politic$ and $pin and profit$
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8FhZnFZ6TY]General Wesley Clark Tells 'Democracy Now' The Truth About Middle East And War On Iraq! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama took out Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and tried to take down Syria.
> 
> So who's calling the shots?
> 
> Seems to me the same people that were in Washington during the Bush years. Was Bush smart enough to know who?
Click to expand...


Obama attacked Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria?  I didn't know.


----------



## rdean

freedombecki said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that's your view of the Bush family. They're not that kind of people. I know that for sure.
> 
> Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, kept an online journal of Saddam Hussein's War Crimes. They started by observing events from the minute he took power in Iraq in a coup in which he had half the old parliament shot in the head for not kowtowing to him the minute he took power.
> 
> By contrast, President George W. Bush presented evidence he had against the regime that was backed up by Interpol and all other international agencies about Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity.
> 
> I regret those pages of Madeline Albright were removed, but they were taken out 6 months before the 2004 election for political reasons, so that the Democrats could paint President Bush as a warmonger.
> 
> Information was conveniently omitted from the entire web, with clued-in posters from DNC Party Headquarters all over the web calling all Republicans liars, particularly those of us who'd taken notes and recalled what Mrs. Albright said. It didn't all fit on one page, either.
> 
> Saddam Hussein averaged murdering 60,000 people a year in 24 years.
> 
> With all due respect, the Cradle of Civilization had a chance for peace after the war, but with a complete withdrawal of American forces, AlQaeda is almost completely in charge, and history is sure to repeat itself, because support was withdrawn by the current executive branch based on the withdrawal of troops.  Democrat Secretary of State Madeline Albright's wise words and admonitions to this nation and to the community of nations that supported right being done in Iraq by removing Saddam Hussein from power were the truism that caused our people to look into Saddam's involvement in beating up on Americans for beating him back in Kuwait.
> 
> The attempted murder of a United States President used to be an item of national worry and sympathy toward the family. Instead, the Press, driven by delusions of how wealth redistributions would cure the world's ills, supported the brazen humiliation of Republicans and conservatives over following the source of a lot of middle east problems to Iraq.
> 
> Saddam received a thousand or so Al Qaeda into Iraq the night Afghanistan's Taliban was ousted by American troops. He created training camps for them and R&R carte blanche for these trained homicidal maniacs. He sent a lot of Jumbo Jets into Kabul to transport those defeated warriors to Baghdad in the middle of the night. He had his finger in every hurt-America pie. It wasn't only about President George H.W. Bush's attempted assassination by Saddam Hussein henchmen. It was about our troops taking a licking on account of Saddam Hussein's classic $25,000 checks to families of killers of Jews and $50,000 checks for killers of Americans.
Click to expand...


That's is so ridiculous.  Saddam was a dictator.  al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that wanted total control.  Only a complete moron would believe Saddam would invite such threatening and armed people into his country.  Saddam and Bin Laden were bitter enemies.  Where the fuck do these idiots come up with such fabricated bullshit?  Don't they know how to think?  Trying so hard to manufacture a threat they end up looking like they just got pie in the face.

Bush Sr. was a WWII officer, former head of the CIA, vice president and president.  He knew exactly how to handle Saddam.  Too bad his son didn't ask for his advice.  Tens of thousands of Americans would not be maimed or dead.


----------



## Dot Com

rdean said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that's your view of the Bush family. They're not that kind of people. I know that for sure.
> 
> Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, kept an online journal of Saddam Hussein's War Crimes. They started by observing events from the minute he took power in Iraq in a coup in which he had half the old parliament shot in the head for not kowtowing to him the minute he took power.
> 
> By contrast, President George W. Bush presented evidence he had against the regime that was backed up by Interpol and all other international agencies about Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity.
> 
> I regret those pages of Madeline Albright were removed, but they were taken out 6 months before the 2004 election for political reasons, so that the Democrats could paint President Bush as a warmonger.
> 
> Information was conveniently omitted from the entire web, with clued-in posters from DNC Party Headquarters all over the web calling all Republicans liars, particularly those of us who'd taken notes and recalled what Mrs. Albright said. It didn't all fit on one page, either.
> 
> Saddam Hussein averaged murdering 60,000 people a year in 24 years.
> 
> With all due respect, the Cradle of Civilization had a chance for peace after the war, but with a complete withdrawal of American forces, AlQaeda is almost completely in charge, and history is sure to repeat itself, because support was withdrawn by the current executive branch based on the withdrawal of troops.  Democrat Secretary of State Madeline Albright's wise words and admonitions to this nation and to the community of nations that supported right being done in Iraq by removing Saddam Hussein from power were the truism that caused our people to look into Saddam's involvement in beating up on Americans for beating him back in Kuwait.
> 
> The attempted murder of a United States President used to be an item of national worry and sympathy toward the family. Instead, the Press, driven by delusions of how wealth redistributions would cure the world's ills, supported the brazen humiliation of Republicans and conservatives over following the source of a lot of middle east problems to Iraq.
> 
> Saddam received a thousand or so Al Qaeda into Iraq the night Afghanistan's Taliban was ousted by American troops. He created training camps for them and R&R carte blanche for these trained homicidal maniacs. He sent a lot of Jumbo Jets into Kabul to transport those defeated warriors to Baghdad in the middle of the night. He had his finger in every hurt-America pie. It wasn't only about President George H.W. Bush's attempted assassination by Saddam Hussein henchmen. It was about our troops taking a licking on account of Saddam Hussein's classic $25,000 checks to families of killers of Jews and $50,000 checks for killers of Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's is so ridiculous.  Saddam was a dictator.  al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that wanted total control.  Only a complete moron would believe Saddam would invite such threatening and armed people into his country.  Saddam and Bin Laden were bitter enemies.  Where the fuck do these idiots come up with such fabricated bullshit?  Don't they know how to think?  Trying so hard to manufacture a threat they end up looking like they just got pie in the face.
> 
> Bush Sr. was a WWII officer, former head of the CIA, vice president and president.  He knew exactly how to handle Saddam.  Too bad his son didn't ask for his advice.  Tens of thousands of Americans would not be maimed or dead.
Click to expand...


yep. becki is either being dishonest or she's clueless. I think she is obviously one of those "America right or wrong" crowd. Wars have been about enriching those involved w/ the Pentagon (Big defense contractors) for decades now. They, in turn make compaign donations & promises of future employment to the Repubs.

Saddam was a Bathist. that means he was an Arab Socialist  . He, therefore had no need or want for jihadists (religiously fueled activists) They arrived on the scene AFTER the instability caused by Bush II's optional invasion.


----------



## georgephillip

*From April of 2003*

"Ex-U.S. Official Says CIA Aided Baathists
CIA offers no comment on Iraq coup allegations 
by David Morgan

"PHILADELPHIA&#65533;If the United States succeeds in shepherding the creation of a post-war Iraqi government, a former National Security Council official says, it won't be the first time that Washington has played a primary role in changing that country's rulers.

"Roger Morris, a former State Department foreign service officer who was on the NSC staff during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, says the CIA had a hand in two coups in Iraq during the darkest days of the Cold War, including a 1968 putsch that set Saddam Hussein firmly on the path to power.

"Morris says that in 1963, two years after the ill-fated U.S. attempt at overthrow in Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs, the CIA helped organize a bloody coup in Iraq that deposed the Soviet-leaning government of Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem.

"This takes you down a longer, darker road in terms of American culpability ....

"'As in Iran in '53, it was mostly American money and even American involvement on the ground,' says Morris, referring to a U.S.-backed coup that brought the return of the shah to neighbouring Iran.

"Kassem, who had allowed communists to hold positions of responsibility in his government, was machine-gunned to death. 

"And the country wound up in the hands of the Baath party.

"At the time, Morris continues, Saddam was a Baath operative studying law in Cairo, one of the venues the CIA chose to plan the coup.

"In fact, he claims the former Iraqi president castigated by President George W. Bush as one of history's most 'brutal dictators' was actually on the CIA payroll in those days.

"'There's no question,' Morris says. 'It was there in Cairo that (Saddam) and others were first contacted by the agency.'"

*CIA spokesman deny Saddam was ever on their payroll, but whether or not that is true or false, his party would never have come to rule Iraq without US support nor would Saddam have been able to commit many of his terrorist acts without help from DC.*

"The United States and other Western powers supported Saddam's regime during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, even after the Baghdad government used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurdish villagers in Halabja.

"The 1988 atrocity recently was a cornerstone of U.S. justifications for its war to topple Saddam's regime.

"Before war broke out last month, a flurry of U.S. headlines also called attention to reports that pathogens used by Iraq for its biological warfare program came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a private Manassas, Va.-based biological samples repository called the American Type Culture Collection.

"Officials at the two institutions said shipments of anthrax, West Nile virus, botulinum toxins and other pathogens were sent to Iraq in the 1980s with U.S. commerce department approval for medical research purposes.

"Even Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program, which U.S. officials said was on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb last year, got under way with help from a 1950s Eisenhower administration program to share the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy called 'Atoms for Peace.'"

Ex-U.S. Official Says CIA Aided Baathists


----------



## SalaamAkir

Do you think Bush was good or evil?


----------



## Dot Com

freedombecki said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that's your view of the Bush family. They're not that kind of people. I know that for sure.
> 
> Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, kept an online journal of Saddam Hussein's War Crimes. They started by observing events from the minute he took power in Iraq in a coup in which he had half the old parliament shot in the head for not kowtowing to him the minute he took power.
> 
> By contrast, President George W. Bush presented evidence he had against the regime that was backed up by Interpol and all other international agencies about *Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity.*
> 
> I regret those pages of Madeline Albright were removed, but they were taken out 6 months before the 2004 election for political reasons, so that the Democrats could paint President Bush as a warmonger.
> 
> Information was conveniently omitted from the entire web, with clued-in posters from DNC Party Headquarters all over the web calling all Republicans liars, particularly those of us who'd taken notes and recalled what Mrs. Albright said. It didn't all fit on one page, either.
> 
> Saddam Hussein averaged murdering 60,000 people a year in 24 years.
> 
> With all due respect, the Cradle of Civilization had a chance for peace after the war, but with a complete withdrawal of American forces, AlQaeda is almost completely in charge, and history is sure to repeat itself, because support was withdrawn by the current executive branch based on the withdrawal of troops.  Democrat Secretary of State Madeline Albright's wise words and admonitions to this nation and to the community of nations that supported right being done in Iraq by removing Saddam Hussein from power were the truism that caused our people to look into Saddam's involvement in beating up on Americans for beating him back in Kuwait.
> 
> The attempted murder of a United States President used to be an item of national worry and sympathy toward the family. Instead, the Press, driven by delusions of how wealth redistributions would cure the world's ills, supported the brazen humiliation of Republicans and conservatives over following the source of a lot of middle east problems to Iraq.
> 
> Saddam received a thousand or so Al Qaeda into Iraq the night Afghanistan's Taliban was ousted by American troops. He created training camps for them and R&R carte blanche for these trained homicidal maniacs. He sent a lot of Jumbo Jets into Kabul to transport those defeated warriors to Baghdad in the middle of the night. He had his finger in every hurt-America pie. It wasn't only about President George H.W. Bush's attempted assassination by Saddam Hussein henchmen. It was about our troops taking a licking on account of Saddam Hussein's classic $25,000 checks to families of killers of Jews and $50,000 checks for killers of Americans.
Click to expand...


link?

AND

plenty of countries commit atrocities. China & North Korea come to mind. Were they invaded by the U.S. as well?  

LogicFAIL becki  (for partisan reasons no doubt  )

You want to be the policeman of the world? Be nation building? Who is going to pay for it? You?  You want your taxes raised not to mention having 20-30-somethings lives shattered & for what? Don't even think you'll cut spending when doing that either lol

The reasons for that vietraq were changed 3+ times when the American people didn't buy what Bush II/Cheney/Kristol & the neocons were selling

Put down the Fox brown acid becki


----------



## Dot Com

SalaamAkir said:


> Do you think Bush was good or evil?



I don't believe in "good" or "evil". Those are religious constructs. 

I DO believe that Kristol (currently employed at Fox News[AKA- "GOP TV"]) he was the founder of the PNAC (ever heard of it?) Here: PNAC Kristol & the neocons (Perleman, Feith, Abrahms, Cheney, etc...) goaded him into invading both for israel & to line people's pockets like Halliburton (a huge multinational company who had previously employed Cheney)

This is one reason Bush II & Cheney had a falling-out at the end of his Presidency because he knew he was misled by those fuctards- "The war will pay for itself" & "We'll be greeted as liberators"


----------



## Warrior102

Dot Com said:


> This is one reason Bush II & Cheney had a falling-out at the end of his Presidency because he knew he was misled by those fuctards-



You got that right shit-breath...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


----------



## Dot Com

and yet they were smart enough NOT to start a ground war in the ME. The next Admin.? Not so much. 

I was over there in '88-89 while you will still a boot.


----------



## Warrior102

Dot Com said:


> I was over there in '88-89 while you will still a boot.



I made E-8 in '89 you fucking douche bag


----------



## DennyO

George Bush knows why he invaded Iraq:

_"I'm driven with a mission from God.  God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ." And I did."_

-Stated by Nabil Ahaath, Foreign minister of Palestine, as reported by the BBC, Oct. 6, 2005


----------



## SalaamAkir

I don't see how Bush is much worse than Obama, in any case; to tell the truth, I kind of liked Bush, maybe not when it came to foreign policy, but other than that...


----------



## gipper

SalaamAkir said:


> I don't see how Bush is much worse than Obama, in any case; to tell the truth, I kind of liked Bush, maybe not when it came to foreign policy, but other than that...



W was a disaster...he grew government dramatically, increased the national debt greatly, and failed to do anything to prevent the coming economic collapse.  Then the a-hole says, &#8220;I&#8217;ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.&#8221;  He enriches the banking elite and Wall Street, while screwing the rest of us. 

The only reason an absolute dunce like Big Ears wins the WH, is because a fool like W so mucked things up.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

SalaamAkir said:


> Do you think Bush was good or evil?



He was a willing pawn. 

Money is his god.

That's why he protected whole bin Lade clan including Osama.

(bastard belongs in gitmo)


----------



## Luddly Neddite

SalaamAkir said:


> I don't see how Bush is much worse than Obama, in any case; to tell the truth, I kind of liked Bush, maybe not when it came to foreign policy, but other than that...



Yeah ... What's a few hundred thousand lives, dead or maimed and trillions of dollars (bush) against getting us out of wars and keeping us out of more wars (Prez Obama)?

And, voting for more money for the 1% or fighting against the Rs for the middle class?

Yeah, they're really the same.

Idiot.


----------



## Dot Com

now the repub-voters are saying if we just let a few more 100 or 1000's of servicemen get killled over there for another 5-10 yrs to "keep a lid on the situation" all will turn out well  I aint buyin it.

that doesn't even cover the econ cost that Repub voters claim they are so concerned about.  I was over in that area when warrior102 was a Swabby's apprentice.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Luddly Neddite said:


> You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?
> 
> He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god.
> 
> Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats
> 
> *One million Vets wait for care  A National Disgrace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...   For example, in 2010 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki announced that three diseases  ischemic heart disease, Parkinsons disease and b-cell leukemia  would be considered the result of Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in Vietnam. More than 240,000 claims for those diseases have been filed since that announcement. ...
> 
> ... the VA spent 4 years and $537 million on a new computer to streamline the claims process. It was less than a resounding success; 97% of veterans claims are still filed on paper, and thats the single biggest reason that stands out for the backlog  they VA is literally being buried in a mountain of paperwork....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That [photo above] the mountain of paperwork at the Winston-Salem NC VA office, the weight of all that paperwork compromised the structural integrity of the building  they were worried the floor would collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

or the sixty plus years of democratic control of the senate or house or both at the same time? Including a large portion of a democratic white house?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

DennyO said:


> *George Bush knows why he invaded Iraq:*
> 
> _"I'm driven with a mission from God.  God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ." And I did."_
> 
> -Stated by Nabil Ahaath, Foreign minister of Palestine, as reported by the BBC, Oct. 6, 2005



Yes he does know why he invaded Irag. 

Same reason he did everything else he and his family have done for many years.

*Oil money.*

-- cuz that's what makes this frikken world go round.

Even the hardline tee potties have to see this.

They won't admit it but they know its the truth.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

gipper said:


> SalaamAkir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how Bush is much worse than Obama, in any case; to tell the truth, I kind of liked Bush, maybe not when it came to foreign policy, but other than that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W was a disaster...he grew government dramatically, increased the national debt greatly, and failed to do anything to prevent the coming economic collapse.  Then the a-hole says, Ive abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.  He enriches the banking elite and Wall Street, while screwing the rest of us.
> 
> The only reason an absolute dunce like Big Ears wins the WH, is because a fool like W so mucked things up.
Click to expand...


actually Bush did try to reign in freddy and fanny but democrats whined and said nothing was wrong.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

bigrebnc1775 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SalaamAkir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how Bush is much worse than Obama, in any case; to tell the truth, I kind of liked Bush, maybe not when it came to foreign policy, but other than that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W was a disaster...he grew government dramatically, increased the national debt greatly, and failed to do anything to prevent the coming economic collapse.  Then the a-hole says, Ive abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.  He enriches the banking elite and Wall Street, while screwing the rest of us.
> 
> The only reason an absolute dunce like Big Ears wins the WH, is because a fool like W so mucked things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually Bush did try to reign in freddy and fanny but democrats whined and said nothing was wrong.
Click to expand...


... while putting us SO deep in debt and killing hundreds of thousand of people for no other reason than to line his own pockets.

WHY do you rw's insist on trying to excuse one of the worst presidents in our history?

Stop trying to say Obama is worse yadda yadda and just face up to the truth of the bush dynasty.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Luddly Neddite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> W was a disaster...he grew government dramatically, increased the national debt greatly, and failed to do anything to prevent the coming economic collapse.  Then the a-hole says, Ive abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.  He enriches the banking elite and Wall Street, while screwing the rest of us.
> 
> The only reason an absolute dunce like Big Ears wins the WH, is because a fool like W so mucked things up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually Bush did try to reign in freddy and fanny but democrats whined and said nothing was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... while putting us SO deep in debt and killing hundreds of thousand of people for no other reason than to line his own pockets.
> 
> WHY do you rw's insist on trying to excuse one of the worst presidents in our history?
> 
> Stop trying to say Obama is worse yadda yadda and just face up to the truth of the bush dynasty.
Click to expand...


Why do you defend the worse president in American history? Hell yes obama is worse than bush Bush was bad but obama took what bush start and made it worse.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually Bush did try to reign in freddy and fanny but democrats whined and said nothing was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... while putting us SO deep in debt and killing hundreds of thousand of people for no other reason than to line his own pockets.
> 
> WHY do you rw's insist on trying to excuse one of the worst presidents in our history?
> 
> Stop trying to say Obama is worse yadda yadda and just face up to the truth of the bush dynasty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you defend the worse president in American history? Hell yes obama is worse than bush Bush was bad but obama took what bush start and made it worse.
Click to expand...


Prove it.

You can't.

You can't even get close.

How many trillions has Obama put us in debt? How any hundreds of thousands has Obama killed for family oil?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Luddly Neddite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... while putting us SO deep in debt and killing hundreds of thousand of people for no other reason than to line his own pockets.
> 
> WHY do you rw's insist on trying to excuse one of the worst presidents in our history?
> 
> Stop trying to say Obama is worse yadda yadda and just face up to the truth of the bush dynasty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you defend the worse president in American history? Hell yes obama is worse than bush Bush was bad but obama took what bush start and made it worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> You can't.
> 
> You can't even get close.
> 
> How many trillions has Obama put us in debt? How any hundreds of thousands has Obama killed for family oil?
Click to expand...


National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - CBS News

Anyway obama took what bush started and expanded it so keep defending that piece of shit.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Less Americans and Iraqis died in Iraq under Obama then under Bush.

As for the economy and debt, Obama took office just as Bush's shit storm of deregulation was just about to hit the fan. Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Bumberclyde said:


> Less Americans and Iraqis died in Iraq under Obama then under Bush.
> 
> As for the economy and debt, Obama took office just as Bush's shit storm of deregulation was just about to hit the fan. Coincidence? I think not.



Yep those democrats who control congress screamed racism every time Bush wanted more regulations on the housing market.
Can you dig that? DEMOCRATS WANTED LESS REGULATIONS, AND MORE MONEY MADE AVAILABLE TO THE POOR SO THEY COULD BUY A HOME.


----------



## Warrior102

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less Americans and Iraqis died in Iraq under Obama then under Bush.
> 
> As for the economy and debt, Obama took office just as Bush's shit storm of deregulation was just about to hit the fan. Coincidence? I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep those democrats who control congress screamed racism every time Bush wanted more regulations on the housing market.
> Can you dig that? DEMOCRATS WANTED LESS REGULATIONS, AND MORE MONEY MADE AVAILABLE TO THE POOR SO THEY COULD BUY A HOME.
Click to expand...


He probably lives in a FEMA trailer


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



To protect ungrateful assholes like you. If they were your friends why didn't you go along to watch their back? 
I think it more likely that your friends were the ones who killed them.


----------



## Dot Com

9thIDdoc said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To protect ungrateful assholes like you. If they were your friends why didn't you go along to watch their back?
> I think it more likely that your friends were the ones who killed them.
Click to expand...


so you think that 10+ yr old, Repub-instigated, war of choice was a good idea? Would you propose, like other rw'ers here, that we stay there and suffer more 1000's of casualties for what? to "keep a lid on" the situation? I think getting them the fuck out of there is the patriotic thing to do guy. We already have 1000's killed and 10's of 1000's maimed, physically & psycologicall for life, not to mention suicides & divorces because of unending tours.

BTW- I served and didn't refer to taxpayers (the ones who paid my check) "assholes". Just sayin...

Don't EVEN get me started on how the Repubs paid for the war  putting it on our grandkid's credit card as Luddly Neddite already mentioned PLUS having to pay all the medical expenses for 40-50 yrs for the one's I mentioned above.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

9thIDdoc said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To protect ungrateful assholes like you. If they were your friends why didn't you go along to watch their back?
> I think it more likely that your friends were the ones who killed them.
Click to expand...


What Dot Come said and what I've already written but --

Protect me from WHAT???

EXACTLY what was the threat from Iraq?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Luddly Neddite said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To protect ungrateful assholes like you. If they were your friends why didn't you go along to watch their back?
> I think it more likely that your friends were the ones who killed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Dot Come said and what I've already written but --
> 
> Protect me from WHAT???
> 
> EXACTLY what was the threat from Iraq?
Click to expand...

Didn't you cheer obama's actions in Libya? Are you pushing him to send troops to Syria?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"so you think that 10+ yr old, Repub-instigated, war of choice was a good idea?"_

You assume a lot.
Yes, I think it was a good idea.
But it was (and continues)a terrorist instigated war and is no more a war of choice than any other.
_Would you propose, like other rw'ers here, that we stay there and suffer more 1000's of casualties _No.

_"We already have 1000's killed and 10's of 1000's maimed, physically & psycologicall "_

Just as we did in a few hours when the war was started by the terrorists. 9/11. It was in all the papers

_BTW- I served and didn't refer to taxpayers (the ones who paid my check) "assholes"._

I very often refer to taxpayers and the government as assholes for other reasons but I consider anyone who tries to make political points from dead soldiers the very worst of assholes. They died in service to the American people and while under orders of the officials elected to represent them. They died for America not for petty politics of a party. To claim otherwise is to dishonor them.
.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_EXACTLY what was the threat from Iraq? _

We declared war on terrorists. Sadam was himself a terrorist aiding and abetting terrorist groups with the money from his oil fields. He had chemical weapons. What part of that did you miss?


----------



## georgephillip

9thIDdoc said:


> _EXACTLY what was the threat from Iraq? _
> 
> We declared war on terrorists. Sadam was himself a terrorist aiding and abetting terrorist groups with the money from his oil fields. He had chemical weapons. What part of that did you miss?


*Did you miss this part?*

"In 1987, the U.S. became directly involved in the (Iran-Iraq) war on Iraq's side by protecting the passage of Kuwaiti tankers with a major military presence in the Persian Gulf.  

"Some U.S.-escorted, Kuwait tankers carried Iraqi oil while Iraqi planes attacked Iranian tankers.  

"The U.S. sank Iranian patrol ships and destroyed their oil platforms. 

      "In 1987,  Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. became commander of the U.S. Central Command. He had a unique background for the assignment.20 In the 1953, his father assisted in the CIA's coup in Iran.

      "When the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, U.S. war contingency plans made Iraq the enemy.21 

"In January 1990, CIA Director William Webster testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on growing Western dependency on Middle East oil.22  

"In February, Schwarzkopf told the committee that the U.S. should increase its military presence in the region and described new intervention plans.23  

"In 1990, the U.S. conducted at least four war games directed at Iraq, *some premised on an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.*

      "The U.S. wanted a new war in the Middle East: the Pentagon, to maintain its tremendous budget; arms industries, to feed their Middle East and U.S. military contracts; oil companies, for increased profits; and the Bush administration, which saw the USSR's disintegration as a chance to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East to control of its oil resources.

      "The challenge was to force Iraq, a country more interested in rebuilding than expansion, to take action that would justify U.S. military intervention. 

"To create this crisis, the U.S. invoked its special relationship with the Kuwait. 

"In his book Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, Pierre Salinger observed that Kuwait drastically increase oil production one day after the Iran-Iraq ceasefire."

1958


----------



## Bumberclyde

9thIDdoc said:


> _"so you think that 10+ yr old, Repub-instigated, war of choice was a good idea?"_
> 
> You assume a lot.
> Yes, I think it was a good idea.
> But it was (and continues)a terrorist instigated war and is no more a war of choice than any other.
> _Would you propose, like other rw'ers here, that we stay there and suffer more 1000's of casualties _No.
> 
> _"We already have 1000's killed and 10's of 1000's maimed, physically & psycologicall "_
> 
> Just as we did in a few hours when the war was started by the terrorists. 9/11. It was in all the papers
> 
> _BTW- I served and didn't refer to taxpayers (the ones who paid my check) "assholes"._
> 
> I very often refer to taxpayers and the government as assholes for other reasons but I consider anyone who tries to make political points from dead soldiers the very worst of assholes. They died in service to the American people and while under orders of the officials elected to represent them. They died for America not for petty politics of a party. To claim otherwise is to dishonor them.
> .



