# Simple Question: Did we (USA) win Iraq War?



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2009)

Iraq War To Do List
1.	Defeat Iraqi Military 
2.	Overrun Baghdad
3.	Capture Saddam
4.	Begin Martial Law
5.	Defeat Insurgency
6.	Facilitate Elections
7.	Establish New Currency
8.	Establish New Constitution
9.	Establish Fair Markets
10.	Rebuild infrastructure

10 for 10. Chalk it up for the Good Guys.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2009)

Horsecrap, CF.  Basic services, including electricity, are at pre-war levels and it has been six years.  The second we are out of there, Iraq will ally with Iran.  I truly believe that was not part of Bush's plan.


----------



## rdean (Oct 6, 2009)

Women's rights in Iraq, check.

How the US Erase Womens Rights in Iraq

Religious freedom the Christian people in Iraq, check.

Iraq: Christian Population Dwindling Due To Threats, Attacks - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2009

The new constitution in Iraq, check.

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

Article 2: 

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: 

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established. 

Article 3: 

(Iraq is a country of many nationalities, religions and sects and is a founding and active member of the Arab League and is committed to its covenant. Iraq is a part of the Islamic world.) 

-----------

I believe the right in this country finds Iraq a close friend and an incredible success.  Good Job Republicans.  This is what happens when you guys are in charge.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 6, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 7.  Establish New Currency



The U.S. has printed ten's of billions in new Iraqie currency that is still setting in banks.

It is still only worth a few pennies on the dollar.

Because no international banks are willing to accept it or set an exchange rate for it on the world market.


----------



## rdean (Oct 6, 2009)

Still waiting for all the right wingers to come along and explain this incredible success.  Now they're talking about all the new places we should be dropping bombs.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 6, 2009)

rdean said:


> Still waiting for all the right wingers to come along and explain this incredible success.  Now they're talking about all the new places we should be dropping bombs.



LOL Obama is in charge not the Republicans, you may want to check on who is talking war.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War To Do List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam
> ...


11. Rid the world of Saddam's massive arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction

oops!

Why did we go to Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan?  Why did we prosecute destruction in Afghanistan for going on eight years now and should Afghanistan fall to Al Qaeda it's all Obama's fault?  Who ran that war for seven of those eight years and why isn't _he_ accountable?

And was nation building our mandate for war in Iraq?  The yardstick you provide shows seven points for nation building and only three for warfare.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 6, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9. Establish Fair Markets



When and where did this happen?

Evidence???


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 6, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 10.  Rebuild infrastructure



Most Iraqi's only have electrical power a few hours per day.

And clean running water is still not available in many areas.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Horsecrap, CF.  Basic services, including electricity, are at pre-war levels and it has been six years.  The second we are out of there, Iraq will ally with Iran.  I truly believe that was not part of Bush's plan.



*Facts are not your friend*

Iraq's Electricity Production Surpasses Prewar Level

Electricity rationing still occurs in Iraq, despite increased energy production
February 19, 2009

BAGHDAD -- The amount of power generated in Iraq is higher than it was before the end of the reign of leader Saddam Hussein in 2003, RFE/RL's Radio Free Iraq reports.

Electricity Minister Karim Wahid said in Babil Province on February 18 that the country's power output has reached 6,760 megawatts, some 2,500 megawatts more than the amount being generated in 2003 before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Wahid added that the country will get a substantial increase in power this summer when several large energy-producing projects will be finished and provide an additional 2,000 megawatts.

Wahid said the government's recent budget cuts due to the fall in oil prices will not affect the Electricity Ministry's plans.

Despite the increased energy, there is still an electricity shortage in Iraq. Electricity rationing still occurs, including in the capital, Baghdad. 

Iraq's Electricity Production Surpasses Prewar Level - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2009

Electricity
Expanding Access to Electricity

In 2002 Baghdad had access to electricity on a near continuous basis while the rest of Iraq was limited to 3 to 6 hours daily. The U.S. government has made significant progress in improving electricity supply in Iraq and distributing it more equitably throughout the country. USAID recently completed its three-year, $2.3 billion Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Program. Through its overall program, USAID has added 1,292 megawatts of electric generating capacity to Iraq's power grid, serving over 7 million Iraqis.

USAID: Assistance for Iraq - Accomplishments: Electricity


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2009)

Wow The lessons of Vietnam still stand, Libruls still calling the war for the enemy. Thank God they no longer have a media monopoly! They tried their best, but in the end, the good guys won

We won, just fucking deal with it.  You can post all the lies and bullshit about electricity, infrastructure and women's rights (Was a trip to the Rape Room one of the Rights they lost post invasion?) The simple fact is we went in and we won.

With the exception of applying meaningful pressure on Iran (thanks to Jihadist supporters at State Dept and in Congress aka: Democrats) we hit all our strategic objective!  That's calling winning!!

We trained up the ISF to be the most lethal force in the Middle East probably including the IDF (sorry, Israel, you better do more than just show up next time). As proof I offer the ass kicking inflicting at Basra on Dems favorite son in the area: Mooky Al Sadr (where did he disappear to?) and their Iranian proxies.

Dem LOVE calling it for the enemy. It's like breathing for them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2009)

To the 7 fucking morons who voted no, please tell define how we lost


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2009)

Up to 8 fucking morons now.  What should President Obama to to put it in the Win Column in your Inverted 180 degree backwards Bizzaroland world view?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2009)

Don't be a pussy your entire life, I intentionally made the poll anonymous...tell me why you think we lost, let's hear your "ideas"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 7, 2009)

Bump to see if anyone on the Left magically grew a sac overnight and feels like giving specific answers.

Maybe you should consult Sonia's Sotomayor, I hear she has a wise Latina vagina.

This thread is NOT going away! I will bump it everyday until you start putting answers behind saying how it is we lost Iraq.  It will nag at your frail sensibilities until you can't take it any more and come on here to post: *Booooshhhh!  We hates it! Hates him my Precious!  He stole the precious election! He liessssss about WMD, precious!*

Thank you.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 7, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bump to see if anyone on the Left magically grew a sac overnight and feels like giving specific answers.
> 
> Maybe you should consult Sonia's Sotomayor, I hear she has a wise Latina vagina.
> 
> ...


try decaf.


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 7, 2009)

Yeah, we won big time!

We won 4,000 dead U.S. troops.

We won close to a trillion dollars in debt (thank you Communist China!).

We won  the obligation to keep U.S. forces in yet another foreign country forever.

We won the undying admiration of our good friends the Saudis for relieiving them of their biggest threat.


----------



## Missourian (Oct 7, 2009)

Sorry my liberal friends, we won the war in Iraq, to late to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

If you feel cheated, no worries, from what I've seen from the new C-in-C, you'll have a U.S. defeat to celebrate in short order.