They died for Haliburton in Iraq. The truth doesn't dishonor anyone.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

georgephillip said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _EXACTLY what was the threat from Iraq? _
> 
> We declared war on terrorists. Sadam was himself a terrorist aiding and abetting terrorist groups with the money from his oil fields. He had chemical weapons. What part of that did you miss?
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you miss this part?*
> 
> "In 1987, the U.S. became directly involved in the (Iran-Iraq) war on Iraq's side by protecting the passage of Kuwaiti tankers with a major military presence in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> "Some U.S.-escorted, Kuwait tankers carried Iraqi oil while Iraqi planes attacked Iranian tankers.
> 
> "The U.S. sank Iranian patrol ships and destroyed their oil platforms.
> 
> "In 1987,  Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. became commander of the U.S. Central Command. He had a unique background for the assignment.20 In the 1953, his father assisted in the CIA's coup in Iran.
> 
> "When the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, U.S. war contingency plans made Iraq the enemy.21
> 
> "In January 1990, CIA Director William Webster testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on growing Western dependency on Middle East oil.22
> 
> "In February, Schwarzkopf told the committee that the U.S. should increase its military presence in the region and described new intervention plans.23
> 
> "In 1990, the U.S. conducted at least four war games directed at Iraq, *some premised on an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.*
> 
> "The U.S. wanted a new war in the Middle East: the Pentagon, to maintain its tremendous budget; arms industries, to feed their Middle East and U.S. military contracts; oil companies, for increased profits; and the Bush administration, which saw the USSR's disintegration as a chance to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East to control of its oil resources.
> 
> "The challenge was to force Iraq, a country more interested in rebuilding than expansion, to take action that would justify U.S. military intervention.
> 
> "To create this crisis, the U.S. invoked its special relationship with the Kuwait.
> 
> "In his book Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, Pierre Salinger observed that Kuwait drastically increase oil production one day after the Iran-Iraq ceasefire."
> 
> 1958
Click to expand...


What I missed was:
Whatever point you were trying to make
Why you thought your post had anything to do with the topic
And what makes you think you have the right to disrespect our fallen


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Bumberclyde said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"so you think that 10+ yr old, Repub-instigated, war of choice was a good idea?"_
> 
> You assume a lot.
> Yes, I think it was a good idea.
> But it was (and continues)a terrorist instigated war and is no more a war of choice than any other.
> _Would you propose, like other rw'ers here, that we stay there and suffer more 1000's of casualties _No.
> 
> _"We already have 1000's killed and 10's of 1000's maimed, physically & psycologicall "_
> 
> Just as we did in a few hours when the war was started by the terrorists. 9/11. It was in all the papers
> 
> _BTW- I served and didn't refer to taxpayers (the ones who paid my check) "assholes"._
> 
> I very often refer to taxpayers and the government as assholes for other reasons but I consider anyone who tries to make political points from dead soldiers the very worst of assholes. They died in service to the American people and while under orders of the officials elected to represent them. They died for America not for petty politics of a party. To claim otherwise is to dishonor them.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died for Haliburton in Iraq. The truth doesn't dishonor anyone.
Click to expand...


The truth is that died doing the job America sent them to do. You're just another asshole trying to make political points disrespecting our fallen. Shame on you.


----------



## freedombecki

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.


 
 Iraq worked to build a nuclear arsenal starting in the 1960s. At the behest of then-VP Saddam Hussein, the 1970s saw Iraq establish a nuclear weapons program through 1991. Following his ouster in Kuwait, Hussein was anything but truthful about his nuclear program. He vacillated between threatening allied powers that he was close to completion of his program and playing a shell game with the UN inspectors about his true state of nuclear readiness that he claimed he was working on every time the issue popped up. It is known that by 1991 Iraq had created a robust, covert program that included a complete, although untested, nuclear weapon design and roughly 36.3 kilograms of weapons useable HEU as research reactor fuel. Later on, it could not be established that Hussein actually had what he said he had. Some construed it as it never existed, while others construed that he had successfully hoodwinked the UN Inspectors. There is the possibility it is a state secret as a political device to control public opinion. I do not know.

 At any rate, legally, when someone claims they are armed with a specific type of weapon, the person they fooled who retaliates is not responsible for the avaricious lie in thinking the truth was established by his testimony. Saddam made egregious claims he was unstoppable, which gave pause to his enemies. After his particularly egregious aggression to expatriate Kuwaitis for the oil he would gain in conquest was snuffed, his behaviors toward Americans were so unthinkable that Secretary of State Madeline Albright established in her State Department notes a considerable resource for those who wanted to know on the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein. They amounted to his regular political decimation of around 60,000 human lives off the face of the planet for daring to bar his aggressive tendencies.

 He established rape rooms and put his bloodthirsty sons, Uday and Qusay in charge, who regularly took the families of his adversaries, and raped the women while the men watched, sometimes just killing the broken-hearted husband who'd just watch his wife raped and possibly maimed, and sometimes killing all of them in the most gruesome means possible, depending on his whim, no trials, either.

 After his agreement to stop using WOMDs on the Kurds in Iraq, mass graves were still needed for those other means he used to take out his political adversaries, real and imagined.

 Even so, I well recollect reports of his claims of having nukes well into the months following 9/11 and the particular horror of hearing how he was paying off families of homicidal maniac bombing and killing Israeli citizens with checks in the amount of $25,000, and if they got an American killed, the amount was increased to double that ($50,000.)

 He said he had nukes, Madeline Albright's notes said he had nukes, he repeated it over and over, until, guess what. In addition to Interpol information and our own intelligence, all we could surmise was that not only did Saddam Hussein likely have nukes, he needed to stop the massive killing of neighbors and Iraqi citizens, because he wasn't satisfied until tens of thousands of people were murdered to sate his tyrannically insecure appetite that his own people did not love him. IOW, he was a madman and unworthy of ruling a country with 26,000,000 people living in it.

 And due to his aggression against American citizens in his country and history of trying to assassinate prominent Americans, the lot fell onto the president at the time, President George W. Bush, who reluctantly went to the UN with the best information he had, delivered by Colin Powell, who apparently agreed enough with that information from information we had on Saddam dating back several blood-filled decades to do whatever it took to stop nukes from proliferating in the Middle East with all that talk of wiping people off the face of the map long preceding the nut Ahmadinejad of Iran who took up where Saddam Hussein left off, for approbation from other nutcases in the Middle East, not to mention a few in Washington using the entire war for political takeover of a schema to redistribute wealth in America, which would decimate our role as peace-through-strength measures.

 I don't think we can exactly beat up on any one President for blocking America-haters in the world considering the alternative of a motivated-to-snuff-the-earth bunch led by an Ahmadinejad, who once held his foot on an American serviceman, shot him through the temple, and kicked him off an Airplane when Jimmy Carter was president (not blaming Carter for this atrocity, BTW).

 I've lived the years through all of this as many of you have. The only difference is that I made copious notes of Madeline Allbright, thought she was a good lady to call America's attention to the atrocities and war crimes of Saddam Hussein, she just couldn't convince her boss over his Commie wife's protests that he should do something about Iraq that was so severe Hussein would be emasculated. Bombing the empty aspirin factor had just the opposite effect, but I'm not faulting any one person for not knowing that in advance. The people who know these kind of things are called Generals, and the military men were all but ignored, which is a crying shame.

 That's why we should put stronger men into the office of presidency, and not philanderers and treasury-ambitious targeters of taxpayers' hard-earned moneys that should go to America's defense, while Americans are encouraged to become productive citizens and not sponges.


----------



## georgephillip

9thIDdoc said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _EXACTLY what was the threat from Iraq? _
> 
> We declared war on terrorists. Sadam was himself a terrorist aiding and abetting terrorist groups with the money from his oil fields. He had chemical weapons. What part of that did you miss?
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you miss this part?*
> 
> "In 1987, the U.S. became directly involved in the (Iran-Iraq) war on Iraq's side by protecting the passage of Kuwaiti tankers with a major military presence in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> "Some U.S.-escorted, Kuwait tankers carried Iraqi oil while Iraqi planes attacked Iranian tankers.
> 
> "The U.S. sank Iranian patrol ships and destroyed their oil platforms.
> 
> "In 1987,  Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. became commander of the U.S. Central Command. He had a unique background for the assignment.20 In the 1953, his father assisted in the CIA's coup in Iran.
> 
> "When the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, U.S. war contingency plans made Iraq the enemy.21
> 
> "In January 1990, CIA Director William Webster testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on growing Western dependency on Middle East oil.22
> 
> "In February, Schwarzkopf told the committee that the U.S. should increase its military presence in the region and described new intervention plans.23
> 
> "In 1990, the U.S. conducted at least four war games directed at Iraq, *some premised on an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.*
> 
> "The U.S. wanted a new war in the Middle East: the Pentagon, to maintain its tremendous budget; arms industries, to feed their Middle East and U.S. military contracts; oil companies, for increased profits; and the Bush administration, which saw the USSR's disintegration as a chance to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East to control of its oil resources.
> 
> "The challenge was to force Iraq, a country more interested in rebuilding than expansion, to take action that would justify U.S. military intervention.
> 
> "To create this crisis, the U.S. invoked its special relationship with the Kuwait.
> 
> "In his book Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, Pierre Salinger observed that Kuwait drastically increase oil production one day after the Iran-Iraq ceasefire."
> 
> 1958
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I missed was:
> Whatever point you were trying to make
> Why you thought your post had anything to do with the topic
> And what makes you think you have the right to disrespect our fallen
Click to expand...

You seem to think Saddam was a terrorist who posed a threat to the US.
He never posed as great a threat to this country as those who get rich from wars and the private debt war requires.
If you're serious about respecting the fallen, make sure they didn't die in vain.
War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935


----------



## 9thIDdoc

georgephillip said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you miss this part?*
> 
> "In 1987, the U.S. became directly involved in the (Iran-Iraq) war on Iraq's side by protecting the passage of Kuwaiti tankers with a major military presence in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> "Some U.S.-escorted, Kuwait tankers carried Iraqi oil while Iraqi planes attacked Iranian tankers.
> 
> "The U.S. sank Iranian patrol ships and destroyed their oil platforms.
> 
> "In 1987,  Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. became commander of the U.S. Central Command. He had a unique background for the assignment.20 In the 1953, his father assisted in the CIA's coup in Iran.
> 
> "When the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, U.S. war contingency plans made Iraq the enemy.21
> 
> "In January 1990, CIA Director William Webster testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on growing Western dependency on Middle East oil.22
> 
> "In February, Schwarzkopf told the committee that the U.S. should increase its military presence in the region and described new intervention plans.23
> 
> "In 1990, the U.S. conducted at least four war games directed at Iraq, *some premised on an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.*
> 
> "The U.S. wanted a new war in the Middle East: the Pentagon, to maintain its tremendous budget; arms industries, to feed their Middle East and U.S. military contracts; oil companies, for increased profits; and the Bush administration, which saw the USSR's disintegration as a chance to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East to control of its oil resources.
> 
> "The challenge was to force Iraq, a country more interested in rebuilding than expansion, to take action that would justify U.S. military intervention.
> 
> "To create this crisis, the U.S. invoked its special relationship with the Kuwait.
> 
> "In his book Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, Pierre Salinger observed that Kuwait drastically increase oil production one day after the Iran-Iraq ceasefire."
> 
> 1958
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I missed was:
> Whatever point you were trying to make
> Why you thought your post had anything to do with the topic
> And what makes you think you have the right to disrespect our fallen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think Saddam was a terrorist who posed a threat to the US.
> He never posed as great a threat to this country as those who get rich from wars and the private debt war requires.
> If you're serious about respecting the fallen, make sure they didn't die in vain.
> War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935
Click to expand...


And you remain off topic. This is_ not_about politics. Not yours. Not mine. Nor anyone else's.


----------



## HenryBHough

And the lies continue.

NOBODY could have died in Iraq or Afghanistan since January, 2009 when all the Americans were brought home exactly as PROMISED in all those marvelous campaign speeches.

_Weren't they?????_


----------



## Truthseeker420

Why?

*Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War*

FOCUS | Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War

*Who really won the Iraq war? Oil barons, big business and mercenaries*

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk Iraq war winners were oil barons and mercenaries - Mirror Online 
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Truthseeker420 said:


> Why?
> 
> *Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War*
> 
> FOCUS | Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War
> 
> *Who really won the Iraq war? Oil barons, big business and mercenaries*
> 
> Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk Iraq war winners were oil barons and mercenaries - Mirror Online
> Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook



Off topic and shameful disrespect.


----------



## Dot Com

9thIDdoc said:


> _EXACTLY what was the threat from Iraq? _
> 
> We declared war on terrorists. Sadam was himself a terrorist aiding and abetting terrorist groups with the money from his oil fields. He had chemical weapons. What part of that did you miss?



where'd he get then chem weapons?  Oh! thats right  Reagan


----------



## Dot Com

yep, it was basically a repub jobs program w/ a catch- the catch being that us servicemen died over there so that contractors could rake in taxpayer $$$

Iraq had ZERO to do w/ 9/11. THATS why Bush II/Cheney changed their reasons for invading 4+ times because the American people weren't buying it. Turns out- the American people were right.



Truthseeker420 said:


> Why?
> 
> *Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War*
> 
> FOCUS | Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War
> 
> *Who really won the Iraq war? Oil barons, big business and mercenaries*
> 
> Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk Iraq war winners were oil barons and mercenaries - Mirror Online
> Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


----------



## Dot Com

9thIDdoc said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> *Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War*
> 
> FOCUS | Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War
> 
> *Who really won the Iraq war? Oil barons, big business and mercenaries*
> 
> Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk Iraq war winners were oil barons and mercenaries - Mirror Online
> Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic and shameful disrespect.
Click to expand...


"disrespect" is throwing more people's kids into a meat-grinder AFTER finding out the war-of-choice was unnecessary.


----------



## GWV5903

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



I learned in my early 20's this ideology was a myth, great theater and easy to get followers, but it is still a myth...

The fight for freedom is never in vain, never...

Blame W all you want, but it is clear our troops have a very deep respect for this man, Oblammer, not so much...


----------



## Dot Com

freedombecki said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq worked to build a nuclear arsenal starting in the 1960s. At the behest of then-VP Saddam Hussein, the 1970s saw Iraq establish a nuclear weapons program through 1991. Following his ouster in Kuwait, Hussein was anything but truthful about his nuclear program. He vacillated between threatening allied powers that he was close to completion of his program and playing a shell game with the UN inspectors about his true state of nuclear readiness that he claimed he was working on every time the issue popped up. It is known that by 1991 Iraq had created a robust, covert program that included a complete, although untested, nuclear weapon design and roughly 36.3 kilograms of weapons useable HEU as research reactor fuel. Later on, it could not be established that Hussein actually had what he said he had. Some construed it as it never existed, while others construed that he had successfully hoodwinked the UN Inspectors. There is the possibility it is a state secret as a political device to control public opinion. I do not know.
> 
> At any rate, legally, when someone claims they are armed with a specific type of weapon, the person they fooled who retaliates is not responsible for the avaricious lie in thinking the truth was established by his testimony. Saddam made egregious claims he was unstoppable, which gave pause to his enemies. After his particularly egregious aggression to expatriate Kuwaitis for the oil he would gain in conquest was snuffed, his behaviors toward Americans were so unthinkable that Secretary of State Madeline Albright established in her State Department notes a considerable resource for those who wanted to know on the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein. They amounted to his regular political decimation of around 60,000 human lives off the face of the planet for daring to bar his aggressive tendencies.
> 
> He established rape rooms and put his bloodthirsty sons, Uday and Qusay in charge, who regularly took the families of his adversaries, and raped the women while the men watched, sometimes just killing the broken-hearted husband who'd just watch his wife raped and possibly maimed, and sometimes killing all of them in the most gruesome means possible, depending on his whim, no trials, either.
> 
> After his agreement to stop using WOMDs on the Kurds in Iraq, mass graves were still needed for those other means he used to take out his political adversaries, real and imagined.
> 
> Even so, I well recollect reports of his claims of having nukes well into the months following 9/11 and the particular horror of hearing how he was paying off families of homicidal maniac bombing and killing Israeli citizens with checks in the amount of $25,000, and if they got an American killed, the amount was increased to double that ($50,000.)
> 
> He said he had nukes, Madeline Albright's notes said he had nukes, he repeated it over and over, until, guess what. In addition to Interpol information and our own intelligence, all we could surmise was that not only did Saddam Hussein likely have nukes, he needed to stop the massive killing of neighbors and Iraqi citizens, because he wasn't satisfied until tens of thousands of people were murdered to sate his tyrannically insecure appetite that his own people did not love him. IOW, he was a madman and unworthy of ruling a country with 26,000,000 people living in it.
> 
> And due to his aggression against American citizens in his country and history of trying to assassinate prominent Americans, the lot fell onto the president at the time, President George W. Bush, who reluctantly went to the UN with the best information he had, delivered by Colin Powell, who apparently agreed enough with that information from information we had on Saddam dating back several blood-filled decades to do whatever it took to stop nukes from proliferating in the Middle East with all that talk of wiping people off the face of the map long preceding the nut Ahmadinejad of Iran who took up where Saddam Hussein left off, for approbation from other nutcases in the Middle East, not to mention a few in Washington using the entire war for political takeover of a schema to redistribute wealth in America, which would decimate our role as peace-through-strength measures.
> 
> I don't think we can exactly beat up on any one President for blocking America-haters in the world considering the alternative of a motivated-to-snuff-the-earth bunch led by an Ahmadinejad, who once held his foot on an American serviceman, shot him through the temple, and kicked him off an Airplane when Jimmy Carter was president (not blaming Carter for this atrocity, BTW).
> 
> I've lived the years through all of this as many of you have. The only difference is that I made copious notes of Madeline Allbright, thought she was a good lady to call America's attention to the atrocities and war crimes of Saddam Hussein, she just couldn't convince her boss over his Commie wife's protests that he should do something about Iraq that was so severe Hussein would be emasculated. Bombing the empty aspirin factor had just the opposite effect, but I'm not faulting any one person for not knowing that in advance. The people who know these kind of things are called Generals, and the military men were all but ignored, which is a crying shame.
> 
> That's why we should put stronger men into the office of presidency, and not philanderers and treasury-ambitious targeters of taxpayers' hard-earned moneys that should go to America's defense, while Americans are encouraged to become productive citizens and not sponges.
Click to expand...


You are the most brazen military industrial complex fluffer on the board and you haven't even served.  I thought Texans were AGAINST crony capitalism (see Halliburton & BlackWater)


----------



## georgephillip

9thIDdoc said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I missed was:
> Whatever point you were trying to make
> Why you thought your post had anything to do with the topic
> And what makes you think you have the right to disrespect our fallen
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think Saddam was a terrorist who posed a threat to the US.
> He never posed as great a threat to this country as those who get rich from wars and the private debt war requires.
> If you're serious about respecting the fallen, make sure they didn't die in vain.
> War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you remain off topic. This is_ not_about politics. Not yours. Not mine. Nor anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Who made you the decider?
This thread is about WHY Americans died in Iraq.
If you think that isn't about "politics", you're being disingenuous or you're trolling.


----------



## Bumberclyde

9thIDdoc said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> *Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War*
> 
> FOCUS | Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War
> 
> *Who really won the Iraq war? Oil barons, big business and mercenaries*
> 
> Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk Iraq war winners were oil barons and mercenaries - Mirror Online
> Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic and shameful disrespect.
Click to expand...

The truth can't be disrespectful.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

iamwhatiseem said:


> What do you mean vets have to fight for every crumb?????
> Obama has been President for 5 years...he hasn't fixed this???



That's the fun part. Obama is the bestest, most competentest, president evah, but he can't fix anything that Bush screwed up.


----------



## HenryBHough

Quantum Windbag said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean vets have to fight for every crumb?????
> Obama has been President for 5 years...he hasn't fixed this???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the fun part. Obama is the bestest, most competentest, president evah, but he can't fix anything that Bush screwed up.
Click to expand...


He dare not!

Because if He did He'd have nothing to whine about and people might notice some of the shit He pulls.


----------



## Dot Com

HenryBHough said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean vets have to fight for every crumb?????
> Obama has been President for 5 years...he hasn't fixed this???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the fun part. Obama is the bestest, most competentest, president evah, but he can't fix anything that Bush screwed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He dare not!
> 
> Because if He did He'd have nothing to whine about and people might notice some of the shit He pulls.
Click to expand...


NEWSFLASH!!! He's not up for reelection you partisan hack.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_ "...AFTER finding out the war-of-choice was unnecessary."_ 
__________________

That remains untrue. The American people were highly in favor of sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq both times (not that we ever really left as we continued to fight there at intervals). You're simply spouting revisionist bullspit that actually has nothing to do with *why* they died.


----------



## Dot Com

according the Rightist neocons here, we should invade every country who treats their inhabitants badly. They claim to be deficit-hawks too  This does not even take into the acct the shattered lives & broken families due to never-ending deployments.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dot Com said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the fun part. Obama is the bestest, most competentest, president evah, but he can't fix anything that Bush screwed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He dare not!
> 
> Because if He did He'd have nothing to whine about and people might notice some of the shit He pulls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NEWSFLASH!!! He's not up for reelection you partisan hack.
Click to expand...


Why is he still campaigning then?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dot Com said:


> according the Rightist neocons here, we should invade every country who treats their inhabitants badly. They claim to be deficit-hawks too  This does not even take into the acct the shattered lives & broken families due to never-ending deployments.



I must be confused, I thought Obama and his responsibility to protect approach to foreign policy was a lefty paradigm. Did I miss another round of memos?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

georgephillip said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think Saddam was a terrorist who posed a threat to the US.
> He never posed as great a threat to this country as those who get rich from wars and the private debt war requires.
> If you're serious about respecting the fallen, make sure they didn't die in vain.
> War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you remain off topic. This is_ not_about politics. Not yours. Not mine. Nor anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made you the decider?
> This thread is about WHY Americans died in Iraq.
> If you think that isn't about "politics", you're being disingenuous or you're trolling.
Click to expand...


Who else can decide my opinion?
]
_This thread is about WHY Americans died in Iraq_


Which is exactly what I keep trying to remind you and others
 simply using this thread as a forum to present their personal views of politics and history and dramatically attempting to suggest that dead soldiers share their weird ass views. You have not attempted to address the question of *why they died*. 

_If you think that isn't about "politics", you're being disingenuous or you're trolling._

Bullshit. The politics relates to why they were *sent*and not a thing about why they died. They died because they were sent to do a dangerous job and were killed trying to do it.


----------



## Dot Com

> Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?



Why  to do PNAC's bidding (a defunct rw think tank set-up by Kristol of Fox News) & to enrich mil industrial complex contractors on the taxpayer dime w/ no-bid contracts of course


----------



## Intense

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



Maybe if Obama knew the answer to that, he would not have given up everything that was gained by their sacrifice, to score partisan points. So much for Human Rights and impartial justice, huh. What else do you and your kind want to surrender and abandon, while we are on the subject?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> He dare not!
> 
> Because if He did He'd have nothing to whine about and people might notice some of the shit He pulls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEWSFLASH!!! He's not up for reelection you partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is he still campaigning then?
Click to expand...


Maybe he doesn't intend to step down when his term is over or he's impeached.


----------



## Dot Com

how many more years/decades should we stay there deficit hawks? And at what costs in lives & treasure? 4,000 more casualties? 5-10 more years? As it has been said many times before by the enemy, we have the time, they have the watch. Besides, it has turned into a training ground for up & coming terrists on the us taxpayer dime. Terrists go there to cut their teeth/get their bona fides. If GI's weren't there, there'd be no big draw for foreigners to go to that country.

This means something to me because I'm former active-duty- forward deployed and know what its like to be far away for extended periods of time. .03% of the country knows what thats like.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dot Com said:


> how many more years/decades should we stay there deficit hawks? And at what costs in lives & treasure? 4,000 more casualties? 5-10 more years? As it has been said many times before by the enemy, we have the time, they have the watch. Besides, it has turned into a training ground for up & coming terrists on the us taxpayer dime. Terrists go there to cut their teeth/get their bona fides. If GI's weren't there, there'd be no big draw for foreigners to go to that country.
> 
> This means something to me because I'm former active-duty- forward deployed and know what its like to be far away for extended periods of time. .03% of the country knows what thats like.



I was a combat medic in Vietnam. I've seen more than a little death and dying. And you're still an asshole for disrespecting our fallen.


----------



## HenryBHough

Dot Com said:


> NEWSFLASH!!! He's not up for reelection you partisan hack.



Campaign speeches leading up to his anointment and then re-anointment.  Have you been living in a cave all these years?  Or just down there in Mom's basement with the windows painted over?

He promised.

Surely He delivered.....some Messiah He would be if he lied.

But....oh.....we do know all about that already, don't we!


----------



## BlackSand

9thIDdoc said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many more years/decades should we stay there deficit hawks? And at what costs in lives & treasure? 4,000 more casualties? 5-10 more years? As it has been said many times before by the enemy, we have the time, they have the watch. Besides, it has turned into a training ground for up & coming terrists on the us taxpayer dime. Terrists go there to cut their teeth/get their bona fides. If GI's weren't there, there'd be no big draw for foreigners to go to that country.
> 
> This means something to me because I'm former active-duty- forward deployed and know what its like to be far away for extended periods of time. .03% of the country knows what thats like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a combat medic in Vietnam. I've seen more than a little death and dying. And you're still an asshole for disrespecting our fallen.
Click to expand...


I would like to say I fought for Dottie's right to think and say whatever he likes ... But I didn't ... I fought for my brothers and sisters in arms.
Dottie can say whatever he likes ... May never understand the respect you talk about ... Because it takes a different kind of person to fill those shoes.

I don't know what it was like in Vietnam for you ... Who or what you lost in the process.
But that aside ... When what Dottie says pisses me off ... I just think about two of our fallen in particular (better than Dottie or I will ever be) ... And think about how I would have traded places with them if I could have.

When I think about that ... Whatever Dottie says just doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

.


----------



## Truthseeker420

9thIDdoc said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> *Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War*
> 
> FOCUS | Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War
> 
> *Who really won the Iraq war? Oil barons, big business and mercenaries*
> 
> Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk Iraq war winners were oil barons and mercenaries - Mirror Online
> Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic and shameful disrespect.
Click to expand...


Not off topic at all. He asked why his friends had to die and pointed out that his friends had to die so the rich warmongers could party.


----------



## Truthseeker420

9thIDdoc said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"so you think that 10+ yr old, Repub-instigated, war of choice was a good idea?"_
> 
> You assume a lot.
> Yes, I think it was a good idea.
> But it was (and continues)a terrorist instigated war and is no more a war of choice than any other.
> _Would you propose, like other rw'ers here, that we stay there and suffer more 1000's of casualties _No.
> 
> _"We already have 1000's killed and 10's of 1000's maimed, physically & psycologicall "_
> 
> Just as we did in a few hours when the war was started by the terrorists. 9/11. It was in all the papers
> 
> _BTW- I served and didn't refer to taxpayers (the ones who paid my check) "assholes"._
> 
> I very often refer to taxpayers and the government as assholes for other reasons but I consider anyone who tries to make political points from dead soldiers the very worst of assholes. They died in service to the American people and while under orders of the officials elected to represent them. They died for America not for petty politics of a party. To claim otherwise is to dishonor them.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died for Haliburton in Iraq. The truth doesn't dishonor anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is that died doing the job America sent them to do. You're just another asshole trying to make political points disrespecting our fallen. Shame on you.
Click to expand...


But it's okay for you to  make political points "disrespecting our fallen"?  What is that called?


----------



## Dot Com

9thIDdoc said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many more years/decades should we stay there deficit hawks? And at what costs in lives & treasure? 4,000 more casualties? 5-10 more years? As it has been said many times before by the enemy, we have the time, they have the watch. Besides, it has turned into a training ground for up & coming terrists on the us taxpayer dime. Terrists go there to cut their teeth/get their bona fides. If GI's weren't there, there'd be no big draw for foreigners to go to that country.
> 
> This means something to me because I'm former active-duty- forward deployed and know what its like to be far away for extended periods of time. .03% of the country knows what thats like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a combat medic in Vietnam. I've seen more than a little death and dying. And you're still an asshole for disrespecting our fallen.
Click to expand...

 Pointing-out that that iraq was a voluntary colossal clusterfuck isn't about the troops. its about the ciivilian leadership that put them there old man. Meh, no getting through to you.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Truthseeker420 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> They died for Haliburton in Iraq. The truth doesn't dishonor anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that died doing the job America sent them to do. You're just another asshole trying to make political points disrespecting our fallen. Shame on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's okay for you to  make political points "disrespecting our fallen"?  What is that called?
Click to expand...


As I have said repeatedly it's not okay for *anyone *and I haven't done so and don't intend to.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"Pointing-out that that iraq was a voluntary colossal clusterfuck isn't about the troops..."_

Exactly. That is a political opinion which you have every right to. But when you start making claims about what our troops died for and mixing that in with your *political opinions *(no matter what they are) you are showing gross disrespect. You are essentially standing on their bodies in your efforts to make political points. I consider that just about the same as walking into a church and pissing on the alter.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

BlackSand said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many more years/decades should we stay there deficit hawks? And at what costs in lives & treasure? 4,000 more casualties? 5-10 more years? As it has been said many times before by the enemy, we have the time, they have the watch. Besides, it has turned into a training ground for up & coming terrists on the us taxpayer dime. Terrists go there to cut their teeth/get their bona fides. If GI's weren't there, there'd be no big draw for foreigners to go to that country.
> 
> This means something to me because I'm former active-duty- forward deployed and know what its like to be far away for extended periods of time. .03% of the country knows what thats like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a combat medic in Vietnam. I've seen more than a little death and dying. And you're still an asshole for disrespecting our fallen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like to say I fought for Dottie's right to think and say whatever he likes ... But I didn't ... I fought for my brothers and sisters in arms.
> Dottie can say whatever he likes ... May never understand the respect you talk about ... Because it takes a different kind of person to fill those shoes.
> 
> I don't know what it was like in Vietnam for you ... Who or what you lost in the process.
> But that aside ... When what Dottie says pisses me off ... I just think about two of our fallen in particular (better than Dottie or I will ever be) ... And think about how I would have traded places with them if I could have.
> 
> When I think about that ... Whatever Dottie says just doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I thank you for your kind words and I believe you are entirely correct.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?

For nothing, sadly.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Bumberclyde said:


> Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?
> 
> For nothing, sadly.



Six pages of posts but yours nails it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Buncha whiney ass bitches.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

*Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*

My guess would be that they realized they were stuck with you for a friend and immediately committed suicide.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dot Com said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many more years/decades should we stay there deficit hawks? And at what costs in lives & treasure? 4,000 more casualties? 5-10 more years? As it has been said many times before by the enemy, we have the time, they have the watch. Besides, it has turned into a training ground for up & coming terrists on the us taxpayer dime. Terrists go there to cut their teeth/get their bona fides. If GI's weren't there, there'd be no big draw for foreigners to go to that country.
> 
> This means something to me because I'm former active-duty- forward deployed and know what its like to be far away for extended periods of time. .03% of the country knows what thats like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a combat medic in Vietnam. I've seen more than a little death and dying. And you're still an asshole for disrespecting our fallen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing-out that that iraq was a voluntary colossal clusterfuck isn't about the troops. its about the ciivilian leadership that put them there old man. Meh, no getting through to you.
Click to expand...


It is about the troops.

You are telling everyone who fought there that they were there representing a lie, and that their friends who died died for no reason. You do not support the troops if you are telling them that they wasted their time and their lives, fighting in a colossal clusterfuck. 

The fact that you don't get that is the entire problem.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?
> 
> For nothing, sadly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Six pages of posts but yours nails it.
Click to expand...


And you wonder why people think you don't support the troops.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?
> 
> For nothing, sadly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Six pages of posts but yours nails it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wonder why people think you don't support the troops.
Click to expand...

Stating that we went into war for no valid reason in no way disrespects the boots on the ground.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_Stating that we went into war for no valid reason in no way disrespects the boots on the ground. _

True. The same is NOT true of saying they died for nothing which is insulting on top of being disrespectful and arrogant. Who do you think you are to make such a judgment? IMO you are richly deserving of a boot up the ass.


----------



## Dot Com

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a combat medic in Vietnam. I've seen more than a little death and dying. And you're still an asshole for disrespecting our fallen.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing-out that that iraq was a voluntary colossal clusterfuck isn't about the troops. its about the ciivilian leadership that put them there old man. Meh, no getting through to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is about the troops.
> 
> You are telling everyone who fought there that they were there representing a lie, and that their friends who died died for no reason. You do not support the troops if you are telling them that they wasted their time and their lives, fighting in a colossal clusterfuck.
> 
> The fact that you don't get that is the entire problem.
Click to expand...


ummm..... I'm a vet you dipshit.  The way to "honor" them is to get them out of that foreign policy catastrophe. 'Right' or 'wrong' rarely enters their mind unless the order is blatantly unlawful. BTW- you serve?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_ummm..... I'm a vet you dipshit_

You just prove that vets can also be assholes


----------



## Dot Com

...says the guy who called taxpayers assholes


----------



## georgephillip

9thIDdoc said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you remain off topic. This is_ not_about politics. Not yours. Not mine. Nor anyone else's.
> 
> 
> 
> Who made you the decider?
> This thread is about WHY Americans died in Iraq.
> If you think that isn't about "politics", you're being disingenuous or you're trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who else can decide my opinion?
> ]
> _This thread is about WHY Americans died in Iraq_
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what I keep trying to remind you and others
> simply using this thread as a forum to present their personal views of politics and history and dramatically attempting to suggest that dead soldiers share their weird ass views. You have not attempted to address the question of *why they died*.
> 
> _If you think that isn't about "politics", you're being disingenuous or you're trolling._
> 
> Bullshit. The politics relates to why they were *sent*and not a thing about why they died. They died because they were sent to do a dangerous job and were killed trying to do it.
Click to expand...

Politics relates to exercising force against adversaries which includes launching wars of aggression in pursuit of private profit. If Americans who died in Iraq were influenced by the lies of those in politics who stood to profit from their deaths, you're reasoning is simply condemning the next generation of patriotic Americans to the same criminal fate as their parents and grandparents.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

georgephillip said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made you the decider?
> This thread is about WHY Americans died in Iraq.
> If you think that isn't about "politics", you're being disingenuous or you're trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who else can decide my opinion?
> ]
> _This thread is about WHY Americans died in Iraq_
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what I keep trying to remind you and others
> simply using this thread as a forum to present their personal views of politics and history and dramatically attempting to suggest that dead soldiers share their weird ass views. You have not attempted to address the question of *why they died*.
> 
> _If you think that isn't about "politics", you're being disingenuous or you're trolling._
> 
> Bullshit. The politics relates to why they were *sent*and not a thing about why they died. They died because they were sent to do a dangerous job and were killed trying to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Politics relates to exercising force against adversaries which includes launching wars of aggression in pursuit of private profit. If Americans who died in Iraq were influenced by the lies of those in politics who stood to profit from their deaths, you're reasoning is simply condemning the next generation of patriotic Americans to the same criminal fate as their parents and grandparents.
Click to expand...


Your logic sucks. Do you know of any lying politicians that died there? The troops that fight and die are not given the option of deciding what wars to fight. Governments make that decision and they represent the people. Being mad (rightly or wrongly) at the government, or the citizens that elected it and must share in the responsibility for it's actions, gives no one the right to disrespect the troops who do our bidding. Put blame where it belongs and suck it up.


----------



## georgephillip

9thIDdoc said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who else can decide my opinion?
> ]
> _This thread is about WHY Americans died in Iraq_
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what I keep trying to remind you and others
> simply using this thread as a forum to present their personal views of politics and history and dramatically attempting to suggest that dead soldiers share their weird ass views. You have not attempted to address the question of *why they died*.
> 
> _If you think that isn't about "politics", you're being disingenuous or you're trolling._
> 
> Bullshit. The politics relates to why they were *sent*and not a thing about why they died. They died because they were sent to do a dangerous job and were killed trying to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Politics relates to exercising force against adversaries which includes launching wars of aggression in pursuit of private profit. If Americans who died in Iraq were influenced by the lies of those in politics who stood to profit from their deaths, you're reasoning is simply condemning the next generation of patriotic Americans to the same criminal fate as their parents and grandparents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic sucks. Do you know of any lying politicians that died there? The troops that fight and die are not given the option of deciding what wars to fight. Governments make that decision and they represent the people. Being mad (rightly or wrongly) at the government, or the citizens that elected it and must share in the responsibility for it's actions, gives no one the right to disrespect the troops who do our bidding. Put blame where it belongs and suck it up.
Click to expand...

So the next generation of lying politicians can convince the children of today's vets to kill and be killed for the next Big Lie?

I never implied any politicians, liars or otherwise, died in Iraq.
The politicians' lies disrespect every vet who ever served, and every citizen whose taxes paid for every war.
Your logic calls for more of the same.
Mine calls for ending the lies and those who get rich from them.
It is not being disrespectful to vets to point out they died for a lie.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six pages of posts but yours nails it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why people think you don't support the troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stating that we went into war for no valid reason in no way disrespects the boots on the ground.
Click to expand...


Seriously?

You probably aren't going to get this, but I am going to say it anyway. What matters to the troops is why they are there. They are there for different reasons, but, ultimately, unless you believe in why they are there, you aren't actually supporting them, you are just sucking the life out of them.

By the way, we had a valid reason to invade Iraq, it just isn't the one that all the assholes whinge about.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_I never implied any politicians, liars or otherwise, died in Iraq_.

So? Who said you did? 

_The politicians' lies disrespect every vet who ever served, and every citizen whose taxes paid for every war_.

I agree 100% and that's what I've been saying all along. The problem is that you seem to think that your political lies should be allowed to disrespect them while no one else's should be allowed. I think that our dead soldiers should not be used to score to score points for* any* political opinion

_Your logic calls for more of the same.
Mine calls for ending the lies and those who get rich from them._

Bullshit. You just think your lies are more special than any one else's.

_It is not being disrespectful to vets to point out they died for a lie._ 

It is *deeply *disrespectful because they did* NOT* die for anybody's lie. They died trying to carry out the mission given them by their Country; not anybody's politics and you slander them when you claim otherwise.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dot Com said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing-out that that iraq was a voluntary colossal clusterfuck isn't about the troops. its about the ciivilian leadership that put them there old man. Meh, no getting through to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is about the troops.
> 
> You are telling everyone who fought there that they were there representing a lie, and that their friends who died died for no reason. You do not support the troops if you are telling them that they wasted their time and their lives, fighting in a colossal clusterfuck.
> 
> The fact that you don't get that is the entire problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ummm..... I'm a vet you dipshit.
Click to expand...


So am I? What's your point?



> The way to "honor" them is to get them out of that foreign policy catastrophe. 'Right' or 'wrong' rarely enters their mind unless the order is blatantly unlawful. BTW- you serve?


You claim the title of vet like it means something special, but you forget that the military is a culture of warriors. If you think they don't  care about right and wrong, and that the only time they ever think is a simple consideration of whether the order is lawful or not, you dishonor them. I am not even a warrior and I got more out of my time in the service than that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made you the decider?
> This thread is about WHY Americans died in Iraq.
> If you think that isn't about "politics", you're being disingenuous or you're trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who else can decide my opinion?
> ]
> _This thread is about WHY Americans died in Iraq_
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what I keep trying to remind you and others
> simply using this thread as a forum to present their personal views of politics and history and dramatically attempting to suggest that dead soldiers share their weird ass views. You have not attempted to address the question of *why they died*.
> 
> _If you think that isn't about "politics", you're being disingenuous or you're trolling._
> 
> Bullshit. The politics relates to why they were *sent*and not a thing about why they died. They died because they were sent to do a dangerous job and were killed trying to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Politics relates to exercising force against adversaries which includes launching wars of aggression in pursuit of private profit. If Americans who died in Iraq were influenced by the lies of those in politics who stood to profit from their deaths, you're reasoning is simply condemning the next generation of patriotic Americans to the same criminal fate as their parents and grandparents.
Click to expand...


That would only be true if the world was run by OmniCorp.

It isn't.


----------



## Dot Com

rw logic in this thread dictates that we should keep throwing troops into the meatgrinder AKA Iraq or it will disrespect those who already perished. You can't make this stuff up.  Iraq was NOT thought out, "We'll be greeted as liberators", "the war will pay for itself"  . You people have to be kidding me. This is going to cost a bundle when you add up all the VA bills for the next 40-50 yrs on top of the TRILLION or three the war has already cost. The zinger is- the results right now are mixed at best.


----------



## georgephillip

9thIDdoc said:


> _I never implied any politicians, liars or otherwise, died in Iraq_.
> 
> So? Who said you did?
> 
> _The politicians' lies disrespect every vet who ever served, and every citizen whose taxes paid for every war_.
> 
> I agree 100% and that's what I've been saying all along. The problem is that you seem to think that your political lies should be allowed to disrespect them while no one else's should be allowed. I think that our dead soldiers should not be used to score to score points for* any* political opinion
> 
> _Your logic calls for more of the same.
> Mine calls for ending the lies and those who get rich from them._
> 
> Bullshit. You just think your lies are more special than any one else's.
> 
> _It is not being disrespectful to vets to point out they died for a lie._
> 
> It is *deeply *disrespectful because they did* NOT* die for anybody's lie. They died trying to carry out the mission given them by their Country; not anybody's politics and you slander them when you claim otherwise.


Every US vet who's died in action since 1945 has died for a lie.
Since there are only two legitimate excuses for a legal war, imminent threat or UNSC authorization, every war waged by the US (with the possible exception of Korea) has been a lie based on the politics of greed.
You're being disrespectful to the vets to make apologies for those who get rich from their deaths and maiming.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

georgephillip said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I never implied any politicians, liars or otherwise, died in Iraq_.
> 
> So? Who said you did?
> 
> _The politicians' lies disrespect every vet who ever served, and every citizen whose taxes paid for every war_.
> 
> I agree 100% and that's what I've been saying all along. The problem is that you seem to think that your political lies should be allowed to disrespect them while no one else's should be allowed. I think that our dead soldiers should not be used to score to score points for* any* political opinion
> 
> _Your logic calls for more of the same.
> Mine calls for ending the lies and those who get rich from them._
> 
> Bullshit. You just think your lies are more special than any one else's.
> 
> _It is not being disrespectful to vets to point out they died for a lie._
> 
> It is *deeply *disrespectful because they did* NOT* die for anybody's lie. They died trying to carry out the mission given them by their Country; not anybody's politics and you slander them when you claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Every US vet who's died in action since 1945 has died for a lie.
> Since there are only two legitimate excuses for a legal war, imminent threat or UNSC authorization, every war waged by the US (with the possible exception of Korea) has been a lie based on the politics of greed.
> You're being disrespectful to the vets to make apologies for those who get rich from their deaths and maiming.
Click to expand...


And you are a serious asshole for disrespecting our dead.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dot Com said:


> rw logic in this thread dictates that we should keep throwing troops into the meatgrinder AKA Iraq or it will disrespect those who already perished. You can't make this stuff up.  Iraq was NOT thought out, "We'll be greeted as liberators", "the war will pay for itself"  . You people have to be kidding me. This is going to cost a bundle when you add up all the VA bills for the next 40-50 yrs on top of the TRILLION or three the war has already cost. The zinger is- the results right now are mixed at best.



Just no end to your political bullshit is there? Hope you choke on it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six pages of posts but yours nails it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why people think you don't support the troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stating that we went into war for no valid reason in no way disrespects the boots on the ground.
Click to expand...


I agree. 

Just the opposite has been true for a long time.

I get so sick of seeing the phony "we support our troops" stuff when, in fact, most people really do nothing at all. 

"Support" and "respect" means getting them home from wars that we had no business in, in the first place. It means getting them home in one piece and it means getting the mental and physical help they need to get back to their lives. And it means jobs and homes and not trashing the president and first and second ladies for trying to help that effort. Its sure as hell a lot more than the last prez and his dick veep ever did for them.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

georgephillip said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I never implied any politicians, liars or otherwise, died in Iraq_.
> 
> So? Who said you did?
> 
> _The politicians' lies disrespect every vet who ever served, and every citizen whose taxes paid for every war_.
> 
> I agree 100% and that's what I've been saying all along. The problem is that you seem to think that your political lies should be allowed to disrespect them while no one else's should be allowed. I think that our dead soldiers should not be used to score to score points for* any* political opinion
> 
> _Your logic calls for more of the same.
> Mine calls for ending the lies and those who get rich from them._
> 
> Bullshit. You just think your lies are more special than any one else's.
> 
> _It is not being disrespectful to vets to point out they died for a lie._
> 
> It is *deeply *disrespectful because they did* NOT* die for anybody's lie. They died trying to carry out the mission given them by their Country; not anybody's politics and you slander them when you claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Every US vet who's died in action since 1945 has died for a lie.
> Since there are only two legitimate excuses for a legal war, imminent threat or UNSC authorization, every war waged by the US (with the possible exception of Korea) has been a lie based on the politics of greed.
> You're being disrespectful to the vets to make apologies for those who get rich from their deaths and maiming.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

We don't got to war for principles for for freedom. 

These days, wars are fought for money and oil. And, most recently, its been the Bush dynasty that has made the most from their unholy alliance with the bin Ladens.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

9thIDdoc said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> rw logic in this thread dictates that we should keep throwing troops into the meatgrinder AKA Iraq or it will disrespect those who already perished. You can't make this stuff up.  Iraq was NOT thought out, "We'll be greeted as liberators", "the war will pay for itself"  . You people have to be kidding me. This is going to cost a bundle when you add up all the VA bills for the next 40-50 yrs on top of the TRILLION or three the war has already cost. The zinger is- the results right now are mixed at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just no end to your political bullshit is there? Hope you choke on it.
Click to expand...


What part of Dot Com's post is untrue?

Just because a young person loves his/her country and wants to serve doesn't mean we should allow politicians to use them up and throw them out like garbage.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Luddly Neddite said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> rw logic in this thread dictates that we should keep throwing troops into the meatgrinder AKA Iraq or it will disrespect those who already perished. You can't make this stuff up.  Iraq was NOT thought out, "We'll be greeted as liberators", "the war will pay for itself"  . You people have to be kidding me. This is going to cost a bundle when you add up all the VA bills for the next 40-50 yrs on top of the TRILLION or three the war has already cost. The zinger is- the results right now are mixed at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just no end to your political bullshit is there? Hope you choke on it.
> 
> ]
> 
> _Just because a young person loves his/her country and wants to serve doesn't mean we should allow politicians to use them up and throw them out like garbage_
> 
> Nor does it mean that we should allow their dead bodies be dishonored by bullshit political propagandists like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dot Com

talking to you is like talking to a wall. I'm done w/ this one.


----------



## Truthseeker420

9thIDdoc said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that died doing the job America sent them to do. You're just another asshole trying to make political points disrespecting our fallen. Shame on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's okay for you to  make political points "disrespecting our fallen"?  What is that called?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have said repeatedly it's not okay for *anyone *and I haven't done so and don't intend to.
Click to expand...


I'm confused, maybe you can explain why my criticism of Bush's Iraq war is "disrespecting our fallen" but your criticism of Obama over Benghazi is not...?


----------



## Truthseeker420

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJQS3eLSXgA]Dying Iraq War Veteran Tomas Young Reacts to George W. Bush Joke About Missing WMDs - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dot Com said:


> rw logic in this thread dictates that we should keep throwing troops into the meatgrinder AKA Iraq or it will disrespect those who already perished. You can't make this stuff up.  Iraq was NOT thought out, "We'll be greeted as liberators", "the war will pay for itself"  . You people have to be kidding me. This is going to cost a bundle when you add up all the VA bills for the next 40-50 yrs on top of the TRILLION or three the war has already cost. The zinger is- the results right now are mixed at best.



Right wing logic realizes that we already left Iraq.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> rw logic in this thread dictates that we should keep throwing troops into the meatgrinder AKA Iraq or it will disrespect those who already perished. You can't make this stuff up.  Iraq was NOT thought out, "We'll be greeted as liberators", "the war will pay for itself"  . You people have to be kidding me. This is going to cost a bundle when you add up all the VA bills for the next 40-50 yrs on top of the TRILLION or three the war has already cost. The zinger is- the results right now are mixed at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just no end to your political bullshit is there? Hope you choke on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of Dot Com's post is untrue?
> 
> Just because a young person loves his/her country and wants to serve doesn't mean we should allow politicians to use them up and throw them out like garbage.
Click to expand...



Did your all seeing eyes skip over the part where he is talking about still fighting in Iraq even though the war is over?


----------



## tinydancer

Delta4Embassy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as I and many others have been saying all along, if you fight for America now you're not fighting to protect American freedom, you're fighting to make corporations who supply everything used in wars, richer.
> 
> US hasn't had a justifiable war since 1812. If no one's invading the mainland US, stay out of it.
Click to expand...


Now this is just for fun. 

We canucks kicked your ass. You couldn't make it past Stoney Creek. And really just for fun do you know why the White House is called the White House?

Take no offense. I am a lover of history and have fun with it.


----------



## tinydancer

Why aren't progressives rioting in the streets now?

Odd. Bush gone wars just rocking on and no protests. Oh because a liberal is conducting the wars.


----------



## Publius1787

georgephillip said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> For thousands of years families as rich as Saddam's or Bush's have understood the value of and preyed upon the terror produced by threatening an opponent's children with death.
> 
> It seems likely to me Bush was settling a personal score with Saddam, although it's worth asking about the timing, at least.
> 
> According to Wesley Clark, he was told by another general on or about 20 September 2001 the Pentagon had already decided to invade Iraq.
> 
> This was not some "contingency" plan.
> The decision to invade had already been made.
> All that remained was the politic$ and $pin and profit$
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8FhZnFZ6TY]General Wesley Clark Tells 'Democracy Now' The Truth About Middle East And War On Iraq! - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD: 

 WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction. 

 MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically? 

 WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely. 

 MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings.  Where are all these weapons? 

 WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is.  People in Iraq do.  The scientists know some of it.  Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations.  There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this. 

     Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
     During an interview on CNN
     January 18, 2003 

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq 

CNN.com


----------



## gipper

tinydancer said:


> Why aren't progressives rioting in the streets now?
> 
> Odd. Bush gone wars just rocking on and no protests. Oh because a liberal is conducting the wars.



Of course you are right.  The hypocrisy of the Left is unlimited.  Amazingly many Americans fail to see that much of the MSM is a wholly owned department of the D Party.

Remember how the media breathlessly reported the number of American deaths in the stupid and worthless war in Iraq EVERY day, but we heard nothing similar when deaths spiked in Afghanshitland under BO's surge?


----------



## gipper

Publius1787 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> For thousands of years families as rich as Saddam's or Bush's have understood the value of and preyed upon the terror produced by threatening an opponent's children with death.
> 
> It seems likely to me Bush was settling a personal score with Saddam, although it's worth asking about the timing, at least.
> 
> According to Wesley Clark, he was told by another general on or about 20 September 2001 the Pentagon had already decided to invade Iraq.
> 
> This was not some "contingency" plan.
> The decision to invade had already been made.
> All that remained was the politic$ and $pin and profit$
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8FhZnFZ6TY]General Wesley Clark Tells 'Democracy Now' The Truth About Middle East And War On Iraq! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:
> 
> WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?
> 
> WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
> 
> MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings.  Where are all these weapons?
> 
> WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is.  People in Iraq do.  The scientists know some of it.  Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations.  There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.
> 
> Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
> During an interview on CNN
> January 18, 2003
> 
> Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq
> 
> CNN.com
Click to expand...


That is conveniently forgotten by those on the Left...like so many things.


----------



## Publius1787

gipper said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> For thousands of years families as rich as Saddam's or Bush's have understood the value of and preyed upon the terror produced by threatening an opponent's children with death.
> 
> It seems likely to me Bush was settling a personal score with Saddam, although it's worth asking about the timing, at least.
> 
> According to Wesley Clark, he was told by another general on or about 20 September 2001 the Pentagon had already decided to invade Iraq.
> 
> This was not some "contingency" plan.
> The decision to invade had already been made.
> All that remained was the politic$ and $pin and profit$
> 
> General Wesley Clark Tells 'Democracy Now' The Truth About Middle East And War On Iraq! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:
> 
> WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?
> 
> WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
> 
> MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings.  Where are all these weapons?
> 
> WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is.  People in Iraq do.  The scientists know some of it.  Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations.  There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.
> 
> Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
> During an interview on CNN
> January 18, 2003
> 
> Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq
> 
> CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is conveniently forgotten by those on the Left...like so many things.
Click to expand...