There should be enough room to cross out Bush and scribble in Obama on the party hats but Afghanistan is going to be a tight squeeze where Iraq was on the banners and flags...just write small.

Maybe you should break down and sign onto victory with the rest of us, get Obama to pull his head out of his six and listen to the General HE APPOINTED.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 7, 2009)

Is this what victory looks like in the 21st century?  We have to ponder whether or not we actually won?  It's already too much to take pondering whether or not we should have even fought the fight!

Thanks, idiot Bush and those who carried water for his idiocy!  Because we went uninvited into Iraq, we may now lose the war we should have fought and decisively won.


"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"


----------



## xotoxi (Oct 7, 2009)

In order to say that we won the war, we need to decide if the original goals set forth at the beginning of the war have been accomplished.

What were those goals?


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 7, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> In order to say that we won the war, we need to decide if the original goals set forth at the beginning of the war have been accomplished.
> 
> What were those goals?




Finding and destroying Saddams stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, that's right, there weren't any.

Our bad.

But that's OK.  War is good business and gets people all patriotic and tingly.


----------



## rdean (Oct 26, 2009)

Missourian said:


> Sorry my liberal friends, we won the war in Iraq, to late to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
> 
> If you feel cheated, no worries, from what I've seen from the new C-in-C, you'll have a U.S. defeat to celebrate in short order.
> 
> ...



We won as long as you don't ask anyone who actually lives there.  Good job brownie.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> Is this what victory looks like in the 21st century?  We have to ponder whether or not we actually won?  It's already too much to take pondering whether or not we should have even fought the fight!
> 
> Thanks, idiot Bush and those who carried water for his idiocy!  Because we went uninvited into Iraq, we may now lose the war we should have fought and decisively won.
> 
> ...



Let's substitute Germany (c.1942) for Iraq (c.2001). What did WW2 cost us in men and money?  And Germany didn't even attack us!  Germany didn't have the capacity to do that.
That idiot Roosevelt and those who carried water for his idiocy!  Over 418,000 killed in just 3 years.
Idiocy knows no borders.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> Yeah, we won big time!
> 
> We won 4,000 dead U.S. troops.
> 
> ...



Typical Librul bullshit non-answer.  

Grow a fucking sac, or go borrow someone elses and answer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > In order to say that we won the war, we need to decide if the original goals set forth at the beginning of the war have been accomplished.
> ...



That's not what John Kerry said.

&#8220;George W. Bush who talks tough and brags about making America safer has once again failed to deliver. After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this administration failed to guard those stockpiles &#8211; where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept. Today we learned that these explosives are missing, unaccounted for and could be in the hands of terrorists.

*&#8220;Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops and our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings.
*
&#8220;In May of this year, the administration was warned that terrorists may be helping themselves to &#8216;the greatest explosives bonanza in history.&#8217; And now we know that our country and our troops are less safe because this president failed to do the basics. This is one of the great blunders of the Bush policy in Iraq.

&#8220;The unbelievable incompetence of this president and his administration has put our troops at risk. George W. Bush has failed the essential test of any commander in chief to keep America safe.

&#8220;Every step of the way this administration has miscalculated &#8211; miscalculated about how many troops we need. Secretary Rumsfeld cavalierly dismissed the danger of looting -- and now we know the impact.

&#8220;Make no mistake: our troops are the best-trained and best-led forces in the world, and they have been doing their job honorably and bravely. The problem is the Commander-in-Chief has not being doing his.

&#8220;If President Bush can&#8217;t recognize his failures in Iraq, he can&#8217;t fix them. And he&#8217;s doomed to repeat the same mistakes there and elsewhere. We can&#8217;t afford to risk four more years of George W. Bush.

&#8220;With President Bush, we face the prospect of a war that&#8217;s spiraling out of control in Iraq. As president, I will succeed in Iraq and bring our troops home.&#8221; -- John Effing Kerry

Follow up on John Kerry Stepping in Al Qaqaa
Infosheet on RDX missing from Al Qaqqa


----------



## rdean (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Is this what victory looks like in the 21st century?  We have to ponder whether or not we actually won?  It's already too much to take pondering whether or not we should have even fought the fight!
> ...



You can't really make a valid comparison.  

When you have treaties with other countries and they are attacked, it's they same as if you were attacked.

Many people here have relatives in Europe that weren't even a generation away.

Germany had already attempted to take over Europe.

The German policy of being the "master race" was frightening.

Americans knew what was happening in concentration camps.

There are many reasons why we entered the war.  You can't make the same comparison with Iraq.


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 26, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, we won big time!
> ...



We didn't win a thing, not a fucking thing.


Now take your neo-con bullshit and shove it up your ass, douchebag.


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 26, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Horsecrap, CF.  Basic services, including electricity, are at pre-war levels and it has been six years.  The second we are out of there, Iraq will ally with Iran.  I truly believe that was not part of Bush's plan.



the persians hate the arabs....an alliance will never happen....


----------



## HUGGY (Oct 26, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War To Do List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam
> ...



There was nothing for us to gain or win in Iraq.  We lost about 5,000 troops..killed an incalcuble number of people that did nothing to us.  Spent several trillion dollars for nothing..not even an investment..just wasted.  And you want to know if we won or lost?  We are not the good guys..we are the dumb and dangerous guys.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Hello?  We didn't have treaties with anyone in Europe.  We have plenty of Kurds and Iraqis living here.  The concentration camps never entered into it.
Your reasons for why the US entered WW2 are as bogus as your reason why we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq War To Do List
> ...



Only two choice: yes or no. 

Not only is "I'm a dipshit" not an answer but already MrClean tried it


----------



## rdean (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Anyone excpt England, France and Italy.

Treaty of Versailles

Signed on June 28, 1919, by Germany on the one hand and by the Allies (save Russia) on the other, the Treaty of Versailles embodied the results of the long and often bitter negotiations of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.

The outstanding figures in the negotiations leading to the treaty were Woodrow Wilson for the United States, Georges Clemenceau for France, David Lloyd George for England, and Vittorio Emanuele Orlando for Italy&#8212;the so-called Big Four. Germany, as the defeated power, was not included in the consultation. 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005248.html

-------This of course led to the formation of the "League of Nations".  While Woodro Wilson did negociate, the Senate refused to sign, but the US held to the tenats of the treaty.

barely a hundred thousand Kurds live here.

I'm guessing less than a hundred thousand Iraqis live here permanently.

How many English, German and Italian live here.  I suspect quite a few more.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2009)

Of course we have not "won" in Iraq.  

Our troops will be gone by 2011, and Iraq will ally with Iran.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course we have not "won" in Iraq.
> 
> Our troops will be gone by 2011, and Iraq will ally with Iran.



Which would explain why Mooky Al Sadr took over Basra.

No wait!


----------



## HUGGY (Oct 26, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The question is dissengenuous.  Somehow THAT makes me a dipshit?  Frankie..frankie.. Is there no innocent person on this earth you would not murder to justify yours and your neo con heros bad thinking skills?


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 26, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




That doesn't make you any less of a dipshit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2009)

So because we still have troops in Germany (which, by the way, never attacked us) Libruls are calling WWII for Hitler.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2009)

The neo-cons went to war, CF, and then proceded to throw away an incredible military victory.  When we are gone the Iraqis will ally with the Iranians.  If that is what Bush had in mind, then we "won" the war.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The neo-cons went to war, CF, and then proceded to throw away an incredible military victory.  When we are gone the Iraqis will ally with the Iranians.  If that is what Bush had in mind, then we "won" the war.



I've been hearing this crap as long as I've heard "The War is looooost"

You fucking Librul loser lowlifes will do and say anything to make it look like we lost.

Mooky Al Sadr and his Iranian backers tried to take Basra and the ISF beat the crap out of them; your team got its ass kicked out of Iraq


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



As far as I know no one took any treaty obligation seriously.  The impetus was simply Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.  If they hadnt done that I doubt we would have entered the war.  Roosevelt had tremendous opposition even to Lend-Lease.
And fwiw, the Germans living here largely supported Hitler, as did the Irish.
But since you mention treaties and such, recall that at least one reason adduced for Iraq was to enforce UN resolutions. Lots of them.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 26, 2009)

We kicked the crap out of them in the war phase of OIF.  

It's the post war occupation of Iraq that we weren't so hot at.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2009)

We were not legally empowered by the UN to enforce any UN resolution.  

That is why many of the former administration officials cannot travel abroad, for fear of being arrested as war criminals.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> We kicked the crap out of them in the war phase of OIF.
> 
> It's the post war occupation of Iraq that we weren't so hot at.



That was also the most difficult phase, dealing with a guerrila war.  No guerrilla war ever goes easily or smoothly.  THe fact that we managed to pull it off is testament to Pres Bush's leadership for persevering where everyone was telling him to get out.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > We kicked the crap out of them in the war phase of OIF.
> ...



Bush is an incompetent fuckwad.

If he actually had a clue about the inner workings of Iraq before we went in and wasn't so damn hard headed and late to fire Rummy, Iraq could have been turned much earlier with a lot less loss of life. 

Fuck Bush.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Fair enough.

How would you advise Obama to handle Afghanistan?  Pretend you met him on the golf course and he asked your opinion


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 26, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I'd tell him to get the fuck out.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



You probably said the same about Bush and Iraq.
I think you're the fuckwad here, mr. military expert.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2009)

Bush had to suppress it (not eliminate the insurgency, it is coming back as we write today) with coalition and mercenary troops totalling the several hundred thousand pairs of boots that General Shinseki said we needed.  Of course General S was retired, and now Rumsfeld and Rice and others can't travel out of our country without fear (rightfully so) of being arrested as war criminals.

I take great satification of knowing that the far right is older and whiter when the country is becoming darker and younger, far less conservative and far more accepting of differences in other Americans.  I have hope for the future, because the Palinistas are going to put the nails in the neo-con coffin in the 2012 election forever.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush had to suppress it (not eliminate the insurgency, it is coming back as we write today) with coalition and mercenary troops totalling the several hundred thousand pairs of boots that General Shinseki said we needed.  Of course General S was retired, and now Rumsfeld and Rice and others can't travel out of our country without fear (rightfully so) of being arrested as war criminals.
> 
> I take great satification of knowing that the far right is older and whiter when the country is becoming darker and younger, far less conservative and far more accepting of differences in other Americans.  I have hope for the future, because the Palinistas are going to put the nails in the neo-con coffin in the 2012 election forever.



Corzine is in a battle for his political life in a state where Dead registered Democrats outnumber living Republicans


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bush had to suppress it (not eliminate the insurgency, it is coming back as we write today) with coalition and mercenary troops totalling the several hundred thousand pairs of boots that General Shinseki said we needed.  Of course General S was retired, and now Rumsfeld and Rice and others can't travel out of our country without fear (rightfully so) of being arrested as war criminals.
> ...


Nothing will penetrate the black hole of understanding that is Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I have an exercise for you to do.  List any nations or armies that have successfully conquered and occupied Afghanistan throughout human history then make a list of those who failed.

And I never claimed to be a military expert ... it doesn't take one to point out Bush's obvious shortcomings in Iraq.  My four years of service of active duty in the  USAF and one tour in Iraq give me a different perspective and that's about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2009)

Corzine will win, of course, and you will be standing there while . . . just standing there as the world moves on.  And an add on: hey, Rab, you loser, how ya doing?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush had to suppress it (not eliminate the insurgency, it is coming back as we write today) with coalition and mercenary troops totalling the several hundred thousand pairs of boots that General Shinseki said we needed.  Of course General S was retired, and now Rumsfeld and Rice and others can't travel out of our country without fear (rightfully so) of being arrested as war criminals.
> 
> I take great satification of knowing that the far right is older and whiter when the country is becoming darker and younger, far less conservative and far more accepting of differences in other Americans.  I have hope for the future, because the Palinistas are going to put the nails in the neo-con coffin in the 2012 election forever.



Right, the Iranian are going to avenge their defeat at Basra.

You and Rip Van Winkle need to be told that it's 2009


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Corzine will win, of course, and you will be standing there while . . . just standing there as the world moves on.  And an add on: hey, Rab, you loser, how ya doing?



Thanks to corrupt one-Party rule, the Non-Living have tremendous representation in NJ and are quite happy to continue to support Democrats; it's the living who aren't doing so well there


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



As I've said in previous posts, I dont think the Afghanistan war is winnable, for all the reasons you mention.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Yet for some reason you felt the need to say this ...



> You probably said the same about Bush and Iraq.
> I think you're the fuckwad here, mr. military expert.



... when I said I would advise Obama to get out of A-Stan.

Perhaps you took your meds between posts?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

No.  You're a moron both before and after.  My opinion on that hasn't changed one bit.

I don't know what the answer is on Afghanistan.  But I do know that whatever it is, Obama will make the wrong decision.  Actually he seems to be going there even now.  First the request for troops was one number.  Then they were asked to scale it back to another number.  In the end it will be something different.
It is just like Vietnam.  Exact same pattern in government emerging here.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> No.  You're a moron both before and after.  My opinion on that hasn't changed one bit.
> 
> *I don't know what the answer is on Afghanistan.  But I do know that whatever it is, Obama will make the wrong decision.*  Actually he seems to be going there even now.  First the request for troops was one number.  Then they were asked to scale it back to another number.  In the end it will be something different.
> It is just like Vietnam.  Exact same pattern in government emerging here.