Like so many things >>> Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq


----------



## georgephillip

Publius1787 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my take on why we went to Iraq. Call me crazy but I strongly believe it was a personal vendetta. If you'll recall, old man Bush was in Saudi Arabia in 1993 and a plot to kill him was uncovered and it was determined Saddam was behind it. Fast forward to 2003. We're chugging along on the war on terror, focused on Afghanistan, and out of the clear blue sky Bush does a 180 and it's all about Saddam and his WMD's. No one was convinced America was in danger, so why invade? I strongly believe that Bush was saying to Saddam "you tried to kill my Daddy and now I'm going to kill your sons in front of your eyes and then I'm going to hang you". Can anyone deny this happened? I also believe that every American who died or was maimed in Iraq has been a despicable waste of American treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> For thousands of years families as rich as Saddam's or Bush's have understood the value of and preyed upon the terror produced by threatening an opponent's children with death.
> 
> It seems likely to me Bush was settling a personal score with Saddam, although it's worth asking about the timing, at least.
> 
> According to Wesley Clark, he was told by another general on or about 20 September 2001 the Pentagon had already decided to invade Iraq.
> 
> This was not some "contingency" plan.
> The decision to invade had already been made.
> All that remained was the politic$ and $pin and profit$
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8FhZnFZ6TY]General Wesley Clark Tells 'Democracy Now' The Truth About Middle East And War On Iraq! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:
> 
> WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?
> 
> WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
> 
> MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings.  Where are all these weapons?
> 
> WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is.  People in Iraq do.  The scientists know some of it.  Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations.  There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.
> 
> Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
> During an interview on CNN
> January 18, 2003
> 
> Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq
> 
> CNN.com
Click to expand...

Clark and most of his fellow Democrats did their part to weaken Saddam during the 90s with sanctions and "no fly zones." I suspect Wesley had some strategic investments that paid off well with the fall of Baghdad; he was certainly aware of his upcoming new book scheduled for release in March of 2003

At the time Clark gave the CNN interview, he was also aware of US plans to topple Saddam and then enact regime change in six more Muslim states over the next five years.

Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran.

Imagine how many more books We$ley would have sold if he had dropped that bombshell in January of 2003?


----------



## tinydancer

Don't you think it odd that now out of the blue Syria has WMD's?  Basically all the shit Sadamm was using but the libs against Bush didn't think they were good enough to be called WMD?s


----------



## Truthseeker420

tinydancer said:


> Why aren't progressives rioting in the streets now?
> 
> Odd. Bush gone wars just rocking on and no protests. Oh because a liberal is conducting the wars.



We pulled out of Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. What would they riot about?


----------



## georgephillip

Truthseeker420 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't progressives rioting in the streets now?
> 
> Odd. Bush gone wars just rocking on and no protests. Oh because a liberal is conducting the wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We pulled out of Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. What would they riot about?
Click to expand...

"US drone strikes make news every day, fostering worldwide outrage and public scrutiny. 

"The drone has become an icon of US lethality and dominance, and it has understandably become a principal focus of our antiwar effort.

"But recent controversial revelations about presidential-approved 'kill lists,' used to identify targets for drone assassinations, suggest a broader scope for our opposition. US assassination and targeted killing, with presidential approval, has been going on covertly for at least half a century, and continues to this day, both with and without drones. 

"Drone strikes may be merely the most visible portion of a wider, global program of US targeted killing, 'a covert side to the Global War on Terrorism that is not visible and not currently knowable.'[1] 

Is It the Drones or the Killings We Oppose? | Rochester Against War


----------



## 9thIDdoc

This thread should be moved to politics or history where it belongs.


----------



## tinydancer

Truthseeker420 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't progressives rioting in the streets now?
> 
> Odd. Bush gone wars just rocking on and no protests. Oh because a liberal is conducting the wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We pulled out of Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. What would they riot about?
Click to expand...


Who made the time line on Iraq? and Obama has killed more  American service men iand women n Afghanistan than anyone else.

Oh and the biggie. You are killing so many people who are innocent in your drone programs. 

Why don't you care liberal? Oh because it's a progressive killing innocent people. 

Hush. Say no more.  No marching. No protesting. It's our side killing people. YAY!!!!! It's ok for you when your progressive president drone kills 20 plus people at a wedding party.

Fucking hypocrites.


----------



## gipper

tinydancer said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't progressives rioting in the streets now?
> 
> Odd. Bush gone wars just rocking on and no protests. Oh because a liberal is conducting the wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We pulled out of Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. What would they riot about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who made the time line on Iraq? and Obama has killed more  American service men iand women n Afghanistan than anyone else.
> 
> Oh and the biggie. You are killing so many people who are innocent in your drone programs.
> 
> Why don't you care liberal? Oh because it's a progressive killing innocent people.
> 
> Hush. Say no more.  No marching. No protesting. It's our side killing people. YAY!!!!! It's ok for you when your progressive president drone kills 20 plus people at a wedding party.
> 
> Fucking hypocrites.
Click to expand...


Imagine what liberals, the Left media, and the D party would be doing if BO were an R.  I bet impeachment proceedings would be going on right now over his many scandals.

And.....the MSM and Ds would be screaming daily about the millions of unemployed and underemployed, the poor staving, the rich getting richer, too big to fail banks bigger than ever, the soaring national debt, middle class and working poor incomes falling, Americans living under bridges, political corruption and cronyism, lack of transparency, failed green policies, power grabs....


----------



## Politico

*Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*

Because they signed up.


----------



## georgephillip

9thIDdoc said:


> This thread should be moved to politics or history where it belongs.


Vets in all wars die for politics.
Every single US war since WWII has been driven by political economic motives against an "enemy" that posed no threat whatever to the US homeland.
Your emotional reaction to the deaths/maimings suffered by those who fought the wars borders on the irrational and only guarantees a repeat of the war crimes.


----------



## SayMyName

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



The politics aside, in this day and age, Americans choose to soldier. It is still  an honorable and highly rewarding profession to serve the United States of America and its ideas, though as of the last decade or so we might have fallen short in many areas.

Though I question the policy of going to war in Iraq by George W. Bush, and even believe he lied through his teeth over and over again, let alone, not finishing the job, none  of the soldiers that died there did so in vain.

They were American soldiers, and kept to their oath of service. That includes following the orders of the Commander in Chief. They did that.

They served thus, honorably.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

georgephillip said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread should be moved to politics or history where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> Vets in all wars die for politics.
> Every single US war since WWII has been driven by political economic motives against an "enemy" that posed no threat whatever to the US homeland.
> Your emotional reaction to the deaths/maimings suffered by those who fought the wars borders on the irrational and only guarantees a repeat of the war crimes.
Click to expand...


_Vets in all wars die for politics_

Bullshit. That's a lie and a nasty, disrespectful, one at that. What motivates countries or other groups to fight wars is an entirely different subject than what individual people die for. What makes you arrogant enough to claim you know for a fact what anyone anywhere died for much less whole groups of them? Do you claim that you were there and reading their minds when they were killed in action or died later as a result of wounds?

_"Every single US war since WWII has been driven by political economic motives..."_

Wrong. Political and economic considerations are always a part of *all *wars including those fought before and after WWII. 

_"... against an "enemy" that posed no threat whatever to the US homeland."_

Untrue and entirely beside the point in any case. "Protecting the homeland" is not-and never has been- the only valid reason for fighting a war. And I have to wonder why you don't seen to consider New York and the pentagon part of the homeland.

What do you know about "war crimes"? Obviously nothing but what appeals to your vivid close minded imagination.
I have every hope that you are not a US citizen. If you are you deserve to have your citizenship revoked.


----------



## Bumberclyde

*Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*

Worst leaders in the history of the US.


----------



## MaryL

I respect the uniform, but not the politicians /politics that have put our armed forces in harms way since Vietnam. Artificial wars and ill thought out consequences. Maybe we better start looking harder at ourselves for voting in these creeps that so lightly waste  our children's lives  and national treasure for fleeting political causes. The fault lay in ourselves.


----------



## Dot Com

MaryL said:


> I respect the uniform, but not the politicians /politics that have put our armed forces in harms way since Vietnam. Artificial wars and ill thought out consequences. Maybe we better start looking harder at ourselves for voting in these creeps that so lightly waste  our children's lives  and national treasure for fleeting political causes. The fault lay in ourselves.



especially repubs who's cash cow is  the pentagon & its contractors. See: Duke Cunningham (R)


----------



## georgephillip

MaryL said:


> I respect the uniform, but not the politicians /politics that have put our armed forces in harms way since Vietnam. Artificial wars and ill thought out consequences. Maybe we better start looking harder at ourselves for voting in these creeps that so lightly waste  our children's lives  and national treasure for fleeting political causes. The fault lay in ourselves.


US voters whose ballots contain candidates from established third parties running for House and Senate seats have the option of voting against Republicans AND Democrats. 

Internet and social networking make it possible to convince millions of eligible voters who don't see the difference between the two major parties to get involved and FLUSH the DC Toilet next November.

Should dozens (hundreds?) of congressional incumbents from both parties lose their seats in a single news cycle, the rich in the US will get a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.


----------



## Dot Com

georgephillip said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect the uniform, but not the politicians /politics that have put our armed forces in harms way since Vietnam. Artificial wars and ill thought out consequences. Maybe we better start looking harder at ourselves for voting in these creeps that so lightly waste  our children's lives  and national treasure for fleeting political causes. The fault lay in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> US voters whose ballots contain candidates from established third parties running for House and Senate seats have the option of voting against Republicans AND Democrats.
> 
> Internet and social networking make it possible to convince millions of eligible voters who don't see the difference between the two major parties to get involved and FLUSH the DC Toilet next November.
> 
> Should dozens (hundreds?) of congressional incumbents from both parties lose their seats in a single news cycle, the rich in the US will get a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.
Click to expand...


I would like nothing more than to see both parties flushed if the people could wake up from their controlled-opposition slumber.


----------



## jasonnfree

eflatminor said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we've not incurred far more debt under Obama...not at all.  He just HAD to spend more money than all previous administrations...'cuz of Bush
> 
> And those "cronies"...would they include the Democrat controlled House and Senate Bush dealt with during several years of his presidency???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep...I too am just as pissed off at the 82 Democratic House members and the 29 Senators that voted to go to war in Iraq...every bit as much as the Republicans that voted for it.
> 
> What was it you said..."unforgivable"?  Or are they forgiven because everything is Bush's fault???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was it not the Republicans that recently put forth a bill to NOT cut military pensions...a vote that was put down by the Dems in favor of maintaining benefits to illegals?
> 
> Why yes it was.
> 
> Point being, I too despise the debts and wars incurred by the central planners, but I'm mature enough to realize that both parties are at fault.  Your bias is so overwhelming, you can't see reality.  For once, you might consider not sucking a the Democratic tit.  You'll realize it's both parties that are to blame for what you claim to hate.
Click to expand...


Incurred far more debt under Obama and yet he's considered a small spender compared to other presidents.    So what then was all that debt incurred under Obama spent on?   Costs incurred from previous administrations are certainly part of the spending.   Just asking.


----------



## jasonnfree

9thIDdoc said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread should be moved to politics or history where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> Vets in all wars die for politics.
> Every single US war since WWII has been driven by political economic motives against an "enemy" that posed no threat whatever to the US homeland.
> Your emotional reaction to the deaths/maimings suffered by those who fought the wars borders on the irrational and only guarantees a repeat of the war crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Vets in all wars die for politics_
> 
> Bullshit. That's a lie and a nasty, disrespectful, one at that. What motivates countries or other groups to fight wars is an entirely different subject than what individual people die for. What makes you arrogant enough to claim you know for a fact what anyone anywhere died for much less whole groups of them? Do you claim that you were there and reading their minds when they were killed in action or died later as a result of wounds?
> 
> _"Every single US war since WWII has been driven by political economic motives..."_
> 
> Wrong. Political and economic considerations are always a part of *all *wars including those fought before and after WWII.
> 
> _"... against an "enemy" that posed no threat whatever to the US homeland."_
> 
> Untrue and entirely beside the point in any case. "Protecting the homeland" is not-and never has been- the only valid reason for fighting a war. And I have to wonder why you don't seen to consider New York and the pentagon part of the homeland.
> 
> What do you know about "war crimes"? Obviously nothing but what appeals to your vivid close minded imagination.
> I have every hope that you are not a US citizen. If you are you deserve to have your citizenship revoked.
Click to expand...


He tells the truth about every war since WW2.  Our middle east problem is about profits for oil companies who use the US military and CIA for protection because they're too cheap to hire their own mercenaries.  This goes back to at least early 50's.


----------



## Dot Com

jasonnfree said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we've not incurred far more debt under Obama...not at all.  He just HAD to spend more money than all previous administrations...'cuz of Bush
> 
> And those "cronies"...would they include the Democrat controlled House and Senate Bush dealt with during several years of his presidency???
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...I too am just as pissed off at the 82 Democratic House members and the 29 Senators that voted to go to war in Iraq...every bit as much as the Republicans that voted for it.
> 
> What was it you said..."unforgivable"?  Or are they forgiven because everything is Bush's fault???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was it not the Republicans that recently put forth a bill to NOT cut military pensions...a vote that was put down by the Dems in favor of maintaining benefits to illegals?
> 
> Why yes it was.
> 
> Point being, I too despise the debts and wars incurred by the central planners, but I'm mature enough to realize that both parties are at fault.  Your bias is so overwhelming, you can't see reality.  For once, you might consider not sucking a the Democratic tit.  You'll realize it's both parties that are to blame for what you claim to hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incurred far more debt under Obama and yet he's considered a small spender compared to other presidents.    So what then was all that debt incurred under Obama spent on?   Costs incurred from previous administrations are certainly part of the spending.   Just asking.
Click to expand...


----------



## MaryL

For naught. Like all those kids names  written on a wall written an a wall  in DC, 52,000 of them. Reminds me so much of a poem by  Colonel J. McCrea: &#8220;In Flanders Fields&#8217; written a short 100 years ago.  Not feeling to sentimental about  contractors or Halliburton. Military industrial complex  gone amuck. Where have we gone wrong here?  Just a rhetorical question.


----------



## whitehall

The negligence of WW2 touched just about every family in the United States. Ten times more Americans were killed or captured in the first four months of WW2 than the entire Iraq mission. Shame on left wingers who have taken a legitimate congress authorized mission and turned it into a political issue.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

whitehall said:


> The negligence of WW2 touched just about every family in the United States. Ten times more Americans were killed or captured in the first four months of WW2 than the entire Iraq mission. Shame on left wingers who have taken a legitimate congress authorized mission and turned it into a political issue.



Shame on cowardly rw's trying to change the topic of this thread.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

MaryL said:


> For naught. Like all those kids names  written on a wall written an a wall  in DC, 52,000 of them. Reminds me so much of a poem by  Colonel J. McCrea: In Flanders Fields written a short 100 years ago.  Not feeling to sentimental about  contractors or Halliburton. Military industrial complex  gone amuck. Where have we gone wrong here?  Just a rhetorical question.



We will have made true progress and true evolution when we finally realize that war is our real and true enemy.


----------



## Zona

iamwhatiseem said:


> What do you mean vets have to fight for every crumb?????
> Obama has been President for 5 years...he hasn't fixed this???



Its going to take a lot longer than 8 years to fix that Bush mess.  We almost had another depression because of Bush and Iraq.  A freaking depression yet the right still, to this day defends him.

They are sick.


----------



## whitehall

Luddly Neddite said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The negligence of WW2 touched just about every family in the United States. Ten times more Americans were killed or captured in the first four months of WW2 than the entire Iraq mission. Shame on left wingers who have taken a legitimate congress authorized mission and turned it into a political issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on cowardly rw's trying to change the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...


What is the topic again?


----------



## Zona

longknife said:


> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.



During the entire time Bush was in office did you mention us being in Iraq was wrong?  Once?  Ever? 

Ever?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Luddly Neddite said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The negligence of WW2 touched just about every family in the United States. Ten times more Americans were killed or captured in the first four months of WW2 than the entire Iraq mission. Shame on left wingers who have taken a legitimate congress authorized mission and turned it into a political issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on cowardly rw's trying to change the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...


And shame on you for slandering our dead.


----------



## georgephillip

Dot Com said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect the uniform, but not the politicians /politics that have put our armed forces in harms way since Vietnam. Artificial wars and ill thought out consequences. Maybe we better start looking harder at ourselves for voting in these creeps that so lightly waste  our children's lives  and national treasure for fleeting political causes. The fault lay in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> US voters whose ballots contain candidates from established third parties running for House and Senate seats have the option of voting against Republicans AND Democrats.
> 
> Internet and social networking make it possible to convince millions of eligible voters who don't see the difference between the two major parties to get involved and FLUSH the DC Toilet next November.
> 
> Should dozens (hundreds?) of congressional incumbents from both parties lose their seats in a single news cycle, the rich in the US will get a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like nothing more than to see both parties flushed if the people could wake up from their controlled-opposition slumber.
Click to expand...

It's an old idea, sometimes known as the "anti-vote", where incumbents from both major parties are FLUSHED from DC simultaneously. There was no practical way of accomplishing this prior to cyberspace; today, we no longer have that excuse. Possibly, the next major financial crisis will provide the incentive to wake the hell up (before it's too late)


----------



## gipper

georgephillip said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> US voters whose ballots contain candidates from established third parties running for House and Senate seats have the option of voting against Republicans AND Democrats.
> 
> Internet and social networking make it possible to convince millions of eligible voters who don't see the difference between the two major parties to get involved and FLUSH the DC Toilet next November.
> 
> Should dozens (hundreds?) of congressional incumbents from both parties lose their seats in a single news cycle, the rich in the US will get a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like nothing more than to see both parties flushed if the people could wake up from their controlled-opposition slumber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an old idea, sometimes known as the "anti-vote", where incumbents from both major parties are FLUSHED from DC simultaneously. There was no practical way of accomplishing this prior to cyberspace; today, we no longer have that excuse. Possibly, the next major financial crisis will provide the incentive to wake the hell up (before it's too late)
Click to expand...

 
That would great!  Dumping both parties is the answer.  

When will Americans wake up to the fact that the so called two party system, is real a one party system..designed for the benefit of government and the two parties.


----------



## Dot Com

whitehall said:


> The negligence of WW2 touched just about every family in the United States. Ten times more Americans were killed or captured in the first four months of WW2 than the entire Iraq mission. Shame on left wingers who have taken a legitimate *congress authorized mission* and turned it into a political issue.



"congress authorized mission" BASED ON FLAWED INTEL. Glad to help 

Ever heard of Doug Feith & what he did in the Bush II admin? Serious question.

If you haven't, then you're ill-equipped for this discussion.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?

Could it be that they were shot at for being invaders?


----------



## HenryBHough

If they died before 2009 they died because the regime was too weak-kneed to simply have nuked Hussein back into the stone age.

If they "died" _after 2009_ you're hallucinating because no American could possibly have died in Iraq because The New Messiah brought everyone safely home - exactly as He promised.

Didn't He?


----------



## MaryL

whitehall said:


> The negligence of WW2 touched just about every family in the United States. Ten times more Americans were killed or captured in the first four months of WW2 than the entire Iraq mission. Shame on left wingers who have taken a legitimate congress authorized mission and turned it into a political issue.



WWII was a matter of survival. We were pushed into war then. I was touched by that war. But, Every war since, America has been involved in since has been a disaster. Operation Desert storm, I saw it coming months before Sadam invaded Kuwait. I dont have precognition. I had my eyes wide open in 89-90 and saw the changes in the military garb, camouflage and stepped up shipments of military vehicles of all sorts being shipped on rail cars to the west coast. And, the fact that Sadam practically asked our ambassador in Kuwait permission to invade, and the Bush admin. "just didn't get the hint". Yeah. Right.  But the blowback from that was Al queda  attacking the US on 9/11, (we were offending Bin laden & Muslims by using Saudi Arabia as a base to stage the attack on Iraq) perhaps  this is better on the conspiracy board, I know. All of this is so preposterous .  Fast forward, 2003, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and if the Bush  II Admin.  had just  a little more patience and waited to CONFIRM  that, we wouldnt  be in this mess now. Foresight is one thing. Liberalism another. This is just plain  old  observational reasoning.  But here we are in 14. We lost trillions of dollars and thousands of  lives, both  Iraqi civilians  and  US military,  let alone our prestige,  for naught.


----------



## HenryBHough

Imagine how bad Obama's unemployment problem would be today had not those thousands died in Iraq!  But does he thank Bush????

Nooooooo........

He just shows the most sincere form of approval by imitating him.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

HenryBHough said:


> If they died before 2009 they died because the regime was too weak-kneed to simply have nuked Hussein back into the stone age.
> 
> If they "died" _after 2009_ you're hallucinating because no American could possibly have died in Iraq because The New Messiah brought everyone safely home - exactly as He promised.
> 
> Didn't He?



Why do the brainless say we should 'nuke stone age societies back to the stone age' when actually, they still live in the stone age?

Its such a DUMB thing to say.


----------



## HenryBHough

Who said anything about allowing any to "live"?


----------



## Dot Com

MaryL said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The negligence of WW2 touched just about every family in the United States. Ten times more Americans were killed or captured in the first four months of WW2 than the entire Iraq mission. Shame on left wingers who have taken a legitimate congress authorized mission and turned it into a political issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WWII was a matter of survival. We were pushed into war then. I was touched by that war. But, Every war since, America has been involved in since has been a disaster. Operation Desert storm, I saw it coming months before Sadam invaded Kuwait. I dont have precognition. I had my eyes wide open in 89-90 and saw the changes in the military garb, camouflage and stepped up shipments of military vehicles of all sorts being shipped on rail cars to the west coast. And, the fact that Sadam practically asked our ambassador in Kuwait permission to invade, and the Bush admin. "just didn't get the hint". Yeah. Right.  But the blowback from that was Al queda  attacking the US on 9/11, (we were offending Bin laden & Muslims by using Saudi Arabia as a base to stage the attack on Iraq) perhaps  this is better on the conspiracy board, I know. All of this is so preposterous .  Fast forward, 2003, there were no weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq, and if the Bush  II Admin.  had just  a little more patience and waited to CONFIRM  that, we wouldnt  be in this mess now. Foresight is one thing. Liberalism another. This is just plain observational reasoning.  But here we are in 14. We lost trillions of dollars and thousands of  lives, our pre both civilian and military, for naught.
Click to expand...


yep. they are punishing their religious minorities and are buddying-up w/ Syria & Iran. 

Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> It has a mixed Shia and Sunni population. Most sources estimate that around 65% of Muslims in Iraq are Shia, and around 35% are Sunni.



Iraq troops arrest leading Sunni MP in violent raid | Reuters


----------



## Luddly Neddite

HenryBHough said:


> Imagine how bad Obama's unemployment problem would be today had not those thousands died in Iraq!  But does he thank Bush????
> 
> Nooooooo........
> 
> He just shows the most sincere form of approval by imitating him.



Even you know that George W destroyed jobs and President Obama creates jobs. 

Post proof that its not true.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

HenryBHough said:


> Who said anything about allowing any to "live"?



Yabut, Bush had to leave office before he could kill all Iraqis and all American's.


----------



## HenryBHough

All "American's" what?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

HenryBHough said:


> All "American's" what?



Learn to use the quote function.






And, have a nice evening.


















idiot















.


----------



## HenryBHough

Luddly Neddite said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> All "American's" what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to use the quote function.
Click to expand...


About the same time you learn the difference between "Americans" and "American's".

So I reiterate the HARD question:  "American's WHAT"?


----------



## Dot Com

are there many more like you in Oak Grove?


----------



## HenryBHough

Dot Com said:


> are there many more like you in Oak Grove?



Come see for yourself.  Admission is free.  It's leaving that's sometimes a little difficult.


----------



## bianco

_Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?  _

#####

Because they joined the military/National Guard...voluntarily.
...and put themselves in the hands of the federal govt.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Is there anything more hypocritical than using our fallen troops as a soapbox to denounce politicians while spouting your own brand of political propaganda? Is there anything more disrespectful short of actually pissing on their graves? I don't think so.


----------



## Bumberclyde

9thIDdoc said:


> Is there anything more hypocritical than using our fallen troops as a soapbox to denounce politicians while spouting your own brand of political propaganda? *Is there anything more disrespectful short of actually pissing on their graves?* I don't think so.



Digging them up and THEN pissing on them?


----------



## georgephillip

9thIDdoc said:


> Is there anything more hypocritical than using our fallen troops as a soapbox to denounce politicians while spouting your own brand of political propaganda? Is there anything more disrespectful short of actually pissing on their graves? I don't think so.


*What's worse than hypocrites pissing on dead vets?
Corporate tools who ignore the political economics of war which is designed to consign the next generation of vets to even greater disrespect:*

"Confusion is 'monumental'

"The Department of Veterans Affairs said it is on track to process 1 million disability claims this year.

"With the war in Iraq over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, the VA is sorting through a backlog of more than 860,000 disability claims from American veterans. More than a quarter of those vets -- 228,000 -- have been waiting for a year or more."

Hundreds of thousands of war vets still waiting for health benefits - CNN.com


----------



## Dot Com

one reason Iraq was/is a clusterf*ck is that it wasn't properly thought out. Even OBL said the reason he went apeshit was because non-muslim troops were stationed in Saudi. So what does Bush II/Cheny/Kristol(google: PNAC)/& the other assorted neocons do? Put 1/2 million non-muslim troops in Iraq. 

How's that workin out?


----------



## georgephillip

Dot Com said:


> one reason Iraq was/is a clusterf*ck is that it wasn't properly thought out. Even OBL said the reason he went apeshit was because non-muslim troops were stationed in Saudi. So what does Bush II/Cheny/Kristol(google: PNAC)/& the other assorted neocons do? Put 1/2 million non-muslim troops in Iraq.
> 
> How's that workin out?


The only thing worse than believing Iraq wasn't carefully thought out is considering the possibility its invasion was the first step in a very carefully constructed design seeking to overthrow regimes in seven Muslim states in five years.

Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran were scheduled for regime change since November of 2001 if you believe Wesley Clark.

Perhaps Obama's slip up in Syria will derail the overall plan to redraw the borders of a New Middle East, but I wouldn't bet my childrens' freedom on it (if I had any)


----------



## protectionist

longknife said:


> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.



I'm 100% in favor of defending our borders, but it doesn't help to defend your borders if your get nuclear warheads raining down on you.  And sometimes you have to go overseas to keep that from happening.  Like now in 2014.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_It has a mixed Shia and Sunni population. Most sources estimate that around 65% of Muslims in Iraq are Shia, and around 35% are Sunni._

Kill 'em all. Let Allah sort 'em out!


----------



## 9thIDdoc

I just love the weighty opinions about war based on having seen a war movie once.


----------



## georgephillip

protectionist said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 100% in favor of defending our borders, but it doesn't help to defend your borders if your get nuclear warheads raining down on you.  And sometimes you have to go overseas to keep that from happening.  Like now in 2014.
Click to expand...

*I notice you used the plural of warhead.
Is this what you meant?*

"According to the Federation of American Scientists, an organization that assesses nuclear weapon stockpiles, in 2013, Russia possessed an estimated 8,500 total nuclear warheads of which 1,800 were strategically operational.[2] The organization also claims that the U.S. had an estimated total 7,700 nuclear warheads of which 1,950 were strategically operational."

*If the US doesn't stop destabilizing the Middle East and Eurasia, we might get a red rain.*

Russia and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kinte

You can blame a lot of this mess on the messiah and Congress. I wouldn't be surprised if Barry made an executive order to stop all veterans benefits, period!


----------



## Dot Com

^ you have a grand total of 5 posts here and you're already referring to the President as "Barry"?  rw much?


----------



## protectionist

georgephillip said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 100% in favor of defending our borders, but it doesn't help to defend your borders if your get nuclear warheads raining down on you.  And sometimes you have to go overseas to keep that from happening.  Like now in 2014.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I notice you used the plural of warhead.
> Is this what you meant?*
> 
> "According to the Federation of American Scientists, an organization that assesses nuclear weapon stockpiles, in 2013, Russia possessed an estimated 8,500 total nuclear warheads of which 1,800 were strategically operational.[2] The organization also claims that the U.S. had an estimated total 7,700 nuclear warheads of which 1,950 were strategically operational."
> 
> *If the US doesn't stop destabilizing the Middle East and Eurasia, we might get a red rain.*
> 
> Russia and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


No, that has nothing to do with what I meant.  I was referring to the 100+ nuclear warheads in Pakistan, and the many more that lunatic groups like al Qaeda could buy, is they assume power in Iraq, and acquire all its oil wealth.


----------



## Bumberclyde

protectionist said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 100% in favor of defending our borders, but it doesn't help to defend your borders if your get nuclear warheads raining down on you.  And sometimes you have to go overseas to keep that from happening.  Like now in 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> *I notice you used the plural of warhead.
> Is this what you meant?*
> 
> "According to the Federation of American Scientists, an organization that assesses nuclear weapon stockpiles, in 2013, Russia possessed an estimated 8,500 total nuclear warheads of which 1,800 were strategically operational.[2] The organization also claims that the U.S. had an estimated total 7,700 nuclear warheads of which 1,950 were strategically operational."
> 
> *If the US doesn't stop destabilizing the Middle East and Eurasia, we might get a red rain.*
> 
> Russia and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that has nothing to do with what I meant.  I was referring to the 100+ nuclear warheads in Pakistan, and the many more that lunatic groups like al Qaeda could buy, is they assume power in Iraq, and acquire all its oil wealth.
Click to expand...


Just think of the upside, the US would have a good reason to do its favorite thing and invade a country, destroy it, and take it over, then leave. Repeat as needed.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Kinte said:


> You can blame a lot of this mess on the messiah and Congress. I wouldn't be surprised if Barry made an executive order to stop all veterans benefits, period!



Hey Kunta, republicans have to take some responsibility for what Barry's doing, after all, you had a guy in magic underwear running against him in the last election. Wtf did you expect?


----------



## georgephillip

protectionist said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 100% in favor of defending our borders, but it doesn't help to defend your borders if your get nuclear warheads raining down on you.  And sometimes you have to go overseas to keep that from happening.  Like now in 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> *I notice you used the plural of warhead.
> Is this what you meant?*
> 
> "According to the Federation of American Scientists, an organization that assesses nuclear weapon stockpiles, in 2013, Russia possessed an estimated 8,500 total nuclear warheads of which 1,800 were strategically operational.[2] The organization also claims that the U.S. had an estimated total 7,700 nuclear warheads of which 1,950 were strategically operational."
> 
> *If the US doesn't stop destabilizing the Middle East and Eurasia, we might get a red rain.*
> 
> Russia and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that has nothing to do with what I meant.  I was referring to the 100+ nuclear warheads in Pakistan, and the many more that lunatic groups like al Qaeda could buy, is they assume power in Iraq, and acquire all its oil wealth.
Click to expand...

*If Iraq fragments into three sub-states like some are predicting with a Sh'ia statelet alongside Iran separated by a Baghdad city-state and a Sunni Iraq next to Syria, al-Qa'ida might have enough oil wealth to buy black market nukes; however, Pakistan would seem to have more to gain from maintaining "friendly" relations with the US:*

"In support of United States invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan armed forces received a huge military aid, financial funding, and training from the United States Armed Forces. 

"According to the Ministry of Finance calculations, in the three years before the attacks of 11 September, Pakistan received approximately $9 million in American military aid. 

"In the three years after, the number increased to $4.2 billion.

"Pakistan has maintained a strong militarytomilitary relations with the comprised 28-states military alliance, called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).[42] 

"NATO regards military relations with Pakistan as 'partners across the globe.'[42] 

"Lobbied and with a support provided by United States Secretary of State, General (retired) Collin Powell, Pakistan is designated as 'Major non-NATO ally' as of 2004.[43][44][45][46] 

"One of the important country in NATO, France, has maintained crucial military relations with Pakistan armed forces, including in selling its submarine technology to Pakistan Navy and jet propulsion technology to Pakistan Air Force in last decades.[citation needed]

Pakistan Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bayoubill

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



so how 'bout, while you're at it, you get cranked up about LBJ...?


----------



## Bumberclyde

*Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*

100% of the people who didn't go to Iraq survived. There's your clue.


----------



## thanatos144

longknife said:


> You all know I'm a 22+ years vet. So, this may come as a surprise - I totally agree with Ron Paul that we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other counties. We were wrong to get involved in Vietnam and could've avoided it if only we'd treated Ho Chi Minh correcting during WII. We have no business in Kosovo, Croatia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We certainly have no business getting involved in Africa - which out Bumbler-in-Chief is getting us into.
> 
> I also believe we should stop all foreign military aid. If countries want to obtain our military equipment, let them pay for them out of their own funds.
> 
> Spend all that money to defend our own borders and use it to deal with many of the problems we face here in the USA.


and when the next world war starts?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

What makes anyone think will be at an end to wars anytime soon? Are the Islamics showing any sign of stopping their jehads? The only way one side can end a war is if they surrender. That ain't gonna happen even if that's what the Idiot in Chief has planned.


----------



## Bumberclyde

*Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*

The US didn't use nukes. They destroyed the country anyways, so might as well have nuked Bagdad, when Saddam and his boys were at home. Instant end of the war.


----------



## Bumberclyde

9thIDdoc said:


> What makes anyone think will be at an end to wars anytime soon? Are the Islamics showing any sign of stopping their jehads? The only way one side can end a war is if they surrender. That ain't gonna happen even if that's what the Idiot in Chief has planned.



I dunno, but have you tried to like... um... stop attacking them first?


----------



## thanatos144

Bumberclyde said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes anyone think will be at an end to wars anytime soon? Are the Islamics showing any sign of stopping their jehads? The only way one side can end a war is if they surrender. That ain't gonna happen even if that's what the Idiot in Chief has planned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, but have you tried to like... um... stop attacking them first?
Click to expand...


Why dont you be the first to go over them and tell them this and give them a giant hus while your at it......Tell us how you get along with the terrorists


----------



## TooTall

JakeStarkey said:


> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *
> 
> Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.



Was it because of these two 'neo-conservatives'?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
   - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source


----------



## eflatminor

TooTall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *
> 
> Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it because of these two 'neo-conservatives'?
> 
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
Click to expand...


But, but, but...

Does not compute, does not compute.


----------



## MaryL

53000 American servicemen  lost their lives in Vietnam. For what? Do any of you think  our involvement in Iraq was any different? I hope they all died for something, but I sure as hell don't know what that may have been. I know what they said it was for...but for practical reasons, it amounts to nothing.  All those names on a wall in DC. Nothing. Poof. Gone. Iraq was a daydream of the Bush administration. Poof, no WMD's.  We weren't nation building.  No oil. We didn&#8217;t gain ANYTHING.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



Why did we invade Iraq?  Because Jr. had a hard on for Saddam and wanted to finish the job his daddy started.

And...................because Jr. knew there was no good reason for invading, he and Cheney figured out lies that the American people would buy and told us that instead of what was really going on.

Saddam was one of the main reasons there were very few AQ in Iraq, because he didn't like terrorists unless they were HIS terrorists.  After we took Saddam out?  AQ numbers increased dramatically in Iraq.

Nope.................there was no good reason to invade Iraq.


----------



## Dot Com

one good thing came out of this: defense contractors got paid handsomely & the U.S. Taxpayers got  stuck w/ the bill.


----------



## thanatos144

I am still waiting to see what Obama did that was different in Iraq?


----------



## ABikerSailor

thanatos144 said:


> I am still waiting to see what Obama did that was different in Iraq?



Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.

And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.


----------



## Dot Com

$3TRILLION+ in BORROWED Taxpayer dollars and we won't know if we even won for another 5-10 years after getting out.


----------



## MaryL

It's funny someone mentioned Halliburton. Oil contractors,  like the Bush family, themselves tied to the petroleum industry. Won't go there. Well, I will say my father was a member of the CCC's in the 30's        and later became a member of the Army CB's in the pacific  during WWII  building runways in the war zones in the pacific, there wasn't any need to involve civilians, nothing the US military   couldn't afford to do in house...When and WHY did that change? I missed something. Now a days involving civilian contactors sounds rather elaborate and corrupt.  Why did people die in Iraq? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I am sorry to say that. Bush was a liar or a fool, take your pick.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

ABikerSailor said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting to see what Obama did that was different in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.
> 
> And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


Obama didn't get us out of anywhere near when he said he would and he got us involved in more wars fighting for our enemies. His record sucks and he seems determined to bring war here where it can get our civilian women and children raped and murdered.


----------



## ABikerSailor

9thIDdoc said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting to see what Obama did that was different in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.
> 
> And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama didn't get us out of anywhere near when he said he would and he got us involved in more wars fighting for our enemies. His record sucks and he seems determined to bring war here where it can get our civilian women and children raped and murdered.
Click to expand...


Quick question......................got any links to prove your statements?

I'm guessing you don't because they sound like pure bullshit.

But.......................if you can provide links to prove your points, I'm willing to listen, even if it is from far right wing websites that you try to use to say you're right.

I'd prefer something from legitimate news sources, but if you can't provide that, provide what you can and I'll do my own research on your sources.


----------



## Godboy

ABikerSailor said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting to see what Obama did that was different in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.
> 
> And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


A lot of people have died because of that decision. Let me guess, its ok since they aren't Americans. Iraqi lives must not matter.


----------



## TooTall

ABikerSailor said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting to see what Obama did that was different in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.
> 
> And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


Obama got us out of Iraq because Bush had already made the deal with the status of forces agreement.  Obama didn't have any choice but to leave.  If Obama had negotated in good faith to keep a detachment of Special Ops troops in Iraq, they could have maintained the gains Bush made, but he wasn't capable of doing that.  As a result, Iraq is back in the shitter with Al Queda terrorizing the country.

And now, after 5 years and tripleing the number of troops in Afghanistan and having twice as many American soldiers killed as Bush did, he is going to pull the same trick and cut and run.


----------



## Bumberclyde

TooTall said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting to see what Obama did that was different in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.
> 
> And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama got us out of Iraq because Bush had already made the deal with the status of forces agreement.  Obama didn't have any choice but to leave.  If Obama had negotated in good faith to keep a detachment of Special Ops troops in Iraq, they could have maintained the gains Bush made, but he wasn't capable of doing that.  As a result, Iraq is back in the shitter with Al Queda terrorizing the country.
> 
> And now, after 5 years and tripleing the number of troops in Afghanistan and having twice as many American soldiers killed as Bush did, he is going to pull the same trick and cut and run.
Click to expand...

Obama had to pull the troops out, there was nothing left worth bombing.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Godboy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting to see what Obama did that was different in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.
> 
> And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people have died because of that decision. Let me guess, its ok since they aren't Americans. Iraqi lives must not matter.
Click to expand...


Hundreds of thousands died because Bush got us INTO Iraq.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

ABikerSailor said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.
> 
> And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't get us out of anywhere near when he said he would and he got us involved in more wars fighting for our enemies. His record sucks and he seems determined to bring war here where it can get our civilian women and children raped and murdered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick question......................got any links to prove your statements?
> 
> I'm guessing you don't because they sound like pure bullshit.
> 
> But.......................if you can provide links to prove your points, I'm willing to listen, even if it is from far right wing websites that you try to use to say you're right.
> 
> I'd prefer something from legitimate news sources, but if you can't provide that, provide what you can and I'll do my own research on your sources.
Click to expand...




Don't hold your breath cuz ain't no way there are links that prove fiction.


----------



## Dot Com

Godboy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting to see what Obama did that was different in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.
> 
> And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people have died because of that decision. Let me guess, its ok since they aren't Americans. Iraqi lives must not matter.
Click to expand...


sooo..... that would mean that your a big gov't, nation-building, budget-busting conservative?


----------



## Dot Com

TooTall said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting to see what Obama did that was different in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.
> 
> And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama got us out of Iraq because Bush had already made the deal with the status of forces agreement.  Obama didn't have any choice but to leave.  If Obama had negotated in good faith to keep a detachment of Special Ops troops in Iraq, they could have maintained the gains Bush made, but he wasn't capable of doing that.  As a result, Iraq is back in the shitter with Al Queda terrorizing the country.
> 
> And now, after 5 years and tripleing the number of troops in Afghanistan and having twice as many American soldiers killed as Bush did, he is going to pull the same trick and cut and run.
Click to expand...


link?

How many years/decades would your occupation scenario have lasted and how many $TRILLIONS of borrowed taxpayer $$$ more would it have costed and how many more servicemen's lives/families destroyed


----------



## georgephillip

bayoubill said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so how 'bout, while you're at it, you get cranked up about LBJ...?
Click to expand...

*A good idea:*

"Current criticism over Halliburton's lucrative Iraq contracts has some historians drawing parallels to a similar controversy involving the company during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration.

"Nearly 40 years ago, Halliburton faced almost identical charges over its work for the U.S. government in Vietnam &#8212; allegations of overcharging, sweetheart contracts from the White House and war profiteering. 

"Back then, the company's close ties to President Johnson became a liability. 

"Today &#8212; as NPR's John Burnett reports in the last of a three-part series &#8212; Halliburton seems to be distancing itself from its former chief executive officer, Vice President Dick Cheney.

"The story of Halliburton's ties to the White House dates back to the 1940s, when a Texas firm called Brown & Root constructed a massive dam project near Austin..."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1569483

*Ready for President Cruz and Halliburton rebuilding Mexico?*


----------



## Quadravius

Why would anyone in their right mind sign up for the us military?  They are gonna send you into fighting some country we shouldnt be fighting, and there is a really good change your coming back missing an arm, leg, eye or a face.  But you know, theyre out there fighting for our freedoms at home right?


----------



## thanatos144

Bumberclyde said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  Obama got us OUT of Iraq, whereas Jr. and McCain wanted to keep us there for 100 years.
> 
> And now?  He's trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama got us out of Iraq because Bush had already made the deal with the status of forces agreement.  Obama didn't have any choice but to leave.  If Obama had negotated in good faith to keep a detachment of Special Ops troops in Iraq, they could have maintained the gains Bush made, but he wasn't capable of doing that.  As a result, Iraq is back in the shitter with Al Queda terrorizing the country.
> 
> And now, after 5 years and tripleing the number of troops in Afghanistan and having twice as many American soldiers killed as Bush did, he is going to pull the same trick and cut and run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama had to pull the troops out, there was nothing left worth bombing.
Click to expand...


No he didn't you lying ass. He followed the time table the BUSH administration made.


----------



## thanatos144

Quadravius said:


> Why would anyone in their right mind sign up for the us military?  They are gonna send you into fighting some country we shouldnt be fighting, and there is a really good change your coming back missing an arm, leg, eye or a face.  But you know, theyre out there fighting for our freedoms at home right?



Thats right they go and fight so you can write fucking despicable posts like you just did you ungrateful piece of shit!


----------



## ABikerSailor

Quadravius said:


> Why would anyone in their right mind sign up for the us military?  They are gonna send you into fighting some country we shouldnt be fighting, and there is a really good change your coming back missing an arm, leg, eye or a face.  But you know, theyre out there fighting for our freedoms at home right?



Actually, most of us sign up believing that we are serving our country and defending the rights of those like you who would belittle our service.

I served because I love this country, and yeah.................I served enough years (read 21) because I thought a lot of this land I love, and the people in it (even if they're as ignorant as you).

It's not the military that you should be pissed at, we just do what our orders state we have to do.  You should be pissed at those that send us into senseless wars.  Jr. and Cheney are good subjects, we should have never gone into Iraq.

Don't hate the military, hate those that sent them into hopeless conflicts.


----------



## georgephillip

thanatos144 said:


> Quadravius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone in their right mind sign up for the us military?  They are gonna send you into fighting some country we shouldnt be fighting, and there is a really good change your coming back missing an arm, leg, eye or a face.  But you know, theyre out there fighting for our freedoms at home right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats right they go and fight so you can write fucking despicable posts like you just did you ungrateful piece of shit!
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe our First Amendment rights would have been compromised more than they already have been if no US service members had gone to war since 1945?


----------



## Bumberclyde

ABikerSailor said:


> Quadravius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone in their right mind sign up for the us military?  They are gonna send you into fighting some country we shouldnt be fighting, and there is a really good change your coming back missing an arm, leg, eye or a face.  But you know, theyre out there fighting for our freedoms at home right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most of us sign up believing that we are serving our country and defending the rights of those like you who would belittle our service.
> 
> I served because I love this country, and yeah.................I served enough years (read 21) because I thought a lot of this land I love, and the people in it (even if they're as ignorant as you).
> 
> It's not the military that you should be pissed at, we just do what our orders state we have to do.  You should be pissed at those that send us into senseless wars.  Jr. and Cheney are good subjects, we should have never gone into Iraq.
> 
> Don't hate the military, hate those that sent them into hopeless conflicts.
Click to expand...


I hear what you're saying, but why would anyone who isn't insane sign up DURING an unjust war like Iraq, Afghanistan, Nam...


----------



## thanatos144

georgephillip said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quadravius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone in their right mind sign up for the us military?  They are gonna send you into fighting some country we shouldnt be fighting, and there is a really good change your coming back missing an arm, leg, eye or a face.  But you know, theyre out there fighting for our freedoms at home right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats right they go and fight so you can write fucking despicable posts like you just did you ungrateful piece of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you honestly believe our First Amendment rights would have been compromised more than they already have been if no US service members had gone to war since 1945?
Click to expand...


Yes. I do


----------



## georgephillip

thanatos144 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats right they go and fight so you can write fucking despicable posts like you just did you ungrateful piece of shit!
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe our First Amendment rights would have been compromised more than they already have been if no US service members had gone to war since 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I do
Click to expand...

"Korea 1950-1953 1952 
 Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2% 
 Constant FY2011$ 341 billion 
 Vietnam 1965-1975 1968 
 Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5% 
 Constant FY2011$ 738 billion 
 Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991 
 Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6% 
 Constant FY2011$ 102 billion 
 Iraq 2003-2010 2008 
 Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3% 
 Constant FY2011$ 784 billion 
 Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010 
 Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9% 
 Constant FY2011$ 321 billion 
 Total Post-9/11Iraq, 
Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008 
 Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3% 
 Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion 
Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans benefits, 
interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil 
War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data."

*$Trillions spent on invasions and occupations along with millions of innocent civilians maimed, murdered, and displaced since 1945 for what exactly?*

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf


----------



## gipper

georgephillip said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe our First Amendment rights would have been compromised more than they already have been if no US service members had gone to war since 1945?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Korea 1950-1953 1952
> Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2%
> Constant FY2011$ 341 billion
> Vietnam 1965-1975 1968
> Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5%
> Constant FY2011$ 738 billion
> Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991
> Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6%
> Constant FY2011$ 102 billion
> Iraq 2003-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 784 billion
> Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010
> Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9%
> Constant FY2011$ 321 billion
> Total Post-9/11Iraq,
> Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion
> Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans benefits,
> interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil
> War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data."
> 
> *$Trillions spent on invasions and occupations along with millions of innocent civilians maimed, murdered, and displaced since 1945 for what exactly?*
> 
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
Click to expand...


All these wars were NOT about protecting the freedoms of Americans.  

They were all about enriching the power elite and growing the size and power of the central government.

Simply put, 'war is the health of the state.'


----------



## bianco

gipper said:


> All these wars were NOT about protecting the freedoms of Americans.



#####

Not too sure about that.
Freedoms, and economy seems to me.

Wheat is war, and US enjoys a triumph without scrutiny - National

2006

_WHEN a handful of AWB executives and Iraq Grains Board officials met in Cairo last year to negotiate a $900 million wheat deal, they were being watched.

As they moved around the Egyptian capital, the Australians were shadowed by a small group of personnel from the US Government's foreign agricultural service who were hell-bent on finding out what AWB was up to.

This was in January 2005, a time when AWB still had a good reputation. It would be another 10 months before a United Nations report outed AWB for paying $290 million in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime. _

#####

Normal business procedure when dealing with Saddam's Iraq..."facilitation payments" and "transport costs" think they were called.
If Aussie doesn't sell grain crops...and dig stuff up and sell it...he goes broke and starves to death...most of the time the nation is in drought. 



_"They started following every move made by the AWB guys," said a source familiar with the events in Cairo. "When the Americans found out the Australians were staying at the same hotel as the guys from the IGB (Iraq Grains Board), they packed up from where they were staying and moved into the same hotel."

Despite the heavy US attention, the Australians managed to secure an agreement from the Iraqis for a huge 2.6 million-tonne wheat contract &#8212; AWB's biggest ever single deal.

*But it was not long before the US officials found out and made direct protests to senior Iraq Government ministers, according to sources. The Iraqis, including then prime minister Iyad Allawi, were told by the US ambassador in Baghdad that the deal with Australia was not to go ahead.

And so the contract was cancelled. So too was a planned visit to Australia by Iraq's then trade minister Muhammed al-Jabouri. Meetings with Australia's then trade minister, now Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, were abandoned.*

Wheat is where the Coalition of the Willing turns nasty. Though allies on Iraq's battlefields, the war-torn country has played host to an extraordinary fight between Australia and the US over who controls one of the Middle East's most lucrative wheat markets. _

#####

US does the best for the US...as everyone else does for themselves.

*"Look after yourself first in this world, son...because nobody else will" * - my first boss, on my first day of life in the workplace.


*"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" * - Chairman Mao.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

gipper said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I do
> 
> 
> 
> "Korea 1950-1953 1952
> Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2%
> Constant FY2011$ 341 billion
> Vietnam 1965-1975 1968
> Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5%
> Constant FY2011$ 738 billion
> Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991
> Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6%
> Constant FY2011$ 102 billion
> Iraq 2003-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 784 billion
> Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010
> Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9%
> Constant FY2011$ 321 billion
> Total Post-9/11Iraq,
> Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion
> Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans benefits,
> interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil
> War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data."
> 
> *$Trillions spent on invasions and occupations along with millions of innocent civilians maimed, murdered, and displaced since 1945 for what exactly?*
> 
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All these wars were NOT about protecting the freedoms of Americans.
> 
> They were all about enriching the power elite and growing the size and power of the central government.
> 
> Simply put, 'war is the health of the state.'
Click to expand...


Sez you. Everybody is entitled to an opinion even ignorant bullshit like you spout.
Endless repetition is not going to allow you to make up your own idiotic history and have anyone believe your drivel though.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Bumberclyde said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quadravius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone in their right mind sign up for the us military?  They are gonna send you into fighting some country we shouldnt be fighting, and there is a really good change your coming back missing an arm, leg, eye or a face.  But you know, theyre out there fighting for our freedoms at home right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most of us sign up believing that we are serving our country and defending the rights of those like you who would belittle our service.
> 
> I served because I love this country, and yeah.................I served enough years (read 21) because I thought a lot of this land I love, and the people in it (even if they're as ignorant as you).
> 
> It's not the military that you should be pissed at, we just do what our orders state we have to do.  You should be pissed at those that send us into senseless wars.  Jr. and Cheney are good subjects, we should have never gone into Iraq.
> 
> Don't hate the military, hate those that sent them into hopeless conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but why would anyone who isn't insane sign up DURING an unjust war like Iraq, Afghanistan, Nam...
Click to expand...


The obvious reason. That they did not believe those wars were unjust (most Americans didn't and don't) and they believed that serving their country-especially during wartime-is the right thing to do. Some people actually believe in keeping Americans and our way of life alive. Imagine that.


----------



## Dot Com

gipper said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I do
> 
> 
> 
> "Korea 1950-1953 1952
> Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2%
> Constant FY2011$ 341 billion
> Vietnam 1965-1975 1968
> Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5%
> Constant FY2011$ 738 billion
> Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991
> Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6%
> Constant FY2011$ 102 billion
> Iraq 2003-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 784 billion
> Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010
> Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9%
> Constant FY2011$ 321 billion
> Total Post-9/11&#8212;Iraq,
> Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion
> Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans&#8217; benefits,
> interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil
> War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data."
> 
> *$Trillions spent on invasions and occupations along with millions of innocent civilians maimed, murdered, and displaced since 1945 for what exactly?*
> 
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All these wars were NOT about protecting the freedoms of Americans.
> 
> They were all about enriching the power elite and growing the size and power of the central government.
> 
> Simply put, 'war is the health of the state.'
Click to expand...


^ that


----------



## georgephillip

gipper said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I do
> 
> 
> 
> "Korea 1950-1953 1952
> Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2%
> Constant FY2011$ 341 billion
> Vietnam 1965-1975 1968
> Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5%
> Constant FY2011$ 738 billion
> Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991
> Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6%
> Constant FY2011$ 102 billion
> Iraq 2003-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 784 billion
> Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010
> Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9%
> Constant FY2011$ 321 billion
> Total Post-9/11Iraq,
> Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion
> Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans benefits,
> interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil
> War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data."
> 
> *$Trillions spent on invasions and occupations along with millions of innocent civilians maimed, murdered, and displaced since 1945 for what exactly?*
> 
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All these wars were NOT about protecting the freedoms of Americans.
> 
> They were all about enriching the power elite and growing the size and power of the central government.
> 
> Simply put, 'war is the health of the state.'
Click to expand...