This is what we call a definition partisan hack.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> No.  You're a moron both before and after.  My opinion on that hasn't changed one bit.
> 
> I don't know what the answer is on Afghanistan.  But I do know that whatever it is, Obama will make the wrong decision.  Actually he seems to be going there even now.  First the request for troops was one number.  Then they were asked to scale it back to another number.  In the end it will be something different.
> It is just like Vietnam.  Exact same pattern in government emerging here.




So according to you, no matter what Obama does in A-Stan it will be the wrong thing to do.

Thanks for telling us what we already know: That no matter what Obama does you will attack him for it.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 26, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > No.  You're a moron both before and after.  My opinion on that hasn't changed one bit.
> ...



Art: Obama should get out of AStan.

Rabbi: You're a fuckwad and we should get out of AStan.

Art: But didn't I just say that we should get out of AStan?

Rabbi: You're a moron and no matter what Obama does I'm against it.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 26, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Art: Obama should get out of AStan.
> 
> Rabbi: You're a fuckwad and we should get out of AStan.
> 
> ...



How fucking dare you recommend we leave Afghanistan first! 

In reality, Rabbi is probably set on "Liberal bash" so anyone who dares not agree that Dubya is a god-like figure must obviously be a Obamabot and for continuing the war in Afghanistan. I'm another person who feels we should get the fuck out of that desert wasteland.


----------



## American Horse (Oct 26, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Horsecrap, CF.  Basic services, including electricity, are at pre-war levels and it has been six years.  The second we are out of there, Iraq will ally with Iran.
> ...



It appears that there is approximately a 58% increase in electrical generating capacity, and it is being more than utilized by the population of Iraq.  Only an increase in economic, industrial, and/or commercial activity would account for the use of that large percentage of increased capacity, rendering it insufficient for the new economy. Everyone now has a computer, a cell phone, and are finding ways to create lots of new commercial activities.  It's hard to believe that Iraqis would align with Iran, which would no doubt cause them to lose ground economically.  Their reliance on Sharia Law as a foundation for their constitution and laws might not mean very much.  In spite of that, they are ruling themselves democratically, and they will be a strong US ally in the region; THAT truly was President Bush's plan.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2009)

You got it wrong, AH: the Iraqis will ally with the Iranians will trying to take us for all the money and equipment they can get.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 26, 2009)

Our troops aren't dying by the bushel anymore in Iraq, but the media refuses to cover this fact. Iraq is the bad war. We can't win a bad war.

Troups are dying by the bushel in Afghanistan and we are losing ground every day Obama procrastinates. But this is the good war so we will withdraw in victory while we can.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > No.  You're a moron both before and after.  My opinion on that hasn't changed one bit.
> ...



No.  I didnt say that.  Don't put words in my mouth.
I did say whatever he does will be wrong because he has an unfailingly poor political judgment.
We can start with his disbelieving the very general he appointed to take control of the situation.  Talk about killing the messenger.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> *No.  I didnt say that.  Don't put words in my mouth.
> I did say whatever he does will be wrong because he has an unfailingly poor political judgment.*
> We can start with his disbelieving the very general he appointed to take control of the situation.  Talk about killing the messenger.



You really are that fucking stupid.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 26, 2009)

Did we win the 'war' in Iraq?  How does one define 'Win'? 
Did the 'enemy' surrender on the fantail of Missouri (BB-63)?  Nope.
I suppose we need to ask the Iraqi people.  At least those who survived our 'help'.  Of course we cannot ask those killed yesterday, but maybe we could all chip in and buy a plane ticket to Baghdad for CrusderFrank; he could interview the mothers, fathers and children looking through the carnage for their husband, dad, mother, sister, brother - or parts of their loved one.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Did we win the 'war' in Iraq?  How does one define 'Win'?
> Did the 'enemy' surrender on the fantail of Missouri (BB-63)?  Nope.
> I suppose we need to ask the Iraqi people.  At least those who survived our 'help'.  Of course we cannot ask those killed yesterday, but maybe we could all chip in and by a plane ticket to Baghdad for CrusderFrank; he could interview the mothers, fathers and children looking through the carnage for their husband, dad, mother, sister, brother - or parts of their loved one.



Or you could ask the relatives of the thousansd of Iraqis and Kurds killed by Saddam whether they'd like to have him back.  How about the war widows in Iran?
Based on your criterion I guess we didnt win in Europe either as there was no surrender on the fantail of the Missouri.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 26, 2009)

American Horse said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I wonder when the winning of a war became dependant on providing the enemy with electricity.....

I'm just saying....


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Oct 26, 2009)

the Iraq war was certainly won, but for whose benefit and at what cost?  those two last questions have yet to be answered


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 26, 2009)

The_Halfmoon said:


> the Iraq war was certainly won, but for whose benefit and at what cost?  those two last questions have yet to be answered



The real winner was Israel

The loser was the United States.


----------



## rdean (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So we leveled a country because they refused to follow a UN resolution that you "seem" to remember?

You people should stop splitting hairs and really look at the reality that is Iraq.

First, 15 of the 16 bombers were from Arabia.

Iraq is over 10 thousand miles away and never attacked the US.

Iraq was not in cahoots with al Qaeda.  Saddam had enough problems without inviting an extremist organization that would be a threat to his own power.

It was al Qaeda that attacked the US.

Iraq's people are not better off.

Women's groups in Iraq say their lives were better under Saddam.  I have put many links to this.  Women now have to be escorted by a male relative.  They are not allowed to work.  Most no longer receive health care.  

The Christian population have said their lives were much better and safer under Saddam.  Many held positions of power.  The were free to practice their religion.  Since the invasion, their numbers have gone from an estimated 1.2 to 1.4 million to an estimate of less than 400,000.  The churches have been burned.  Many of their woman have been forced into Muslim marriages and forced to convert to Islam.  Bush did NOT allow them to immigrate here.  They were NOT protected by the US.


Republicans say that Iraqis are now "free" to have the government they want.
The new Iraqi Constitution makes "Islam" the National Religion.  Article 2 and 3 states that all legislation is to be based on Islam.  Iraq has announced in the constitution, that it is in the family of the Arab League of Nations, which of course, leaves out any non Arabs or Muslims.

This has opened the door to Sharia law and murder of gays and women and men who have been accused of adultery.

Iraq was a counter balance to Iran in the Middle East.  That no longer exists.

Republicans are fixated on Saddam's "rape rooms".  While there is no "proof" that the US government gave out blanket infected with "smallpox" to decrease the American Indian population, there is plenty of evidence that the US used blacks as experimental lab rats for generations knowingly letting them spread syphilis to wives and children, "Even when they had the cure".  Even when many of these men joined the military to fight for "freedom" during WWII, the government purposely kept them infected with a fatal disease that causes delusions, insanity and host of horrific symptoms "just to see what would happen".  We are not nearly as "pure" as Republicans want to believe they are. (Funny how Republcians are always trying to push their "morals" on everyone else, but they are out screwing anything that moves)

And so what did this "success" in Iraq bring us.  Trillions of dollars of debt.  Thrown shoes.  A country that pretty much ignored us and now hates our guts and wants to see us die a painful death.  This is the Republican definition of "WE WON".  That's the reality.  That's "How it is".  The unvarnished truth.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2009)

Wow, pulling out the stops.  Straw men.  Cowardly lions. Half truths, untruths, red herrings, all wrapped up in turgid prose with a dollop of hysteria.
If this be defeat, give me more of it!

You are a helpless shlemozel.  The world goes through life spilling soup on you.  You failed to respond to any of that and instead substituted your own laughable world view, which features, always, the US as villain in chief.


----------



## PeterS (Oct 26, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War To Do List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam
> ...



You should ask that question to the 150 plus that just died in the latest Baghdad bombing.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 26, 2009)

PeterS said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq War To Do List
> ...





Like any of that is our friggen fault.

Instead of Saddam murdering them they're murdering each other. 

Once again, like any of that is our friggen fault.


----------



## PeterS (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wow, pulling out the stops.  Straw men.  Cowardly lions. Half truths, untruths, red herrings, all wrapped up in turgid prose with a dollop of hysteria.
> If this be defeat, give me more of it!
> 
> You are a helpless shlemozel.  The world goes through life spilling soup on you.  You failed to respond to any of that and instead substituted your own laughable world view, which features, always, the US as villain in chief.



*"It was al Qaeda that attacked the US." * Yeah, the argument was certainly strewn with fallacies wasn't it. It seems strange that for all the arguments from the right about 'winning' it is never in context with those whom we were, and are, actually at war with...


----------



## rdean (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wow, pulling out the stops.  Straw men.  Cowardly lions. Half truths, untruths, red herrings, all wrapped up in turgid prose with a dollop of hysteria.
> If this be defeat, give me more of it!
> 
> You are a helpless shlemozel.  The world goes through life spilling soup on you.  You failed to respond to any of that and instead substituted your own laughable world view, which features, always, the US as villain in chief.



Half truths? Untruths? Red herrings?

Who even knows what you are talking about?

The right is the most uneducated political party in the history of the US.  Worse, we have the internet.  We can easily find out what is going on all around the world, and these people are determined to be as ignorant as possible.  

Worse, they can be shown the truth and still, refuse to see it.  They live in a fantasy.

The delusional right wing in a fantasy world where they are saving the world.  Bush was crushed.  He couldn't understand how come everyone was so ungrateful.

I love it when the right says, "You liar", but can't name the lie.  It's gotta hurt.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 27, 2009)

PeterS said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, pulling out the stops.  Straw men.  Cowardly lions. Half truths, untruths, red herrings, all wrapped up in turgid prose with a dollop of hysteria.
> ...



Sigh.  Some people never learn.
CLaiming that our justification for going to war with Iraq was because Iraq attacked us is a red herring.  No one, ever, made that argument.  I defy anyone on this board to find a source from the Bush Admin that claimed that.
Similarly claiming that the administration lied about intelligence might be the most debunked claim around. If the admin lied, so did every other intelligence service in the world, since they all reported pretty much the same thing.
But now Obama has us in the right war, the one we should have been waging from the start, right??


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Did we win the 'war' in Iraq?  How does one define 'Win'?
> Did the 'enemy' surrender on the fantail of Missouri (BB-63)?  Nope.
> I suppose we need to ask the Iraqi people.  At least those who survived our 'help'.  Of course we cannot ask those killed yesterday, but maybe we could all chip in and buy a plane ticket to Baghdad for CrusderFrank; he could interview the mothers, fathers and children looking through the carnage for their husband, dad, mother, sister, brother - or parts of their loved one.



You should read the OP before you continue to embarrass yourself by posting your "ideas"

I posted what I considered to be the conditions met for victory and we met them all.

All of a sudden Libs care about dead and missing Iraqis.  How they long for the return of Uncle Saddam


----------



## HUGGY (Oct 27, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Art: Obama should get out of AStan.
> ...



Desert? We wish.  Try mountainous wasteland.  In the desert you can see for miles when it isn't a sand storm.  Difficult for an insurgent ambush.  In the mountains..THIER MOUNTAINS you are lucky to see a quarter of a mile with hundreds of places for an ambush within line of sight.  The dumbass jew knows nothing of mountain warfare.  He claims it will be doable from his lazyboy.  How casually he offers up the lives of our troops.


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 27, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Did we win the 'war' in Iraq?  How does one define 'Win'?
> ...




What you consider?

Who the fuck died and made you king of the world?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 27, 2009)

Win?  I dunno.  We certainly accomplished what we set out to do.


----------



## HUGGY (Oct 27, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Win?  I dunno.  We certainly accomplished what we set out to do.



You are so stupid I can hardly believe you are not a monkey using your masters computer when he is not looking.

Our mission in invading afghanistan little miss einstein was to capture Ossama Bin Ladin...and destroy the camps that trained AlQuida.

Or are you going to try to re-write history so soon?

Pardon me..I got a little off track.


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 27, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Win?  I dunno.  We certainly accomplished what we set out to do.
> ...



the thread is about the iraq war.....not the afganistan war....the goals of the iraq war were pretty much acomplished....afganistan is known as the graveyard of empires....the us will fall there just like every other empire....


----------



## rdean (Oct 27, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Win?  I dunno.  We certainly accomplished what we set out to do.



If that accomplishment was to send women back to the dark ages, help create an Islamic hard core theocracy, destroy the Christian population, and bankrupt the US, then for sure, we did exactly what we meant to accomplish.

Good job Republicans.  I'm sure the women and Christians of Iraq thank you.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 27, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Did we win the 'war' in Iraq?  How does one define 'Win'?
> ...



Or we could ask the farmers if the early frost in Canada will harm the berry crop in Modesto.  Are you really as dumb as your response suggests?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 27, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Did we win the 'war' in Iraq?  How does one define 'Win'?
> ...



Tthanks for sharing; your opinion as always is totally partisan and completely wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Just continue your "The War is Lostttttttttttttttttttttttttttt" Caterwauling.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Win?  I dunno.  We certainly accomplished what we set out to do.
> ...



Exhibit A.

OP and Post Disconnect Syndrome.