Dot Com said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Korea 1950-1953 1952
> Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2%
> Constant FY2011$ 341 billion
> Vietnam 1965-1975 1968
> Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5%
> Constant FY2011$ 738 billion
> Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991
> Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6%
> Constant FY2011$ 102 billion
> Iraq 2003-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 784 billion
> Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010
> Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9%
> Constant FY2011$ 321 billion
> Total Post-9/11Iraq,
> Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion
> Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans benefits,
> interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil
> War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data."
> 
> *$Trillions spent on invasions and occupations along with millions of innocent civilians maimed, murdered, and displaced since 1945 for what exactly?*
> 
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these wars were NOT about protecting the freedoms of Americans.
> 
> They were all about enriching the power elite and growing the size and power of the central government.
> 
> Simply put, 'war is the health of the state.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ that
Click to expand...

So what is the quickest way to make peace more profitable than war?


----------



## gipper

9thIDdoc said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most of us sign up believing that we are serving our country and defending the rights of those like you who would belittle our service.
> 
> I served because I love this country, and yeah.................I served enough years (read 21) because I thought a lot of this land I love, and the people in it (even if they're as ignorant as you).
> 
> It's not the military that you should be pissed at, we just do what our orders state we have to do.  You should be pissed at those that send us into senseless wars.  Jr. and Cheney are good subjects, we should have never gone into Iraq.
> 
> Don't hate the military, hate those that sent them into hopeless conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but why would anyone who isn't insane sign up DURING an unjust war like Iraq, Afghanistan, Nam...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The obvious reason. That they did not believe those wars were unjust (most Americans didn't and don't) and they believed that serving their country-especially during wartime-is the right thing to do. Some people actually believe in keeping Americans and our way of life alive. Imagine that.
Click to expand...


Sorry but that is not the reality.

Do you really think our involvement in WWI was about protecting Americans and our way of life?  Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades...who by any objective analysis were worse than Hitler and had every intention of world domination?  Do you really think Americans who died in Vietnam, would claim they were keeping our way of life alive?  I think not.

War is always about enriching and empowering the power elite. 

The power elite get us into wars and then claim it is our patriotic duty to fight and die for our country.  It is all a bunch of garbage that is purposely designed to fool the populace and amazingly, it continues to work on many.


----------



## gipper

georgephillip said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Korea 1950-1953 1952
> Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2%
> Constant FY2011$ 341 billion
> Vietnam 1965-1975 1968
> Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5%
> Constant FY2011$ 738 billion
> Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991
> Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6%
> Constant FY2011$ 102 billion
> Iraq 2003-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 784 billion
> Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010
> Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9%
> Constant FY2011$ 321 billion
> Total Post-9/11Iraq,
> Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion
> Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans benefits,
> interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil
> War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data."
> 
> *$Trillions spent on invasions and occupations along with millions of innocent civilians maimed, murdered, and displaced since 1945 for what exactly?*
> 
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these wars were NOT about protecting the freedoms of Americans.
> 
> They were all about enriching the power elite and growing the size and power of the central government.
> 
> Simply put, 'war is the health of the state.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these wars were NOT about protecting the freedoms of Americans.
> 
> They were all about enriching the power elite and growing the size and power of the central government.
> 
> Simply put, 'war is the health of the state.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what is the quickest way to make peace more profitable than war?
Click to expand...


Peace is always more profitable than war, at least for the majority of Americans.

The only people who gain profit from war are the power elite.


----------



## Bumberclyde

9thIDdoc said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most of us sign up believing that we are serving our country and defending the rights of those like you who would belittle our service.
> 
> I served because I love this country, and yeah.................I served enough years (read 21) because I thought a lot of this land I love, and the people in it (even if they're as ignorant as you).
> 
> It's not the military that you should be pissed at, we just do what our orders state we have to do.  You should be pissed at those that send us into senseless wars.  Jr. and Cheney are good subjects, we should have never gone into Iraq.
> 
> Don't hate the military, hate those that sent them into hopeless conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but why would anyone who isn't insane sign up DURING an unjust war like Iraq, Afghanistan, Nam...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The obvious reason. That they did not believe those wars were unjust (most Americans didn't and don't) and they believed that serving their country-especially during wartime-is the right thing to do. Some people actually believe in keeping Americans and our way of life alive. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

So your way of life is signing up to attack countries for no reason? Btw, Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, nor did he have any WMD. So the US army destroyed Iraq for what exactly?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

gipper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but why would anyone who isn't insane sign up DURING an unjust war like Iraq, Afghanistan, Nam...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious reason. That they did not believe those wars were unjust (most Americans didn't and don't) and they believed that serving their country-especially during wartime-is the right thing to do. Some people actually believe in keeping Americans and our way of life alive. Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is not the reality.
> 
> Do you really think our involvement in WWI was about protecting Americans and our way of life?  Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades...who by any objective analysis were worse than Hitler and had every intention of world domination?  Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades...
> 
> War is always about enriching and empowering the power elite.
> 
> The power elite get us into wars and then claim it is our patriotic duty to fight and die for our country.  It is all a bunch of garbage that is purposely designed to fool the populace and amazingly, it continues to work on many.
Click to expand...


_Sorry but that is not the reality._
Sorry, but you wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass.

_"War is always about enriching and empowering the power elite"_The next time I hear a soldier or marine say he is fighting for "the power elite" will be the first time. Nor do I think the vast majority know or care what a "power elite" is. I know I don't.
_
"Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades..."_
Do *you* really think that those who died in Vietnam would be happy about giving South Vietnam to the stinking commies permanently?

_ It is all a bunch of garbage that is purposely designed to fool the populace_ 
No more so than your cowardly irresponsible whining is designed to fool it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Bumberclyde said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but why would anyone who isn't insane sign up DURING an unjust war like Iraq, Afghanistan, Nam...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious reason. That they did not believe those wars were unjust (most Americans didn't and don't) and they believed that serving their country-especially during wartime-is the right thing to do. Some people actually believe in keeping Americans and our way of life alive. Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your way of life is signing up to attack countries for no reason? Btw, Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, nor did he have any WMD. So the US army destroyed Iraq for what exactly?
Click to expand...


You must have been born yesterday. After 9/11 it was a foregone conclusion we would be attacking Iraq. We went to war against terrorists and Saddam was a wealthy terrorist who was helping finance other groups. That made him an obvious prime target. 
He had no WMD? No one has proved any such thing. For all we know there are still hugh stockpiles buried under the sand or simply moved to Syria or Pakistan for the duration. We certainly gave him plenty of time to do that. We were not obliged to prove he had them it was his obligation to prove he didn't per the Cease Fire following his expulsion from Kuwait. No proof=no Cease Fire; simple as that.
And it really would have been quicker and cheaper to simply turn Bagdad into a radioactive lake and I am a long way from sure that wouldn't have been the better course.


----------



## Dot Com

Bumberclyde said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but why would anyone who isn't insane sign up DURING an unjust war like Iraq, Afghanistan, Nam...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious reason. That they did not believe those wars were unjust (most Americans didn't and don't) and they believed that serving their country-especially during wartime-is the right thing to do. Some people actually believe in keeping Americans and our way of life alive. Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your way of life is signing up to attack countries for no reason? Btw, Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, nor did he have any WMD. So the US army destroyed Iraq for what exactly?
Click to expand...


^ that

we coulda' used that $1.9 TRILLION to build infrastructure and educate & feed the youth at home.


----------



## Dot Com

"The greatest threat to our world and its peace comes from those who want war, who prepare for it, and who, by holding out vague promises of future peace or by instilling fear of foreign aggression, try to make us accomplices to their plans."

-- Hermann Hesse - Author (1877-1962)


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dot Com said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious reason. That they did not believe those wars were unjust (most Americans didn't and don't) and they believed that serving their country-especially during wartime-is the right thing to do. Some people actually believe in keeping Americans and our way of life alive. Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> So your way of life is signing up to attack countries for no reason? Btw, Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, nor did he have any WMD. So the US army destroyed Iraq for what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ that
> 
> we coulda' used that $1.9 TRILLION to build infrastructure and educate & feed the youth at home.
Click to expand...


And our enemies could have used that time to further destroy our infrastructure and kill our women and children at home (if they were lucky).


----------



## Dot Com

I get the feeling that 9thIDdoc is a "Murica right or wrong" type.  Did you read McNamara's book asswipe? He said Vietnam was extended EVEN AFTER THEY KNEW IT WAS FUTILE, for domestic political reasons. Basically to help in an election. You OK w/ that old man?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Viet Nam was only as "futile" as we allowed it to be.


----------



## Dot Com

you need to put down the "Murica right or wrong" kool aid Sarge. As was said earlier, democracy at the end of the barrel of a gun is all about expanding markets for US companies & expanding access to commodities such as oil.


----------



## Bumberclyde

9thIDdoc said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious reason. That they did not believe those wars were unjust (most Americans didn't and don't) and they believed that serving their country-especially during wartime-is the right thing to do. Some people actually believe in keeping Americans and our way of life alive. Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> So your way of life is signing up to attack countries for no reason? Btw, Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, nor did he have any WMD. So the US army destroyed Iraq for what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have been born yesterday. After 9/11 it was a foregone conclusion we would be attacking Iraq. We went to war against terrorists and Saddam was a wealthy terrorist who was helping finance other groups. That made him an obvious prime target.
> He had no WMD? No one has proved any such thing. For all we know there are still hugh stockpiles buried under the sand or simply moved to Syria or Pakistan for the duration. We certainly gave him plenty of time to do that. We were not obliged to prove he had them it was his obligation to prove he didn't per the Cease Fire following his expulsion from Kuwait. No proof=no Cease Fire; simple as that.
> And it really would have been quicker and cheaper to simply turn Bagdad into a radioactive lake and I am a long way from sure that wouldn't have been the better course.
Click to expand...



No wonder murka is so fucked up. That was a completely brain dead answer. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## gipper

9thIDdoc said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious reason. That they did not believe those wars were unjust (most Americans didn't and don't) and they believed that serving their country-especially during wartime-is the right thing to do. Some people actually believe in keeping Americans and our way of life alive. Imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is not the reality.
> 
> Do you really think our involvement in WWI was about protecting Americans and our way of life?  Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades...who by any objective analysis were worse than Hitler and had every intention of world domination?  Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades...
> 
> War is always about enriching and empowering the power elite.
> 
> The power elite get us into wars and then claim it is our patriotic duty to fight and die for our country.  It is all a bunch of garbage that is purposely designed to fool the populace and amazingly, it continues to work on many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Sorry but that is not the reality._
> Sorry, but you wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass.
> 
> _"War is always about enriching and empowering the power elite"_The next time I hear a soldier or marine say he is fighting for "the power elite" will be the first time. Nor do I think the vast majority know or care what a "power elite" is. I know I don't.
> _
> "Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades..."_
> Do *you* really think that those who died in Vietnam would be happy about giving South Vietnam to the stinking commies permanently?
> 
> _ It is all a bunch of garbage that is purposely designed to fool the populace_
> No more so than your cowardly irresponsible whining is designed to fool it.
Click to expand...


Your response is lacking.  I explained why your reality is not the real one and all you can do is spout foolishness.

Regarding Vietnam, you respond with a contradiction.  Of course, those Americans who died there did not want commies taking over.  But that is exactly what happened thanks to the power elite.  You make my point without knowing it.  And yet, you would allow the power elite to push into war again and again.....

You can call me a coward all you like.  I am against the warfare/welfare nation that America has become and proud of it.  You on the other hand, apparently think killing and dying for NOTHING, but enriching the power elite, is great.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dot Com said:


> you need to put down the "Murica right or wrong" kool aid Sarge. As was said earlier, democracy at the end of the barrel of a gun is all about expanding markets for US companies & expanding access to commodities such as oil.



Right, and I'm sure there must be least 4 or 5 other idiots out there somewhere willing to accept your hourseshit. Now, just where exactly are *your* links?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

gipper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is not the reality.
> 
> Do you really think our involvement in WWI was about protecting Americans and our way of life?  Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades...who by any objective analysis were worse than Hitler and had every intention of world domination?  Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades...
> 
> War is always about enriching and empowering the power elite.
> 
> The power elite get us into wars and then claim it is our patriotic duty to fight and die for our country.  It is all a bunch of garbage that is purposely designed to fool the populace and amazingly, it continues to work on many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Sorry but that is not the reality._
> Sorry, but you wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass.
> 
> _"War is always about enriching and empowering the power elite"_The next time I hear a soldier or marine say he is fighting for "the power elite" will be the first time. Nor do I think the vast majority know or care what a "power elite" is. I know I don't.
> _
> "Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades..."_
> Do *you* really think that those who died in Vietnam would be happy about giving South Vietnam to the stinking commies permanently?
> 
> _ It is all a bunch of garbage that is purposely designed to fool the populace_
> No more so than your cowardly irresponsible whining is designed to fool it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response is lacking.  I explained why your reality is not the real one and all you can do is spout foolishness.
> 
> Regarding Vietnam, you respond with a contradiction.  Of course, those Americans who died there did not want commies taking over.  But that is exactly what happened thanks to the power elite.  You make my point without knowing it.  And yet, you would allow the power elite to push into war again and again.....
> 
> You can call me a coward all you like.  I am against the warfare/welfare nation that America has become and proud of it.  You on the other hand, apparently think killing and dying for NOTHING, but enriching the power elite, is great.
Click to expand...


Your views about this "power elite" only make any sense if you consider a large segment of the American people to be part of it. And that's simply delusional.


----------



## gipper

9thIDdoc said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Sorry but that is not the reality._
> Sorry, but you wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass.
> 
> _"War is always about enriching and empowering the power elite"_The next time I hear a soldier or marine say he is fighting for "the power elite" will be the first time. Nor do I think the vast majority know or care what a "power elite" is. I know I don't.
> _
> "Do you really think Americans who died fighting in Europe in WWII would be happy about giving half of Europe to the stinking commies for decades..."_
> Do *you* really think that those who died in Vietnam would be happy about giving South Vietnam to the stinking commies permanently?
> 
> _ It is all a bunch of garbage that is purposely designed to fool the populace_
> No more so than your cowardly irresponsible whining is designed to fool it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is lacking.  I explained why your reality is not the real one and all you can do is spout foolishness.
> 
> Regarding Vietnam, you respond with a contradiction.  Of course, those Americans who died there did not want commies taking over.  But that is exactly what happened thanks to the power elite.  You make my point without knowing it.  And yet, you would allow the power elite to push into war again and again.....
> 
> You can call me a coward all you like.  I am against the warfare/welfare nation that America has become and proud of it.  You on the other hand, apparently think killing and dying for NOTHING, but enriching the power elite, is great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your views about this "power elite" only make any sense if you consider a large segment of the American people to be part of it. And that's simply delusional.
Click to expand...


You apparently are unaware of the power elite that rules America. 

You might read a few books on the subject.  This might help....https://www.google.com/#q=books+on+the+power+elite+in+america&tbm=shop


----------



## thanatos144

It's the illuminati man!  And the aliens from the Roswell crash!  They control it all with a super computer that runs on hash 

tapatalk post


----------



## georgephillip

gipper said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these wars were NOT about protecting the freedoms of Americans.
> 
> They were all about enriching the power elite and growing the size and power of the central government.
> 
> Simply put, 'war is the health of the state.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what is the quickest way to make peace more profitable than war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peace is always more profitable than war, at least for the majority of Americans.
> 
> The only people who gain profit from war are the power elite.
Click to expand...

Wars socialize cost and privatize profit like no other endeavor.
Perhaps the corporations and individuals who get rich from war should pay a "death tax" proportional to all of those murdered, maimed, and displaced by their war crimes?


----------



## Dot Com

georgephillip said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the quickest way to make peace more profitable than war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace is always more profitable than war, at least for the majority of Americans.
> 
> The only people who gain profit from war are the power elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wars socialize cost and privatize profit like no other endeavor.
> Perhaps the corporations and individuals who get rich from war should pay a "death tax" proportional to all of those murdered, maimed, and displaced by their war crimes?
Click to expand...


good idea.  The war-fluffers in this thread should read my siggie quote as well


----------



## Billo_Really

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.


It's even worse when you think after all that sacrifice...
over $4 trillion dollars, over 4000 Americans dead, over 30,000 American's maimed for life, 
our economy trashed, reputation destroyed​...what did we get in return?

NOTHING!  Absolutely nothing!

I challenge anyone to state how average American's have benefited from that war.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"I challenge anyone to state how average American's have benefited from that war_"

No more 9/11's
No further mass murders of American civilians.
The war with it's collateral damage being fought on their ground instead of ours.
Any other questions?


----------



## Dot Com

^ ummm..... if you believe that 9/11 had anything to do w/ Iraq   perhaps 

get a grip corporal.  STOP BEING A FASCIST TOOL!!!


----------



## georgephillip

Dot Com said:


> ^ ummm..... if you believe that 9/11 had anything to do w/ Iraq perhaps
> 
> get a grip corporal.


*Dick "Halliburton" Cheney had more to do with 911 than Saddam did, and the five time draft dodger is still alive to laugh in luxury about it*

"According to MSN Money, Halliburtons KBR, Inc. division bilked government agencies to the tune of $17.2 billion in Iraq war-related revenue from 2003-2006 alone. 

"This is estimated to comprise a whopping one-fifth of KBRs total revenue for the 2006 fiscal year..." 

"This is just the latest in a long string of military/KBR wartime partnerships, thanks in no small part to Dick Cheneys former role with the parent company."

The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers

*Imagine the shock and awe if Cheney and all the other war whores were forced to pay a 101% "Death Tax" on all their earnings from their Iraq war crimes?*


----------



## Dot Com

georgephillip said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ ummm..... if you believe that 9/11 had anything to do w/ Iraq perhaps
> 
> get a grip corporal.
> 
> 
> 
> *Dick "Halliburton" Cheney had more to do with 911 than Saddam did, and the five time draft dodger is still alive to laugh in luxury about it*
> 
> "According to MSN Money, Halliburtons KBR, Inc. division bilked government agencies to the tune of $17.2 billion in Iraq war-related revenue from 2003-2006 alone.
> 
> "This is estimated to comprise a whopping one-fifth of KBRs total revenue for the 2006 fiscal year..."
> 
> "This is just the latest in a long string of military/KBR wartime partnerships, thanks in no small part to Dick Cheneys former role with the parent company."
> 
> The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers
> 
> *Imagine the shock and awe if Cheney and all the other war whores were forced to pay a 101% "Death Tax" on all their earnings from their Iraq war crimes?*
Click to expand...


^ read that old man 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 then AND ONLY THEN post a response, NOT BEFORE!


----------



## Billo_Really

9thIDdoc said:


> No more 9/11's
> No further mass murders of American civilians.
> The war with it's collateral damage being fought on their ground instead of ours.
> Any other questions?


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, dumbass!

And the reason it happened in the first place, was because of our un-conditional support for Israel.

But you're right about mass murders, if you don't count Columbine, Waco, Oklahoma City...


----------



## thanatos144

Billo_Really said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more 9/11's
> No further mass murders of American civilians.
> The war with it's collateral damage being fought on their ground instead of ours.
> Any other questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, dumbass!
> 
> And the reason it happened in the first place, was because of our un-conditional support for Israel.
> 
> But you're right about mass murders, if you don't count Columbine, Waco, Oklahoma City...
Click to expand...


So it was the evil Jews that made us do it huh?  Not the fact that Saddam actively paid fir and supported those who wished every American dead? 

tapatalk post


----------



## Billo_Really

thanatos144 said:


> So it was the evil Jews that made us do it huh?  Not the fact that Saddam actively paid fir and supported those who wished every American dead?
> 
> tapatalk post


First off, it had nothing to do with jews.  Secondly, it had more to do with helping Israel treat the Palestinian's, like the Nazis treated the jews.

And third, cutting a check to the family of a former suicide bomber, is not supporting terrorism.


----------



## thanatos144

Billo_Really said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it was the evil Jews that made us do it huh?  Not the fact that Saddam actively paid fir and supported those who wished every American dead?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> First off, it had nothing to do with jews.  Secondly, it had more to do with helping Israel treat the Palestinian's, like the Nazis treated the jews.
> 
> And third, cutting a check to the family of a former suicide bomber, is not supporting terrorism.
Click to expand...


Lol you bigots are cracked 

tapatalk post


----------



## georgephillip

Dot Com said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ ummm..... if you believe that 9/11 had anything to do w/ Iraq perhaps
> 
> get a grip corporal.
> 
> 
> 
> *Dick "Halliburton" Cheney had more to do with 911 than Saddam did, and the five time draft dodger is still alive to laugh in luxury about it*
> 
> "According to MSN Money, Halliburtons KBR, Inc. division bilked government agencies to the tune of $17.2 billion in Iraq war-related revenue from 2003-2006 alone.
> 
> "This is estimated to comprise a whopping one-fifth of KBRs total revenue for the 2006 fiscal year..."
> 
> "This is just the latest in a long string of military/KBR wartime partnerships, thanks in no small part to Dick Cheneys former role with the parent company."
> 
> The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers
> 
> *Imagine the shock and awe if Cheney and all the other war whores were forced to pay a 101% "Death Tax" on all their earnings from their Iraq war crimes?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ read that old man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then AND ONLY THEN post a response, NOT BEFORE!
Click to expand...

Chattel Slavery served King Cotton the same way War/Debt Slaves serve King Oil.
Human slavery in the US could have been taxed into extinction in the decades between Valley Forge and Cold Harbor if cotton hadn't exerted the same economic power in those days that oil inflicts today.

FWIW, I think Einstein and Russel were right, either humanity ends war or war will end humanity.

"*Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? *

"People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

"The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. 

"But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term 'mankind' feels vague and abstract. 

"People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. 

"They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. 

"And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern (nuclear) weapons are prohibited."


----------



## Dot Com

thanatos144 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more 9/11's
> No further mass murders of American civilians.
> The war with it's collateral damage being fought on their ground instead of ours.
> Any other questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, dumbass!
> 
> And the reason it happened in the first place, was because of our un-conditional support for Israel.
> 
> But you're right about mass murders, if you don't count Columbine, Waco, Oklahoma City...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it was the evil Jews that made us do it huh?  Not the fact that Saddam actively paid fir and supported those who wished every American dead?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


give me the first, of many changing reasons, that Bush II used to get the American people to go along w/ his war in Iraq? What is the reason?


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, dumbass!
> 
> And the reason it happened in the first place, was because of our un-conditional support for Israel.
> 
> But you're right about mass murders, if you don't count Columbine, Waco, Oklahoma City...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was the evil Jews that made us do it huh?  Not the fact that Saddam actively paid fir and supported those who wished every American dead?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> give me the first, of many changing reasons, that Bush II used to get the American people to go along w/ his war in Iraq? What is the reason?
Click to expand...


He financially supported al-qaeda

tapatalk post


----------



## Dot Com

thanatos144 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it was the evil Jews that made us do it huh?  Not the fact that Saddam actively paid fir and supported those who wished every American dead?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> give me the first, of many changing reasons, that Bush II used to get the American people to go along w/ his war in Iraq? What is the reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He financially supported al-qaeda
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


that was the first reason he gave, and if so, link?

you might have that confused w/ Palestinian statehood which he supported I believe. I support that too.


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> give me the first, of many changing reasons, that Bush II used to get the American people to go along w/ his war in Iraq? What is the reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He financially supported al-qaeda
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that was the first reason he gave, and if so, link?
Click to expand...


You link. 

tapatalk post


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dot Com said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, dumbass!
> 
> And the reason it happened in the first place, was because of our un-conditional support for Israel.
> 
> But you're right about mass murders, if you don't count Columbine, Waco, Oklahoma City...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was the evil Jews that made us do it huh?  Not the fact that Saddam actively paid fir and supported those who wished every American dead?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> give me the first, of many changing reasons, that Bush II used to get the American people to go along w/ his war in Iraq? What is the reason?
Click to expand...


Why don't you try to support your silly assumption that it was* his* war first?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty." _

"distasteful" is incorrect "unacceptable" is the far more accurate term. You can't abolish war by starting one.


----------



## Dot Com

thanatos144 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He financially supported al-qaeda
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that was the first reason he gave, and if so, link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You link.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


FAIL!!!


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> that was the first reason he gave, and if so, link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You link.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FAIL!!!
Click to expand...


Yes we know you did so you didn't have to announce it 

tapatalk post


----------



## Dot Com

give me a link proving your assertion son. I'll wait.


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> give me a link proving your assertion son. I'll wait.



You first.....

tapatalk post


----------



## Dot Com

stop wasting my time boy. I'm done w/ this one.


----------



## Billo_Really

thanatos144 said:


> Lol you bigots are cracked
> 
> tapatalk post


I'd rather be an anti-Semite, than an Israeli kiss-ass!


----------



## bianco

When is the next stoopid war starting?


----------



## gipper

bianco said:


> When is the next stoopid war starting?



Very soon...if we continue to allow these corrupt fools lead us.


----------



## georgephillip

9thIDdoc said:


> _"The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty." _
> 
> "distasteful" is incorrect "unacceptable" is the far more accurate term. You can't abolish war by starting one.


*You can abolish war by removing its profit potential:*

"2. Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp

"At first blush, a private equity fund (and not, say, Exxon-Mobil) being the number 2 profiteer in the Iraq war might sound strange. 

"However, the cleverly run fund has raked in $1.44 billion through its DynCorp subsidiary. 

"The primary service DynCorp has provided to the war efforts is the training of new Iraqi police forces. 

"Often described as a state within a state, the sizable company is headed by Dwight M. Williams, former Chief Security Officer of the upstart U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

"With this and other close ties to defense agencies, Veritas Capital Fund and DynCorp are well-positioned to capitalize on Iraq even more."

The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers

*Can you think of any good reason why national defense should not be a non-profit enterprise?*


----------



## usmcstinger

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



Did you serve in combat?


----------



## usmcstinger

bianco said:


> When is the next stoopid war starting?


Hey Stupid One.
We are fighting the War against Terrorism and probably for a long time.


----------



## usmcstinger

georgephillip said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe our First Amendment rights would have been compromised more than they already have been if no US service members had gone to war since 1945?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Korea 1950-1953 1952
> Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2%
> Constant FY2011$ 341 billion
> Vietnam 1965-1975 1968
> Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5%
> Constant FY2011$ 738 billion
> Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991
> Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6%
> Constant FY2011$ 102 billion
> Iraq 2003-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 784 billion
> Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010
> Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9%
> Constant FY2011$ 321 billion
> Total Post-9/11&#8212;Iraq,
> Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion
> Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans&#8217; benefits,
> interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil
> War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data."
> 
> *$Trillions spent on invasions and occupations along with millions of innocent civilians maimed, murdered, and displaced since 1945 for what exactly?*
> 
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
Click to expand...