A condition where the poster has either failed to read the OP or read the OP and cannot understand what it says, do he goes off on a bizzaroland tangent.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I'll bet you voted No


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2009)

But CF, in reality, does not get to design the credulity of the question and then ignore all the evidence that crushes it.  Frank has to believe that his proposition is in the land of la la.  So.  We did not win the war, CF is wrong, and Rab is a babbling idiot.  Yes, the far right and the Bushies live in delusional land.  And the wonderful thing is the great majority of Americans, as has been posted repeatedly on this board, simply reject the GOP as any sort of acceptable alternative.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> But CF, in reality, does not get to design the credulity of the question and then ignore all the evidence that crushes it.  We did not win the war, CF is wrong, and Rab is a babbling idiot.  Yes, the far right and the Bushies live in delusional land.  And the wonderful thing is the great majority of Americans, as has been posted repeatedly on this board, simply reject the GOP as any sort of acceptable alternative.



We did not win it? Why?  What "Evidence" do you have?


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 27, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> But CF, in reality, does not get to design the credulity of the question and then ignore all the evidence that crushes it.  Frank has to believe that his proposition is in the land of la la.  So.  *We did not win the war,* CF is wrong, and Rab is a babbling idiot.  Yes, the far right and the Bushies live in delusional land.  And the wonderful thing is the great majority of Americans, as has been posted repeatedly on this board, simply reject the GOP as any sort of acceptable alternative.



who won....


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 27, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



To a babbling idiot I am sure Einstein was incomprehensible.
Was Einstein incomprehensible to you?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 27, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I wonder too?  If a light is shined in CFranks right ear and it does not appear in his left ear, does that mean the light curved somewhere in the space between his ears?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 27, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



You try it and tell us what you saw.


----------



## rdean (Oct 27, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> PeterS said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



CLaiming that our justification for going to war with Iraq was because Iraq attacked us is a red herring.  No one, ever, made that argument. 

------You are right, no one did make that claim.  The point was that we shouldn't have attacked Iraq because they DIDN'T attack us.   Was it really that subtle?

since they all reported pretty much the same thing.

------That's just a flat out lie.  Only the US reported that.  Clinton didn't attack because he didn't have enough evidence.  Bush asked those famous words, "Is that all ya got?" and attacked anyway.  What an idiot.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 28, 2009)

Hmm, so it was a bad argument to attack Iraq because of 9.11.  But that argument itself is actually fallacious.  So the logical conclusion is Bush is an idiot.
Hellooooo?? Anybody home?

FWIW, every intelligence service in the world reported that Saddam had a WMD program going (which in fact he did).  They did not disagree fundamentally with the US assessment.
But none of that is germane to this thread, which asks if we won in Iraq.
So what's the answer?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 28, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Einstein is understandable because he was sane and sensible.  Not that all insane foks are incomprehensible, but some like you truly have trouble with higher cognitive and abstract communication.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 28, 2009)

No, we have not won in Iraq.  We have managed (by putting the number of boots on the ground in 2007that Shinseki asked for four years earlier) to gain enough breathing room that we can withdraw next year or the year after.  Then Iraq will ally Iran to keep the U.S. irrelevant in the Middle East.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, we have not won in Iraq.  We have managed (by putting the number of boots on the ground in 2007that Shinseki asked for four years earlier) to gain enough breathing room that we can withdraw next year or the year after.  Then Iraq will ally Iran to keep the U.S. irrelevant in the Middle East.



So what happened at Basra.  You Libruls, who were against the Surge and kept telling us the war is lost also keep beating the Iraq=Iran drum and again, reality is not kind to you.

If Iraq wants to ally with Iran, please describe how the Battle of Basra fits your world view?

Oh, and where is Mooky Al Sadr?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War &#8220;To Do&#8221; List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam
> ...




Is this a parody?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Hmm, so it was a bad argument to attack Iraq because of 9.11.  But that argument itself is actually fallacious.  So the logical conclusion is Bush is an idiot.
> Hellooooo?? Anybody home?
> 
> FWIW, every intelligence service in the world reported that Saddam had a WMD program going (which in fact he did).  They did not disagree fundamentally with the US assessment.
> ...




That is such bullshit and it has become the "It saved lives" myth of Iraq. One example
CBS News Mobile A Spy Speaks Out


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq War To Do List
> ...



Let's here how "The War is Losttttttttttt. Lost!! Lost, My Precious!"


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 28, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Hmm, so it was a bad argument to attack Iraq because of 9.11.  But that argument itself is actually fallacious.  So the logical conclusion is Bush is an idiot.
> Hellooooo?? Anybody home?
> 
> FWIW, every intelligence service in the world reported that Saddam had a WMD program going (which in fact he did).  They did not disagree fundamentally with the US assessment.
> ...



The answer you bumbling idiot is Bush&Co invaded Iraq because they wanted to invade Iraq.  It was, is and forever will be a war of choice, paid for on credit and with the lives of nearly 5,000 Americans and untold numbers of permanently wounded.
WMD's were an excuse.  There exists clear and convincing (to anyone not a bumbling idiot or willfully ignorant) evidence that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, William Krystol, Jeb Bush (and more I will name if requested) were advocating regime change in Iraq well before 9-11.
You and other partisans argue Saddam was a threat to the world, yet, stand by as genocide ocurrs in Africa and as a less than sane 'leader' in N. Korea develops a for sure WMD as well as a delivery system.  
We invaded Iraq because we wanted to and wanted to because we wanted their oil.  The industrial and business  oligarchy put Bush&Co into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.  Only one reason why I believe that in the first decade of this new century a neofascism framed policy decisions - both in foreign affairs and domestic matters.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 28, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, so it was a bad argument to attack Iraq because of 9.11.  But that argument itself is actually fallacious.  So the logical conclusion is Bush is an idiot.
> ...



Wow, I've never seen so many Democratic sound bites strung together in one post.  A new low!
So Pres Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to.  Because we know wars always cause the incumbent to grow in popularity (see under "Nixon") as people's kids are killed and money gets spent.
We were hypocritical because we invaded Iraq but not N.Korea.  There are lots of other countries we didnt invade either, like Serbia and Somalia.  Oops, I guess we did invade those countries. But those were good wars, right?
You are a complete tool.  Your views are self-contradictory, never mind contradicting facts.  You make things up.  You listen to voices in your head.  Your head is stuffed with broccoli.
I doubt you have one coherent thought on the subject, one thing that you aren't simply repeating verbatim off CNN or something.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 28, 2009)

In answer to the question posed by the thread, WE LOST.  We lost lives and treasure, prestige, allies and influence.  We lost over 200 years of tradition when we invaded and occupied a nation which did not attack us, and, if the only measure of winning is to conquer the enemy, we failed.  
Of course the Iraq Army and elite R. Guard was defeated in a few weeks, but what followed was unexpected, at least by the power elite who decided war on Iraq was necessary.  A guerilla war that has lasted longer than WW II.  
Mission Accomplished?  Only fools and liars say so.


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War To Do List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam


With a $500 billion defense budget, it would have been damn sad if we couldn't have accomlished these three.



> 4.	Begin Martial Law


I'm sure the Iraqis love that.



> 5.	Defeat Insurgency


I guess you missed last weekends events in Baghdad



> 6.	Facilitate Elections


We already have elections. Every year, first Tuesday in November.



> 7.	Establish New Currency


We have a perfectly good currency.



> 8. Establish New Constitution


We have a perfectly good constitution.



> 9. Establish Fair Markets


We have the fairest markets in the world.



> 10. Rebuild infrastructure


I suppose our infrastrucure could use a bit of work but all in all it's not so bad.

So what did we get out of this fucking fiasco?

Nada.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 28, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> In answer to the question posed by the thread, WE LOST.  We lost lives and treasure, prestige, allies and influence.  We lost over 200 years of tradition when we invaded and occupied a nation which did not attack us, and, if the only measure of winning is to conquer the enemy, we failed.
> Of course the Iraq Army and elite R. Guard was defeated in a few weeks, but what followed was unexpected, at least by the power elite who decided war on Iraq was necessary.  A guerilla war that has lasted longer than WW II.
> Mission Accomplished?  Only fools and liars say so.



Gee I guess we lost WW1 and WW2 as well based on those metrics.

I have never seen people more intent on being losers than the Left.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 28, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > In answer to the question posed by the thread, WE LOST.  We lost lives and treasure, prestige, allies and influence.  We lost over 200 years of tradition when we invaded and occupied a nation which did not attack us, and, if the only measure of winning is to conquer the enemy, we failed.
> ...


But we did lose the Vietnam War based on those metrics


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Thanks for answering.  Now that I know it isn't a parody do you think I would be arrogant enough to try and present why it is such a disaster?  It would be more productive to massage tires.  That are cruising on an SUV at 70 mph.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> In answer to the question posed by the thread, WE LOST.  We lost lives and treasure, prestige, allies and influence.  We lost over 200 years of tradition when we invaded and occupied a nation which did not attack us, and, if the only measure of winning is to conquer the enemy, we failed.
> Of course the Iraq Army and elite R. Guard was defeated in a few weeks, but what followed was unexpected, at least by the power elite who decided war on Iraq was necessary.  A guerilla war that has lasted longer than WW II.
> Mission Accomplished?  Only fools and liars say so.



Germany never attacked us, neither did Korea nor Vietnam.

Get a fucking clue before you post again. Since you don't have a clue of your own, see if you can rent one from somebody else

I knew that in the 60's the Marxists wanted us to lose Vietnam but I never thought I'd live to see the day when they would get the entire Democrat party to think and act like them, it's really fucking revolting


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Fucking coward.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > In answer to the question posed by the thread, WE LOST.  We lost lives and treasure, prestige, allies and influence.  We lost over 200 years of tradition when we invaded and occupied a nation which did not attack us, and, if the only measure of winning is to conquer the enemy, we failed.
> ...





Whi in the hell is dumb enough to believe it is only the "left" that is against nation building?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq War To Do List
> ...



Same thing I got out of your stupid "Answer": NADA!


----------



## driveby (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War To Do List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam
> ...




Dear Frank,

NO, this war has been totally lost for more than a year now.


Sincerely,

Harry Reid


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

See, the difference is unlike when Kronkite called Vietnam for the North after Tet, when we inflicted one of the worst asskicking in modern warfare on them, you Librul fuckers DON'T CONTROL THE MEDIA ANYMORE!

You can call Iraq for the Insurgency all day and night but you are LYING AND WRONG!


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Good.

We're in agreement then.

I think your ideas suck and you think my ideas suck.

Except my ideas didn't cost us 4,000 American lives, $1 trillion, and an obligation to police a foreign country forever.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



In a single day, your ideas cost us 3,000 lives, a few hundred billion and shut the US Capital Markets down for a week.  Nice work


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




That's the best you can do?  Try again and this time......please put some effort into it.

I happened to notice something missing from your list.  How come you didn't include:

"Install a Shiite dominated Islamic Theocracy."

Don't tell me you're one of those war supporters who has never read Iraq's Constitution?  You also seem like the genius gem type who derides Islam while at the same time supporting a machine that installed an Islamic Theocracy.


----------



## HUGGY (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > In answer to the question posed by the thread, WE LOST.  We lost lives and treasure, prestige, allies and influence.  We lost over 200 years of tradition when we invaded and occupied a nation which did not attack us, and, if the only measure of winning is to conquer the enemy, we failed.
> ...



Germany attacked us just as much as the Somali pirates did.  How many US freighters were sunk before we entered into WWII?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



As many as FDR felt needed to be sunk, but the topic is still Iraq


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Your camp sure as hell loves celebrating 9/11.  Probably because at the end of the day all you have is an attempted cheap shot at pulling emotional strings.  Most of us know you cannot produce a respectable argument so we usually feel sorry for you.


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 and you know that.

You're just trying to weasel out of losing an argument.

Nice try.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



We're not Democrats, we don't celebrate 9/11 nor do we say "we cant let a good crisis go to waste".

You can call Iraq for the Insurgency and the Iranians all day and night my pointy headed little friend, the facts make you look worse than foolish


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Democrats tried to ignore Islamic Fundamentalism and Jihadists and I'm pointing out that was not a winning strategy


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 28, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Talk about projection.
The argument is that the US has won the Iraq War.  The losing side here is trying to change the subject, move the goalposts, obfuscate, name call--anything but admit the obvious truth.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




You really truly seriously most definitely should not try to speak on a subject where 99.8% of your education came from msm soundbites.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



That's it? That's your "argument"?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




No, that was an observation.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Frank, you're truly very funny (in a very odd way); you brought up Germany and as was correctly pointed out their wolfpacks were ordered to sink all shipping in the Atlantic; a behavior which historically has lead to armed conflict.
You completely missed the point with your comment about N. Korea and Vietnam; I never suggest we should attack N. Korea and even though I enlisted in the Navy in 1969 I never supported our involvement in that conflict.  I know my enlistment under those circumstances must confuse you but, frankly (lol) you're likely confused most of the time.
Be assured I thank you for sharing your confusion, it does make for oddly funny moments.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 28, 2009)

I love it when I get in the last word, and a right wing troll cuts and runs.  The conservatives of today seem to be pretty damn uneducated; hate and fear propaganda is as effective today as in past centuries, and appeals to greed too.
I hesitate to call today's conservative stupid, yet, when reading their posts, what's a thinking, educated person to do?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2009)

I voted yes.


----------



## rdean (Oct 28, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq War To Do List
> ...



The short answer is "yes".