The War In Vietnam ended on March 28, 1973. All US Military Forces were gone by this date. Therefore, the awarding of the Vietnam Service Medal ended on the same date.


----------



## usmcstinger

Luddly Neddite said:


> You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?
> 
> He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god.
> 
> Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats
> 
> *One million Vets wait for care  A National Disgrace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...   For example, in 2010 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki announced that three diseases  ischemic heart disease, Parkinsons disease and b-cell leukemia  would be considered the result of Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in Vietnam. More than 240,000 claims for those diseases have been filed since that announcement. ...
> 
> ... the VA spent 4 years and $537 million on a new computer to streamline the claims process. It was less than a resounding success; 97% of veterans claims are still filed on paper, and thats the single biggest reason that stands out for the backlog  they VA is literally being buried in a mountain of paperwork....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That [photo above] the mountain of paperwork at the Winston-Salem NC VA office, the weight of all that paperwork compromised the structural integrity of the building  they were worried the floor would collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Actually, there are many more diseases associated with exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam and certain Military Units who served in Korea.
Veterans' Diseases Associated with Agent Orange - Public Health
*The worse part is  too many of my Brother and Sister In Country Vietnam Veterans died of these diseases before they were recognized by the VA.*


----------



## Dot Com

georgephillip said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty." _
> 
> "distasteful" is incorrect "unacceptable" is the far more accurate term. You can't abolish war by starting one.
> 
> 
> 
> *You can abolish war by removing its profit potential:*
> 
> "2. Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp
> 
> "At first blush, a private equity fund (and not, say, Exxon-Mobil) being the number 2 profiteer in the Iraq war might sound strange.
> 
> "However, the cleverly run fund has raked in $1.44 billion through its DynCorp subsidiary.
> 
> "The primary service DynCorp has provided to the war efforts is the training of new Iraqi police forces.
> 
> "Often described as a &#8216;state within a state&#8216;, the sizable company is headed by Dwight M. Williams, former Chief Security Officer of the upstart U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> "With this and other close ties to defense agencies, Veritas Capital Fund and DynCorp are well-positioned to capitalize on Iraq even more."
> 
> The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers
> 
> *Can you think of any good reason why national defense should not be a non-profit enterprise?*
Click to expand...


yep. They cleaned up in Iraq. Quite profitable for them.  For the rest of us? Not so much.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

bianco said:


> When is the next stoopid war starting?



As soon as there's an R in the White House.

Some have been trying to get a war in Iran and will start a war as soon as they can.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

usmcstinger said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think 5 years is long enough to fix what has been wrong since before WWII?
> 
> He's good but, believe it or not, he's not a god.
> 
> Baja Democrats - News & events of AZ Democratis, with emphasis on Southern Arizona Democrats
> 
> *One million Vets wait for care  A National Disgrace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...   For example, in 2010 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki announced that three diseases  ischemic heart disease, Parkinsons disease and b-cell leukemia  would be considered the result of Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in Vietnam. More than 240,000 claims for those diseases have been filed since that announcement. ...
> 
> ... the VA spent 4 years and $537 million on a new computer to streamline the claims process. It was less than a resounding success; 97% of veterans claims are still filed on paper, and thats the single biggest reason that stands out for the backlog  they VA is literally being buried in a mountain of paperwork....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That [photo above] the mountain of paperwork at the Winston-Salem NC VA office, the weight of all that paperwork compromised the structural integrity of the building  they were worried the floor would collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit blaming President Obama for everything. Its childish and counter-productive.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there are many more diseases associated with exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam and certain Military Units who served in Korea.
> Veterans' Diseases Associated with Agent Orange - Public Health
> *The worse part is  too many of my Brother and Sister In Country Vietnam Veterans died of these diseases before they were recognized by the VA.*
Click to expand...


Not to mention PTSD which is not recognized in VN vets.


----------



## Dot Com

Luddly Neddite said:


> bianco said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is the next stoopid war starting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as there's an R in the White House.
> 
> Some have been trying to get a war in Iran and will start a war as soon as they can.
Click to expand...


yep. Its good for business of their primary donors  Who cares what the end game is or how many casualties there are right? As long as theres profit involved, its AOK w/ Repubs.


----------



## georgephillip

usmcstinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I do
> 
> 
> 
> "Korea 1950-1953 1952
> Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2%
> Constant FY2011$ 341 billion
> Vietnam 1965-1975 1968
> Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5%
> Constant FY2011$ 738 billion
> Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991
> Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6%
> Constant FY2011$ 102 billion
> Iraq 2003-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 784 billion
> Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010
> Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9%
> Constant FY2011$ 321 billion
> Total Post-9/11Iraq,
> Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion
> Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans benefits,
> interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil
> War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data."
> 
> *$Trillions spent on invasions and occupations along with millions of innocent civilians maimed, murdered, and displaced since 1945 for what exactly?*
> 
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The War In Vietnam ended on March 28, 1973. All US Military Forces were gone by this date. Therefore, the awarding of the Vietnam Service Medal ended on the same date.
Click to expand...

I'm unsure of the significance of the VSM?
Are you saying we are no longer paying for that invasion?


----------



## Dot Com

This is what $3 TRILLION + (taking into acct current & future medical care costs for vets) in borrowed $$$ looks like.


----------



## usmcstinger

georgephillip said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Korea 1950-1953 1952
> Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2%
> Constant FY2011$ 341 billion
> Vietnam 1965-1975 1968
> Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5%
> Constant FY2011$ 738 billion
> Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991
> Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6%
> Constant FY2011$ 102 billion
> Iraq 2003-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 784 billion
> Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010
> Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9%
> Constant FY2011$ 321 billion
> Total Post-9/11Iraq,
> Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008
> Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3%
> Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion
> Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans benefits,
> interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil
> War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data."
> 
> *$Trillions spent on invasions and occupations along with millions of innocent civilians maimed, murdered, and displaced since 1945 for what exactly?*
> 
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War In Vietnam ended on March 28, 1973. All US Military Forces were gone by this date. Therefore, the awarding of the Vietnam Service Medal ended on the same date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm unsure of the significance of the VSM?
> Are you saying we are no longer paying for that invasion?
Click to expand...


If you do not understand the significance of the Vietnam Service Medal, then you are not very bright. Do some research you nitwit.


----------



## georgephillip

usmcstinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The War In Vietnam ended on March 28, 1973. All US Military Forces were gone by this date. Therefore, the awarding of the Vietnam Service Medal ended on the same date.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm unsure of the significance of the VSM?
> Are you saying we are no longer paying for that invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do not understand the significance of the Vietnam Service Medal, then you are not very bright. Do some research you nitwit.
Click to expand...

You were first to interject the medal into the conversation.
Surely, you had a good reason.
What would that be?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

usmcstinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The War In Vietnam ended on March 28, 1973. All US Military Forces were gone by this date. Therefore, the awarding of the Vietnam Service Medal ended on the same date.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm unsure of the significance of the VSM?
> Are you saying we are no longer paying for that invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do not understand the significance of the Vietnam Service Medal, then you are not very bright. Do some research you nitwit.
Click to expand...


Post after post, you imply that you know so much but when asked a question, you get nasty.

I also wanted to ask you a question but why bother?

Sad.


----------



## bianco

Luddly Neddite said:


> bianco said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is the next stoopid war starting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as there's an R in the White House.
> 
> Some have been trying to get a war in Iran and will start a war as soon as they can.
Click to expand...


Someone had better blow up those nuke factories in Iran soon or we're all doomed.
Netanyahu explained it all on the world stage, that it's 5 minutes to midnight.
Most of the world laughed at him.
No laughing matter IMO.

The smile will disappear from their faces when all their cities, towns, and suburbs are radioactive from the falling or backpack bombs.


----------



## HenryBHough

And when they get them small enough to fit into pressure cookers........


----------



## Bumberclyde

bianco said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bianco said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is the next stoopid war starting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as there's an R in the White House.
> 
> Some have been trying to get a war in Iran and will start a war as soon as they can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone had better blow up those nuke factories in Iran soon or we're all doomed.
> Netanyahu explained it all on the world stage, that it's 5 minutes to midnight.
> Most of the world laughed at him.
> No laughing matter IMO.
> 
> The smile will disappear from their faces when all their cities, towns, and suburbs are radioactive from the falling or backpack bombs.
Click to expand...

Iran wants to nuke Israel? So fucking what?


----------



## Quadravius

thanatos144 said:


> Thats right they go and fight so you can write fucking despicable posts like you just did you ungrateful piece of shit!



What danger did iraq ever pose to come to the the shores of the usa with a military and invade your country and take your rights away?  You all attacking iraq has nothing to do with protecting anyones rights.  Keep thinking your special anyway though.


----------



## thanatos144

Quadravius said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats right they go and fight so you can write fucking despicable posts like you just did you ungrateful piece of shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What danger did iraq ever pose to come to the the shores of the usa with a military and invade your country and take your rights away?  You all attacking iraq has nothing to do with protecting anyones rights.  Keep thinking your special anyway though.
Click to expand...


Hey dummy you do know he funded terrorists right? Go eat a shit.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey..................Thanatos144, how many years did YOU serve in the military?

Me?  I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy.

I'm guessing you served zero, because you don't really sound like you've ever been in, you just sound like someone who likes to tout the troops, yet would never serve.


----------



## thanatos144

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey..................Thanatos144, how many years did YOU serve in the military?
> 
> Me?  I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy.
> 
> I'm guessing you served zero, because you don't really sound like you've ever been in, you just sound like someone who likes to tout the troops, yet would never serve.



Oh I am sorry not serving means I can't speak the truth?  Thank you for your service but I will tell the truth regardless and if you don't like it to fucking bad. 

tapatalk post


----------



## ABikerSailor

thanatos144 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey..................Thanatos144, how many years did YOU serve in the military?
> 
> Me?  I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy.
> 
> I'm guessing you served zero, because you don't really sound like you've ever been in, you just sound like someone who likes to tout the troops, yet would never serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I am sorry not serving means I can't speak the truth?  Thank you for your service but I will tell the truth regardless and if you don't like it to fucking bad.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Just what I'd thought, you never served and will never admit the fact you haven't, but will continue to tout the service of others and support them, even though you disagree.

Thanks for proving my point.

You might speak your version of the truth, but you haven't got the experience to speak for the troops you claim to speak for.

If I heard you speaking like that in a bar?  I'd probably kick your ass.


----------



## thanatos144

ABikerSailor said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey..................Thanatos144, how many years did YOU serve in the military?
> 
> Me?  I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy.
> 
> I'm guessing you served zero, because you don't really sound like you've ever been in, you just sound like someone who likes to tout the troops, yet would never serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I am sorry not serving means I can't speak the truth?  Thank you for your service but I will tell the truth regardless and if you don't like it to fucking bad.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just what I'd thought, you never served and will never admit the fact you haven't, but will continue to tout the service of others and support them, even though you disagree.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> You might speak your version of the truth, but you haven't got the experience to speak for the troops you claim to speak for.
> 
> If I heard you speaking like that in a bar?  I'd probably kick your ass.
Click to expand...


Would never say I didn't serve?  You don't know shit it seems. Everyone knows I didn't serve.  Also serving isn't a requirement for speech, dick 

tapatalk post


----------



## ABikerSailor

thanatos144 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I am sorry not serving means I can't speak the truth?  Thank you for your service but I will tell the truth regardless and if you don't like it to fucking bad.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just what I'd thought, you never served and will never admit the fact you haven't, but will continue to tout the service of others and support them, even though you disagree.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> You might speak your version of the truth, but you haven't got the experience to speak for the troops you claim to speak for.
> 
> If I heard you speaking like that in a bar?  I'd probably kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would never say I didn't serve?  You don't know shit it seems. Everyone knows I didn't serve.  Also serving isn't a requirement for speech, dick
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Never said anything about service being a requirement for speech.  I just said that you'd never served, and you proved that by posting that you'd never served, and I also said that if I heard you spout the bullshit that you're spewing right now, and if I heard it in a bar, I'd probably come over and kick your ass for being stupid.

I wouldn't kick your ass for not serving, I'd kick your ass for being ignorant.


----------



## thanatos144

ABikerSailor said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what I'd thought, you never served and will never admit the fact you haven't, but will continue to tout the service of others and support them, even though you disagree.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> You might speak your version of the truth, but you haven't got the experience to speak for the troops you claim to speak for.
> 
> If I heard you speaking like that in a bar?  I'd probably kick your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would never say I didn't serve?  You don't know shit it seems. Everyone knows I didn't serve.  Also serving isn't a requirement for speech, dick
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said anything about service being a requirement for speech.  I just said that you'd never served, and you proved that by posting that you'd never served, and I also said that if I heard you spout the bullshit that you're spewing right now, and if I heard it in a bar, I'd probably come over and kick your ass for being stupid.
> 
> I wouldn't kick your ass for not serving, I'd kick your ass for being ignorant.
Click to expand...


You mean spouting facts?  Go try and intimidate someone who is stupid because right now youre just irritating me 

tapatalk post


----------



## ABikerSailor

You may be "spouting facts" but unfortunately, most of those facts are wrong.

I irritate you?  Probably because you know that the "facts" you're spouting are wrong, and just like any other person who has their "facts" challenged and proven wrong, you're upset because people are looking at you as just another bullshitter.

And................like I've said....................you would never spout the bullshit you currently are if you'd ever served.  Because I've listened to what you've said, I know that you never served, and probably never will.  You're too selfish and self absorbed to serve on a team or in a unit.


----------



## thanatos144

ABikerSailor said:


> You may be "spouting facts" but unfortunately, most of those facts are wrong.
> 
> I irritate you?  Probably because you know that the "facts" you're spouting are wrong, and just like any other person who has their "facts" challenged and proven wrong, you're upset because people are looking at you as just another bullshitter.
> 
> And................like I've said....................you would never spout the bullshit you currently are if you'd ever served.  Because I've listened to what you've said, I know that you never served, and probably never will.  You're too selfish and self absorbed to serve on a team or in a unit.



You haven't challenged shit all you have done is try to insult me for not being in the military.

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

I am glad not everyone in the navy is a assmunch like you 

tapatalk post


----------



## ABikerSailor

Actually, I've challenged the posts you've made, and have been proven right as far as I can see, because the only thing you have is attacks on me.

And, you're right...................not every one in the Navy is an "assmunch" as myself.  Why?  Because we actually try to wait and see if someone is an idiot before we call them such.

Like I said, if you were in the military, you wouldn't post bullshit like you have, you'd probably have some real shit to say.


----------



## thanatos144

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, I've challenged the posts you've made, and have been proven right as far as I can see, because the only thing you have is attacks on me.
> 
> And, you're right...................not every one in the Navy is an "assmunch" as myself.  Why?  Because we actually try to wait and see if someone is an idiot before we call them such.
> 
> Like I said, if you were in the military, you wouldn't post bullshit like you have, you'd probably have some real shit to say.



If you challenge someone you do it with facts not chest pounding and how I know most in the navy isn't like you is because quite a few family members are in it and my son is joining soon.  He wouldn't Care for you ether 

tapatalk post


----------



## ABikerSailor

thanatos144 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've challenged the posts you've made, and have been proven right as far as I can see, because the only thing you have is attacks on me.
> 
> And, you're right...................not every one in the Navy is an "assmunch" as myself.  Why?  Because we actually try to wait and see if someone is an idiot before we call them such.
> 
> Like I said, if you were in the military, you wouldn't post bullshit like you have, you'd probably have some real shit to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you challenge someone you do it with facts not chest pounding and how I know most in the navy isn't like you is because quite a few family members are in it and my son is joining soon.  He wouldn't Care for you ether
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Actually, it's not chest pounding because I know that you're a civilian who is trying to feed off the service of your family.

Your son is joining soon?  Good.  I wish him fair winds and following seas, but with an anchor such as yourself (who is a bigot) he's going to have a hard time unless he can jettison bullshit that you bring with you.

And, by the way.............................if you only know an organization (like the U.S. Navy) by only one person, how can you REALLY know the organization?

I mean.....................I had my pre conceived notions, but were soon shown they were wrong when I showed up in boot camp.

You never showed up, you never served (as was referred by your previous post), yet you seem to know what goes on in the military.

How did you gain that insight?


----------



## thanatos144

So did Saddam fund terrorism or didn't he? 

tapatalk post


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Gosh, Biker, how much combat have you been in?
How much trigger time have you had?
How many KIAs and WIAs have you been closely involved with?
How much service connected disability do you have?

My guess would be that you have exactly the same amt. of relevant experience as thanatos (none).
And his POV is much more nearly correct than your own.


----------



## ABikerSailor

9thIDdoc said:


> Gosh, Biker, how much combat have you been in?
> How much trigger time have you had?
> How many KIAs and WIAs have you been closely involved with?
> How much service connected disability do you have?
> 
> My guess would be that you have exactly the same amt. of relevant experience as thanatos (none).
> And his POV is much more nearly correct than your own.



Actually, I've got time in war zones, and it's been reflected in my pay.

How much trigger time do I have?  Well, I never pulled the trigger, because that was left to the capable hands of the GM's (Gunner's Mates), and I have no KIA or WIA's that I've been involved with.

But then again, I was lucky in the places I've served.  I spent time in Beruit (when the Marines were hit, and some of them were my friends).

Again.................I've been lucky in my service because I don't have any service connected disabilities.  However..................I DO have friends that are service connected disabilities, although the U.S. Government chooses to not acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, but they're getting closer to having it acknowledged.


----------



## mudwhistle

ABikerSailor said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, Biker, how much combat have you been in?
> How much trigger time have you had?
> How many KIAs and WIAs have you been closely involved with?
> How much service connected disability do you have?
> 
> My guess would be that you have exactly the same amt. of relevant experience as thanatos (none).
> And his POV is much more nearly correct than your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've got time in war zones, and it's been reflected in my pay.
> 
> How much trigger time do I have?  Well, I never pulled the trigger, because that was left to the capable hands of the GM's (Gunner's Mates), and I have no KIA or WIA's that I've been involved with.
> 
> But then again, I was lucky in the places I've served.  I spent time in Beruit (when the Marines were hit, and some of them were my friends).
> 
> Again.................I've been lucky in my service because I don't have any service connected disabilities.  However..................I DO have friends that are service connected disabilities, although the U.S. Government chooses to not acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, but they're getting closer to having it acknowledged.
Click to expand...


Unless you had bullets zinging around you, or bombs exploding in your A.O. I don't think you really understand the issue. 

Try being out there day in and day out. Nothing between you and death but your wits and your training. It can be a bit unsettling at times. The unknown is what gets to you. Dealing with it is up to you.


----------



## Dot Com

thanatos144 said:


> So did Saddam fund terrorism or didn't he?
> 
> tapatalk post



So was that the Bush admin's PRIMARY reason for having a 10+ year war w/ 4,000+ casualties?


----------



## mudwhistle

Dot Com said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Saddam fund terrorism or didn't he?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So was that the Bush admin's PRIMARY reason for having a 10+ year war w/ 4,000+ casualties?
Click to expand...


It was a concerted effort.

Bush didn't ask for a surge in Afghanistan. Most of our troops were in Iraq. Democrats felt Afghanistan was the good war. Bush signed an agreement for withdrawal in Iraq before leaving office yet Obama tried to prevent it , according to the Iraqi government.

This is yet again the left blaming their acts on the GOP. 

Who got us into Vietnam? JFK. Who was blamed the most for Vietnam? Nixon.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"So was that the Bush admin's PRIMARY reason for having a 10+ year war w/ 4,000+ casualties?"_

*America's* involvement was initiated by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Where were you? It was in all the papers.


----------



## ABikerSailor

mudwhistle said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, Biker, how much combat have you been in?
> How much trigger time have you had?
> How many KIAs and WIAs have you been closely involved with?
> How much service connected disability do you have?
> 
> My guess would be that you have exactly the same amt. of relevant experience as thanatos (none).
> And his POV is much more nearly correct than your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've got time in war zones, and it's been reflected in my pay.
> 
> How much trigger time do I have?  Well, I never pulled the trigger, because that was left to the capable hands of the GM's (Gunner's Mates), and I have no KIA or WIA's that I've been involved with.
> 
> But then again, I was lucky in the places I've served.  I spent time in Beruit (when the Marines were hit, and some of them were my friends).
> 
> Again.................I've been lucky in my service because I don't have any service connected disabilities.  However..................I DO have friends that are service connected disabilities, although the U.S. Government chooses to not acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, but they're getting closer to having it acknowledged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you had bullets zinging around you, or bombs exploding in your A.O. I don't think you really understand the issue.
> 
> Try being out there day in and day out. Nothing between you and death but your wits and your training. It can be a bit unsettling at times. The unknown is what gets to you. Dealing with it is up to you.
Click to expand...


Actually, having a shell explode about 100 yards of my starboard bow while I was standing watch during flight quarters doing UNREP for the various boats and other places where we were sending rations and supplies qualifies.  Ever had to wonder if your house was going to be there the next couple of seconds?  I have.

And yeah..................I do understand the issue.  I've been there a couple of times.  How many times have you been there?


----------



## mudwhistle

ABikerSailor said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've got time in war zones, and it's been reflected in my pay.
> 
> How much trigger time do I have?  Well, I never pulled the trigger, because that was left to the capable hands of the GM's (Gunner's Mates), and I have no KIA or WIA's that I've been involved with.
> 
> But then again, I was lucky in the places I've served.  I spent time in Beruit (when the Marines were hit, and some of them were my friends).
> 
> Again.................I've been lucky in my service because I don't have any service connected disabilities.  However..................I DO have friends that are service connected disabilities, although the U.S. Government chooses to not acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, but they're getting closer to having it acknowledged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had bullets zinging around you, or bombs exploding in your A.O. I don't think you really understand the issue.
> 
> Try being out there day in and day out. Nothing between you and death but your wits and your training. It can be a bit unsettling at times. The unknown is what gets to you. Dealing with it is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, having a shell explode about 100 yards of my starboard bow while I was standing watch during flight quarters doing UNREP for the various boats and other places where we were sending rations and supplies qualifies.  Ever had to wonder if your house was going to be there the next couple of seconds?  I have.
> 
> And yeah..................I do understand the issue.  I've been there a couple of times.  How many times have you been there?
Click to expand...


I've done my share of time in war zones. Not as much as they deal with now. I felt that my training was usually more dangerous than my normal deployments. 

But being in a Hummer going down a road you know has IEDs is a scary prospect. I also spent 5 years on Navy ships, so I know the difference.


----------



## Bumberclyde

*Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*

Too stupid to stay out of the military?


----------



## thanatos144

Bumberclyde said:


> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*
> 
> Too stupid to stay out of the military?



You're a scumbag . 

tapatalk post


----------



## ABikerSailor

Bumberclyde said:


> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*
> 
> Too stupid to stay out of the military?



Thanatos is right.................you're a scumbag.


----------



## Bumberclyde

thanatos144 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*
> 
> Too stupid to stay out of the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a scumbag .
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


If they didn't want to die in an unjust war, they shouldn't have signed up. Pretty simple actually.


----------



## thanatos144

Bumberclyde said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*
> 
> Too stupid to stay out of the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a scumbag .
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they didn't want to die in an unjust war, they shouldn't have signed up. Pretty simple actually.
Click to expand...


Perhaps when you grow up you will understand what sacrifice means 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bumberclyde

thanatos144 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a scumbag .
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they didn't want to die in an unjust war, they shouldn't have signed up. Pretty simple actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps when you grow up you will understand what sacrifice means
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Sacrificing yourself for a bullshit or non-existent reason is sad and unnecessary. But it does seem kinda of a stupid thing to do.


----------



## thanatos144

Bumberclyde said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they didn't want to die in an unjust war, they shouldn't have signed up. Pretty simple actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps when you grow up you will understand what sacrifice means
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sacrificing yourself for a bullshit or non-existent reason is sad and unnecessary. But it does seem kinda of a stupid thing to do.
Click to expand...


Like I said you're a scumbag

tapatalk post


----------



## Dot Com

back to topic

you serve thanatroll144? When? where?

no seriously though, answer the OP question thanatroll. You said SH was funding terrists right? I'm still waiting for your link proving how much he paid-out.


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> back to topic
> 
> you serve thanatroll144? When? where?
> 
> no seriously though, answer the OP question thanatroll. You said SH was funding terrists right? I'm still waiting for your link proving how much he paid-out.



Google it dummy

tapatalk post


----------



## Dot Com

you're the one making the assertion, not me. I want to know why all those young men died in Iraq?


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> you're the one making the assertion, not me. I want to know why all those young men died in Iraq?



Google it dummy

tapatalk post


----------



## MikeK

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?


The answer to your question is here:  The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers

Every pair of American boots on Iraqi soil, every bullet fired in Iraq, and every American trooper killed or maimed in Iraq put money in somebody's pocket -- and there was no reason other than that.  It is as simple, as evil, and as disgustingly greedy as that.

George W. Bush had more than enough information to clearly anticipate the 9/11 terrorist action.  It was virtually screamed into his ear but he ignored it.  He could have prevented it but the attack on the World Trade Center facilitated his plan to enrich his "base" of corporate profiteers. 

The Iraq invasion was, in the simplest terms, the means by which the contents of America's Treasury was transferred to the pockets of Bush's pals.  That action is a crime so enormous it exists beyond the ability of the average American to comprehend it.


----------



## Dot Com

MikeK said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is here:  The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers
> 
> Every pair of American boots on Iraqi soil, every bullet fired in Iraq, and every American trooper killed or maimed in Iraq put money in somebody's pocket -- and there was no reason other than that.  It is as simple, as evil, and as disgustingly greedy as that.
> 
> George W. Bush had more than enough information to clearly anticipate the 9/11 terrorist action.  It was virtually screamed into his ear but he ignored it.  He could have prevented it but the attack on the World Trade Center facilitated his plan to enrich his "base" of corporate profiteers.
> 
> The Iraq invasion was, in the simplest terms, the means by which the contents of America's Treasury was transferred to the pockets of Bush's pals.  That action is a crime so enormous it exists beyond the ability of the average American to comprehend it.
Click to expand...


^ that

That is why they changed the reason for invading as many times as they did.


----------



## Bumberclyde

thanatos144 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps when you grow up you will understand what sacrifice means
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sacrificing yourself for a bullshit or non-existent reason is sad and unnecessary. But it does seem kinda of a stupid thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said you're a scumbag
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

A scumbag who's at least smart enough not to die for Haliburton's bottom line.


----------



## thanatos144

Bumberclyde said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sacrificing yourself for a bullshit or non-existent reason is sad and unnecessary. But it does seem kinda of a stupid thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said you're a scumbag
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A scumbag who's at least smart enough not to die for Haliburton's bottom line.
Click to expand...


You're not worth it 

tapatalk post


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Bumberclyde said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they didn't want to die in an unjust war, they shouldn't have signed up. Pretty simple actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps when you grow up you will understand what sacrifice means
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sacrificing yourself for a bullshit or non-existent reason is sad and unnecessary. But it does seem kinda of a stupid thing to do.
Click to expand...


Stupid is disrespecting your betters.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dot Com said:


> you're the one making the assertion, not me. I want to know why all those young men died in Iraq?



You are far too immature to understand such things.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Dot Com said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is here:  The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers
> 
> Every pair of American boots on Iraqi soil, every bullet fired in Iraq, and every American trooper killed or maimed in Iraq put money in somebody's pocket -- and there was no reason other than that.  It is as simple, as evil, and as disgustingly greedy as that.
> 
> George W. Bush had more than enough information to clearly anticipate the 9/11 terrorist action.  It was virtually screamed into his ear but he ignored it.  He could have prevented it but the attack on the World Trade Center facilitated his plan to enrich his "base" of corporate profiteers.
> 
> The Iraq invasion was, in the simplest terms, the means by which the contents of America's Treasury was transferred to the pockets of Bush's pals.  That action is a crime so enormous it exists beyond the ability of the average American to comprehend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ that
> 
> That is why they changed the reason for invading as many times as they did.
Click to expand...


And they're still changing their story. 

Amazingly, there are still rw's who believe Saddam Hussein attacked the US on 9/11. 

No, I mean in addition to $arah Palin.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Gosh, a whole nest of scumbags! Explains why America is having so many problems.
How* dare* we use money to defend our women and children when we could be giving it to stoned lazy-ass welfare recipients!


----------



## georgephillip

9thIDdoc said:


> Gosh, a whole nest of scumbags! Explains why America is having so many problems.
> How* dare* we use money to defend our women and children when we could be giving it to stoned lazy-ass welfare recipients!


*How many of "our women and children" have we saved by murdering, maiming, and displacing millions of innocent women and children and others, from Korea to Kandahar, since 1945?

"Stoned lazy-ass welfare recipients" would be a more ethical choice than p$ychotic baby-killing thieve$, IMHO:*

"Linda Woodford spent the last 15 years of her career inserting phony numbers in the U.S. Department of Defense's accounts.

"Every month until she retired in 2011, she says, the day came when the Navy would start dumping numbers on the Cleveland, Ohio, office of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the Pentagon's main accounting agency. 

"Using the data they received, Woodford and her fellow DFAS accountants there set about preparing monthly reports to square the Navy's books with the U.S. Treasury's - a balancing-the-checkbook maneuver required of all the military services and other Pentagon agencies.

"And every month, they encountered the same problem. 

"Numbers were missing. 

"Numbers were clearly wrong. 

"Numbers came with no explanation of how the money had been spent or which congressional appropriation it came from. 'A lot of times there were issues of numbers being inaccurate,' Woodford says. 'We didn't have the detail  for a lot of it.'"

"The data flooded in just two days before deadline..."

Special Report: The Pentagon's doctored ledgers conceal epic waste | Reuters


----------



## gipper

georgephillip said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, a whole nest of scumbags! Explains why America is having so many problems.
> How* dare* we use money to defend our women and children when we could be giving it to stoned lazy-ass welfare recipients!
> 
> 
> 
> *How many of "our women and children" have we saved by murdering, maiming, and displacing millions of innocent women and children and others, from Korea to Kandahar, since 1945?
> 
> "Stoned lazy-ass welfare recipients" would be a more ethical choice than p$ychotic baby-killing thieve$, IMHO:*
> 
> "Linda Woodford spent the last 15 years of her career inserting phony numbers in the U.S. Department of Defense's accounts.
> 
> "Every month until she retired in 2011, she says, the day came when the Navy would start dumping numbers on the Cleveland, Ohio, office of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the Pentagon's main accounting agency.
> 
> "Using the data they received, Woodford and her fellow DFAS accountants there set about preparing monthly reports to square the Navy's books with the U.S. Treasury's - a balancing-the-checkbook maneuver required of all the military services and other Pentagon agencies.
> 
> "And every month, they encountered the same problem.
> 
> "Numbers were missing.
> 
> "Numbers were clearly wrong.
> 
> "Numbers came with no explanation of how the money had been spent or which congressional appropriation it came from. 'A lot of times there were issues of numbers being inaccurate,' Woodford says. 'We didn't have the detail  for a lot of it.'"
> 
> "The data flooded in just two days before deadline..."
> 
> Special Report: The Pentagon's doctored ledgers conceal epic waste | Reuters
Click to expand...


It is unfortunate that many Americans are against cutting defense...and so many Americans are against cutting non-defense programs.

The waste by this huge omnipresent government is EPIC in all it's programs, most of which are entirely ineffective, but does grow government and buys votes. 

This from the Daily Caller....



> Coburn, a medical doctor by trade, begins with Medicaid, highlighting that when the program was at its inception in 1966, it cost $800 million and had an enrollment of 4 million people. In 2012, Medicaid spent $250.5 billion on 55.6 million people  *a cost increase of 31,212.5 percent and enrollment increase of 1,290 percent over 46 years.*
> 
> Likewise, according to Coburns report, the various aspects of Medicare have skyrocketed in cost and enrollments. In 1967, the program spent $2.8 billion; in 2012, it spent $471.8 billion  *a 16,750 percent increase in cost in 45 years.* From 1966 to 2010, the enrollees in Medicare Part A, B and C increased by 149.2 percent, 148.9 percent and 807.9 percent, respectively; and from 1974 to 2008, the number of End Stage Renal Disease enrollees increased by 4,022 percent.
> 
> Defense health programs have also been party to the increases, the report continues, with defense health programs in 1980 spending $3.7 billion, compared to $53.5 billion in 2012  a 134.9 percent increase in 32 years. And from 1995 to 2011, the number of eligible enrollees in TRICARE increased about 17 percent  from  8.3 million to 9.7 million.
> 
> Medical care for veterans also increased from $1.1 billion in 1962 to $50.6 billion in 2012  *an increase in 4,500 percent in 50 years.
> *
> Other health-care programs, like the Indian Health Service and State Childrens Health Insurance Program, also adhered to the upward trend  increasing 155.3 percent in enrollment in 43 years and 163.6 percent in 11 years respectively.
> Coburn: Medicaid cost has gone up 31,212 percent in 46 years | The Daily Caller


----------



## Dot Com

The Daily Caller? lol

Anyway, I served and I believe EVERYTHING should be on the table to get this great nation's balance sheet in order. EVERYTHING!


----------



## gipper

Dot Com said:


> The Daily Caller? lol
> 
> Anyway, I served and I believe EVERYTHING should be on the table to get this great nation's balance sheet in order. EVERYTHING!



What is funny about the Daily Caller?

Do you dispute the findings outlined in the article and by Senator Coburn?


----------



## Edgetho

gipper said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Daily Caller? lol
> 
> Anyway, I served and I believe EVERYTHING should be on the table to get this great nation's balance sheet in order. EVERYTHING!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is funny about the Daily Caller?
> 
> Do you dispute the findings outlined in the article and by Senator Coburn?
Click to expand...


Age-old loser tactic...  If you can't attack the facts, attack the source.

dimocraps are famous for that shit.  Like little children


----------



## Bumberclyde

9thIDdoc said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps when you grow up you will understand what sacrifice means
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sacrificing yourself for a bullshit or non-existent reason is sad and unnecessary. But it does seem kinda of a stupid thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid is disrespecting your betters.
Click to expand...


Stupid is joining an unjust war.


----------



## Edgetho

Bumberclyde said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sacrificing yourself for a bullshit or non-existent reason is sad and unnecessary. But it does seem kinda of a stupid thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid is disrespecting your betters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid is joining an unjust war.
Click to expand...


You are a traitorous cocksucker.

How about if during WWII, millions of men decided not to fight the Germans?

What did they ever do to us?  And the Japanese?  All they did was sink a few ships and kill a few Americans.....  Fewer than were killed on 9/11, BTW.

And most the people killed in the attack on Pearl harbor were Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines....  Fighters.

I'm not aware of any Fighters being attacked and killed on 9/11.  I saw some civilians jumping to their deaths from a thousand feet.  But no Soldiers.













You are a traitorous, gutless, cocksucker of a coward.

Talk that shit around me and you'll be picking teeth out of your mouth for a Month.

suck a glock, bitch

How does our once great Country produce cowardly, gutless, scum-sucking, cocksucking traitors like this?


----------



## Bumberclyde

Iraq/Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But you knew that already.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Saddam was a WMD using terrorist well before 9/11.


----------



## Dot Com

where did he get his weapons from smart guy? I eagerly await your response


----------



## Mojo2

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.



The answer to why your friends died in Iraq might be better understood by using a hypothetical analogy.

Your absolute worst enemy in the world, one who'd tried killing you in the past, moved next door and they boasted of building high explosive I.E.D.'s in their apartment capable of blowing up the entire block.

You take the necessary self defense measures of calling the police. But their actions can not assure you that the evil neighbor isn't capable or likely to blow up you and your family at least.

After you've done all you can do diplomatically, you warn the neighbor to do SOMETHING to ease the sense of threat you feel from him.

You give him two weeks.

He does nothing to lessen the threat or ease your fears.

What is left to you to do?


----------



## Mojo2

Dot Com said:


> where did he get his weapons from smart guy? I eagerly await your response



And that matters how?


----------



## bianco

*"Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?" *

#####

Because they joined the military voluntarily.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

On the govt man's military payroll...then it's off to Iraq war for you...the govt man chooses your fate.


----------



## Bumberclyde

9thIDdoc said:


> Saddam was a WMD using terrorist well before 9/11.



He never attacked the US, in fact, the US helped him attacK Iran. Well, the US and Osama bin Laden.


----------



## Edgetho

Bumberclyde said:


> Iraq/Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But you knew that already.



Who said he did?

He was trying to convince the world that he had WMDs.  Especially Iran.

There was a three-hour documentary on the FBI Agent who debriefed Saddam for Months before he was finally hanged.

Saddam came right and said that he feared the Iranians more than he feared the USA and that if the Iranians thought he had WMDs that they wouldn't invade.

They wouldn't invade because they knew, for a fucking FACT, that Saddam would nuke them into the Stone Age if he had them.  And they weren't going to take that chance.

In fact, when Iraq was in the final stages of losing the '03 War, his top Generals called him and asked for Saddam to release control of the WMDs to them.

They were shocked when he told them he didn't have any.

It was a ruse.  A good one.  A very good one.

And it was at a time when we couldn't afford to take the chance.

Saddam was an idiot.  A murdering idiot who had used WMDs against his own people at one time.

ANd if he really did have WMDs, we couldn't take the chance of him getting one into the hands of al Qaeda or another terrorist group willing to use them.

Remember something, Saddam had the BALLS to send an actual Hit Team to assassinate George H W Bush.

They got caught in Kuwait but still.....  Can you imagine if China sent a Hit Team, an assassination squad, to kill obama?

Well, okay...  Not a good comparison....  But think about if they sent someone to assassinate a decent president.

Dewd, I got a newsflash for you....  THAT is an Act of War.  Period.

I know I've given you more information in this little post than you've ever had on the topic.

I also know that you'll ignore it.

Because you're a dimocrap.  Which requires stupidity.  

And you've got that in spades.

Grow up.  Stop being so fucking stupid


----------



## MikeK

9thIDdoc said:


> Gosh, a whole nest of scumbags! Explains why America is having so many problems.
> 
> How* dare* we use money to defend our women and children when we could be giving it to stoned lazy-ass welfare recipients!


How did our invasion and occupation of a militarily crippled, non-provocative, non-hostile nation like Iraq serve to defend our women and children?  Iraq was barely able to defend itself.  

Even if what you've suggested were the chosen reality, wouldn't you rather fund the "stoned, lazy-ass welfare recipients" than fund what amounts to the wholly unnecessary killing and maiming of thousands of American troopers?  

Take your pick.


----------



## thanatos144

Liberals feel for all those dead terrorists. After all they want the same things 

tapatalk post


----------



## Dot Com

Bumberclyde said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was a WMD using terrorist well before 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He never attacked the US, in fact, the US helped him attacK Iran. Well, the US and Osama bin Laden.
Click to expand...


yep. 9th in doc needs to quit while he's behind. His "MURICA right or wrong" attitude is just plain wrong.


----------



## 1776

1) You don't have any friends....so your post is moot.



Luddly Neddite said:


> Why did we invade Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you're able to forgive bush and his cronies for putting us so deeply in debt that it will take generations to dig us out, the wanton and needless killing and maiming of so many Americans and others is just unforgivable.
> 
> Especially since vets ow have to keep fighting for every little crumb they get.


----------



## MaryL

Iraq was NEVER a threat to America. I personally  never accepted the war in Iraq, the supposed WMD's that the UN never could verify...Our military isn't responsible for that. Poor political  leadership was. As it still IS. I lost my job because  of Obama's astute leadership. American leaders lead us down the road to loss and we just accept it. I never voted for Bush or Obama. We lose, we bleed. And who cares?


----------



## 1776

Ridding the Middle East of a dictator that destabilized the region invading his neighbor and supporting terrorists that attack our ally in Israel, was the main reason in addition to him never coming clean about his WMDs.

He used WMDs...but of course you will claim he never had any. Assad ended up with Saddam's WMDs because they both hated Israel and Russia supported both dictators...well Russia is supporting Assad today, but Saddam is dead.

Does that make you sad?

I do get a laugh at people with limited knowledge and IQ talking about the Iraq war, national defense, foreign policy, etc. 



MaryL said:


> Iraq was NEVER a threat to America. I personally  never accepted the war in Iraq, the supposed WMD's that the UN never could verify...Our military isn't responsible for that. Poor political  leadership was. As it still IS. I lost my job because  of Obama's astute leadership. American leaders lead us down the road to loss and we just accept it. I never voted for Bush or Obama. We lose, we bleed. And who cares?


----------



## 1776

Just to give some notes to the dumbfucks here about Iraq...

Bush II didn't start the Iraq War, Saddam did when Bush I was in office....but maybe you are too young or brain dead to know this fact.

Bush II never made it US Policy to remove Saddam from power, that was Bill Clinton and his crazy sidekick algore back in 1998.

Oh, you didn't realize the US military was "in" Iraq before ole George took office. Of course you are that stupid. Also, we were spending millions babysitting Saddam to keep him inside his box while he sold oil to scum for weapons in violation of UN mandates. 

When 9-11 kicked off, Saddam was before and after supporting Islamic terrorists mainly against Israel. Paying the families of suicide bombers killing innocent people in Israel. Once Saddam took in one of the top AQ leaders for injuries sustained fighting us in Afghanistan, well he got our attention especially since he never proved he got rid of the WMDs you scumbags claim he never had. 

His WMDs, well he was moving and burying stuff from the IAEA for years which also got our attention. Even "Colon" Powell showed the UN the intel pics of Saddam digging up, moving and burying "stuff" in the desert...quite the MILDEC/MISO program he had. 

Reality is the IAEA never secured the border between Iraq and Syria....follow the yellow brick road to the WMD, asswipes. Now you see why Obama didn't want "US troops" removing the WMD in Syria...with made in Iraq stamped on the side. Russia can help cover up the WMDs.....

As for the war in Iraq, it was a great success by the military until a few political appointees showed up in country and made some stupid decisions like blocking "all Sunni leaders" from rebuilding Iraq which helped drive the insurgency that went hand in hand with Al Qai'da attacks on US troops and the Iraqis. Once the Sunnis turned on their AQ "buddies" the war came to an end.


----------



## MaryL

1776 said:


> Ridding the Middle East of a dictator that destabilized the region invading his neighbor and supporting terrorists that attack our ally in Israel, was the main reason in addition to him never coming clean about his WMDs.
> 
> He used WMDs...but of course you will claim he never had any. Assad ended up with Saddam's WMDs because they both hated Israel and Russia supported both dictators...well Russia is supporting Assad today, but Saddam is dead.
> 
> Does that make you sad?
> 
> I do get a laugh at people with limited knowledge and IQ talking about the Iraq war, national defense, foreign policy, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq was NEVER a threat to America. I personally  never accepted the war in Iraq, the supposed WMD's that the UN never could verify...Our military isn't responsible for that. Poor political  leadership was. As it still IS. I lost my job because  of Obama's astute leadership. American leaders lead us down the road to loss and we just accept it. I never voted for Bush or Obama. We lose, we bleed. And who cares?
Click to expand...


Really? Sadam gassed the Kurds back in the early 80's.  We didn't lift a bloody finger. Like in Syria in the last few months.  Then Sadam practically  telegraphed his intentions to invade Kuwait  in 89' and, we suddenly ramped up our war machine ( I actually saw it happen in 89') and...let  it happen and afterwards, then pretend it was a surprise, we LET it happen. I still don't understand WHY.   I remember  America helping Sadam because they were fighting the Iranians.  I also remember we  helped  the  Taliban and Bin laden fight the soviets in  Afghanistan. Remember that? I do. They call that&#8230;Hubris. karma,blowback,  plain pure ill thought out shortsightedness. Anyway, back at the ranch&#8230;


----------



## thanatos144

MaryL said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridding the Middle East of a dictator that destabilized the region invading his neighbor and supporting terrorists that attack our ally in Israel, was the main reason in addition to him never coming clean about his WMDs.
> 
> He used WMDs...but of course you will claim he never had any. Assad ended up with Saddam's WMDs because they both hated Israel and Russia supported both dictators...well Russia is supporting Assad today, but Saddam is dead.
> 
> Does that make you sad?
> 
> I do get a laugh at people with limited knowledge and IQ talking about the Iraq war, national defense, foreign policy, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq was NEVER a threat to America. I personally  never accepted the war in Iraq, the supposed WMD's that the UN never could verify...Our military isn't responsible for that. Poor political  leadership was. As it still IS. I lost my job because  of Obama's astute leadership. American leaders lead us down the road to loss and we just accept it. I never voted for Bush or Obama. We lose, we bleed. And who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Sadam gassed the Kurds back in the early 80's.  We didn't lift a bloody finger. Like in Syria in the last few months.  Then Sadam practically  telegraphed his intentions to invade Kuwait  in 89' and, we suddenly ramped up our war machine ( I actually saw it happen in 89') and...let  it happen and afterwards, then pretend it was a surprise, we LET it happen. I still don't understand WHY.   I remember  America helping Sadam because they were fighting the Iranians.  I also remember we  helped  the  Taliban and Bin laden fight the soviets in  Afghanistan. Remember that? I do. They call thatHubris. karma,blowback,  plain pure ill thought out shortsightedness. Anyway, back at the ranch
Click to expand...


To people like you it us always the USA that wad the true evil that deserves what it gets. .. people like you hate this country. 

tapatalk post


----------



## 9thIDdoc

MikeK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, a whole nest of scumbags! Explains why America is having so many problems.
> 
> How* dare* we use money to defend our women and children when we could be giving it to stoned lazy-ass welfare recipients!
> 
> 
> 
> How did our invasion and occupation of a militarily crippled, non-provocative, non-hostile nation like Iraq serve to defend our women and children?  Iraq was barely able to defend itself.
> 
> Even if what you've suggested were the chosen reality, wouldn't you rather fund the "stoned, lazy-ass welfare recipients" than fund what amounts to the wholly unnecessary killing and maiming of thousands of American troopers?
> 
> Take your pick.
Click to expand...


What in the world makes you think I am suddenly going to start buying into your revisionist, anti-American, anti-soldier horseshit? With little exception I am pleased and proud of our actions in Iraq and grateful to our troops that served there.


----------



## MaryL

thanatos144 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridding the Middle East of a dictator that destabilized the region invading his neighbor and supporting terrorists that attack our ally in Israel, was the main reason in addition to him never coming clean about his WMDs.
> 
> He used WMDs...but of course you will claim he never had any. Assad ended up with Saddam's WMDs because they both hated Israel and Russia supported both dictators...well Russia is supporting Assad today, but Saddam is dead.
> 
> Does that make you sad?
> 
> I do get a laugh at people with limited knowledge and IQ talking about the Iraq war, national defense, foreign policy, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Sadam gassed the Kurds back in the early 80's.  We didn't lift a bloody finger. Like in Syria in the last few months.  Then Sadam practically  telegraphed his intentions to invade Kuwait  in 89' and, we suddenly ramped up our war machine ( I actually saw it happen in 89') and...let  it happen and afterwards, then pretend it was a surprise, we LET it happen. I still don't understand WHY.   I remember  America helping Sadam because they were fighting the Iranians.  I also remember we  helped  the  Taliban and Bin laden fight the soviets in  Afghanistan. Remember that? I do. They call that&#8230;Hubris. karma,blowback,  plain pure ill thought out shortsightedness. Anyway, back at the ranch&#8230;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To people like you it us always the USA that wad the true evil that deserves what it gets. .. people like you hate this country.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I think you misunderstood me. I have deep respect for the military. Not so much, the politicians that send them to Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Beirut, Kuwait or Iraq or Afghanistan for vague if not contradictory  reasons. The politicians, with their causes and their agendas, that&#8217;s the single biggest killer of our troops.


----------



## MikeK

1776 said:


> Ridding the Middle East of a dictator that destabilized the region invading his neighbor and supporting terrorists that attack our ally in Israel, was the main reason in addition to him never coming clean about his WMDs.
> 
> He used WMDs...but of course you will claim he never had any. Assad ended up with Saddam's WMDs because they both hated Israel and Russia supported both dictators...well Russia is supporting Assad today, but Saddam is dead.
> 
> Does that make you sad?
> 
> I do get a laugh at people with limited knowledge and IQ talking about the Iraq war, national defense, foreign policy, etc.


If Saddam Hussein had these fearsome weapons during the time frame relevant to Bush's declarations, why do you suppose he didn't use them against us when we invaded his country?  Do you think it's because he didn't want to make us angry?  Or was he saving them for a different occasion?


----------



## MikeK

9thIDdoc said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, a whole nest of scumbags! Explains why America is having so many problems.
> 
> How* dare* we use money to defend our women and children when we could be giving it to stoned lazy-ass welfare recipients!
> 
> 
> 
> How did our invasion and occupation of a militarily crippled, non-provocative, non-hostile nation like Iraq serve to defend our women and children?  Iraq was barely able to defend itself.
> 
> Even if what you've suggested were the chosen reality, wouldn't you rather fund the "stoned, lazy-ass welfare recipients" than fund what amounts to the wholly unnecessary killing and maiming of thousands of American troopers?
> 
> Take your pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the world makes you think I am suddenly going to start buying into your revisionist, anti-American, anti-soldier horseshit? With little exception I am pleased and proud of our actions in Iraq and grateful to our troops that served there.
Click to expand...

That's because you've been brainwashed.  It's because aside from your military service there is nothing else of any significance in your life.  And it's because you're not very bright to begin with.


----------



## thanatos144

MikeK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did our invasion and occupation of a militarily crippled, non-provocative, non-hostile nation like Iraq serve to defend our women and children?  Iraq was barely able to defend itself.
> 
> Even if what you've suggested were the chosen reality, wouldn't you rather fund the "stoned, lazy-ass welfare recipients" than fund what amounts to the wholly unnecessary killing and maiming of thousands of American troopers?
> 
> Take your pick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world makes you think I am suddenly going to start buying into your revisionist, anti-American, anti-soldier horseshit? With little exception I am pleased and proud of our actions in Iraq and grateful to our troops that served there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you've been brainwashed.  It's because aside from your military service there is nothing else of any significance in your life.  And it's because you're not very bright to begin with.
Click to expand...


You normally this stupid or do you work at it? 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bumberclyde

*Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*

GW Bush and Dick Cheney.


----------



## thanatos144

Bumberclyde said:


> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*
> 
> GW Bush and Dick Cheney.



More like Al Gore and Bill Clinton 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bumberclyde

thanatos144 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*
> 
> GW Bush and Dick Cheney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like Al Gore and Bill Clinton
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Bush and Cheney were in charge on 9/11. Now you know. You fucking retard.


----------



## thanatos144

Bumberclyde said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*
> 
> GW Bush and Dick Cheney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like Al Gore and Bill Clinton
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush and Cheney were in charge on 9/11. Now you know. You fucking retard.
Click to expand...


Awww you don't like the truth? 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bumberclyde

*Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq?*

Because they weren't any smarter than thanatos.


----------



## georgephillip

gipper said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Daily Caller? lol
> 
> Anyway, I served and I believe EVERYTHING should be on the table to get this great nation's balance sheet in order. EVERYTHING!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is funny about the Daily Caller?
> 
> Do you dispute the findings outlined in the article and by Senator Coburn?
Click to expand...

As a MD who migrated to the US Sentate, Coburn is well aware of the broken, for-profit health care industry in this country that is dramatically overcharging individuals, businesses, and all levels of government for its services. Every other industrial country on the planet spends less of health care than we do and receives better health care. When politicians allow hospitals, drug and device makers, and diagnostic labs to rip off US consumers, and private insurance corporations enhance profit by denying coverage, waste, fraud and greed are guaranteed to drive up individual costs, the national debt, and provide Americans with an inferior health care product.


----------



## jasonnfree

TakeAStepBack said:


> It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.



How do you explain USA's  invasions of  Cuba, Puerto Rica, Phillipines, Hawaii,  and many other countries before the federal reserve act?  These were countries minding there own business.   This is the USA's history.  Talk peace while invading countries too weak to put up much of a fight. It has nothing to do with the federal reserve from what I can see.


----------



## jasonnfree

whitehall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did My Friends Die in Iraq? *
> 
> Because of neo-conservative misunderstanding of the world and of the application of hard power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misunderstanding? Every war in the bloody 20th century happened during a democrat administrations and life was cheap. Woodie Wilson had no business using American Troops to bail out France but maybe his wife was really calling the shots. We did it again twenty years later when FDR wasn't paying attention. Harry Truman appointed a possibly senile field commander when he ordered US Troops to Korea and MacArthur led Americans into the biggest ambush in history. JFK was a freaking idiot who thought he could use the CIA to invade Cuba after his friends in organized crime lost their table stakes. LBJ thought he had a better idea of waging war. He set up the rules in Vietnam so that we could win all the battles and lose the freaking war.
Click to expand...


So USA had no business fighting WW2 is what you're saying?


----------