----------



## rdean (Oct 28, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Man, you are something else.  You are a nest full of contradictions.  Islamic Fundamentalism?  Do you even know what that means?  You supported the Iraqi Constitution (see below) and apparently the annihilation of the Iraqi Christians and women's rights going back to the Dark Ages.  

Well bubba, how was Islamic Fundamentalism NOT a winning strategy?  Especially when Republicans are on their side?  

(from the Iraqi constitution supported by the Republicans)

Article 2: 

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: 

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established. 

Can you even get any more "Islamic Fundamentalism" than that?


----------



## foggedinn (Oct 28, 2009)

Did somebody surrender?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 28, 2009)

foggedinn said:


> Did somebody surrender?



Not sure what else you'd call this:


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

foggedinn said:


> Did somebody surrender?



Yes. Harry Reid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yeah. Not a clever one either.

Did you know that the steel columns on the upper floors of the WTC were not fireproofed?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> I love it when I get in the last word, and a right wing troll cuts and runs.  The conservatives of today seem to be pretty damn uneducated; hate and fear propaganda is as effective today as in past centuries, and appeals to greed too.
> I hesitate to call today's conservative stupid, yet, when reading their posts, what's a thinking, educated person to do?



You labor under the delusion that I have nothing better to do with my remaining time on Earth than to sit here at USMB hitting F5 ever second in hopes that you responded to me.

The Topic remain the same was it was in the OP: Did we win in Iraq


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 29, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Who said it was clever?  It would be impossible for something so obvious to be confused as clever?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 29, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> I love it when I get in the last word, and a right wing troll cuts and runs.  The conservatives of today seem to be pretty damn uneducated; hate and fear propaganda is as effective today as in past centuries, and appeals to greed too.
> I hesitate to call today's conservative stupid, yet, when reading their posts, what's a thinking, educated person to do?




I was always under the impression thinkers and the educated rarely make the mistake of extrapolating a negative sample onto large groups.  But since I am a Conservative I may not be bright enough to understand how the above indictment has merit.  Can someone please dumb it down for me a bit so there is a chance of comprehension?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 29, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > I love it when I get in the last word, and a right wing troll cuts and runs.  The conservatives of today seem to be pretty damn uneducated; hate and fear propaganda is as effective today as in past centuries, and appeals to greed too.
> ...



Asked and answered; we LOST.  It's really too bad you can't man-up and admit the foreign policy of Bush&Co was an abject failure, as was his econmic policy, domestic policy and stewardship of this great nation.  
The jury is still out on how successful President Obama will be in reparing our nation of the damaage inflicted by Bush and the neoconservative oligarchy which held power for most of the first decade of this new century.
President Obama has a much tougher problem than did his predesessor, our nation came together after 9-11 and President Bush had only one enemy to defeat - the terrorist network.  Obama must fight the terrorist too, only on two fronts - abroad and here at home.  For without queston the tactics of war on Obama by the far right, their use of hate and fear, is an effort to bring down our legitimate government.
You believe you're a patriot, and that is only one of your delusions .


----------



## rdean (Oct 29, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



How do you fire proof "steel"?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 29, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > I love it when I get in the last word, and a right wing troll cuts and runs.  The conservatives of today seem to be pretty damn uneducated; hate and fear propaganda is as effective today as in past centuries, and appeals to greed too.
> ...



LOL, of course.  While Frank is not the archetype of the neoclassic "Conservative Chic" (CC) his posts are reflective of their 'thinking' (single quotes should be noted for clarity).  You see the posts of the conservatives of today are not thoughts, they are limited to narrowly defined parameters provided to them in talking points.  They are purveyors of propaganda (and if Frank earned only commissions he would be broke) and their conservative beliefs are not based on study or critical thinking, but on trying to be included.  Hence, the CC, are not much different at all from the Radical Chic (RC) which grew out of the Summer of Love in San Francisco.  Of course the RC  were mostly kids and grew up, the CC of today, likely and older group, ought to know better.
So my single sample provides a basis for my hypothesis.  I assume by your question you assumed I was attacking all conservatives.  I was not.  Only the stupid ones.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 29, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Wow.  Lost, eh?
If that was losing I want more of it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So you want another 5,000 American service men and women to die, thousands more to carry their injuries for life and to borrow $10 billion a month from China?
Wow.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 29, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



If it means defeating our enemies, saving thousands of American lives in the process, and making America the pre-eiminent power then hell yeah bring it on.
5k dead? More people than that die in traffic accidents in 3 months.  How many were killed in one morning on 9/11?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Wow. You really are one sick puppy.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> If it means defeating our enemies, saving thousands of American lives in the process, and making America the pre-eiminent power then hell yeah bring it on.
> 5k dead? More people than that die in traffic accidents in 3 months.  How many were killed in one morning on 9/11?



Rabbi please explain how invading Iraq has saved even ONE american life???

And obviously you have never served or you wouldn't make idiotic comparisons between traffic deaths and combat deaths.


----------



## HUGGY (Oct 29, 2009)

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Insulate it from heat with flame retardent.

INTUMESCENT FIRE RETARDANT COATING FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL FIRE PRODUCTION.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 29, 2009)

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




I don't even know why he brought that up.


----------



## foggedinn (Oct 30, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> > Did somebody surrender?
> ...



An execution.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 30, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



And you are one deluded asshole.
A good thing you weren't around for WW2 when 50k plus Americans were killed.  I could just see your posts: Germany never attacked us.  The war is weakening us.  FDR lied to get us into war.  Whine whine whine.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 30, 2009)

foggedinn said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > foggedinn said:
> ...



Do they execute heads of state?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 30, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



When did Germany attack us?  Do you believe Pearl was a total surprise?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 30, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> In answer to the question posed by the thread, WE LOST.  We lost lives and treasure, prestige, allies and influence.  We lost over 200 years of tradition when we invaded and occupied a nation which did not attack us, and, if the only measure of winning is to conquer the enemy, we failed.
> Of course the Iraq Army and elite R. Guard was defeated in a few weeks, but what followed was unexpected, at least by the power elite who decided war on Iraq was necessary.  A guerilla war that has lasted longer than WW II.
> Mission Accomplished?  Only fools and liars say so.



You're saying that we lost the war because we _lost_ men and spent money?

That's it?  Because the word "lost" appears in 2 places you're chalking up Iraq for the Insurgents?  And you're taking victory laps for this stupid nonsensical idea?

Good Grief!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 30, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Because some other fool said my knowledge comes from msm sound bites

Oh wait, it was not some other fool, it was you.


----------



## germanguy (Oct 30, 2009)

Hello !

I have the following questions:

If you want to decide, if the war was won, by what "winning" is defined.

On the Pro Side:

Saddam out od office, trialed and hanged
Iraqi army beaten in the field
Iraq mainly under control of US troops
Political course of government heaviliy influenced by US
Marginal losses (compared to troops in the field)

Technically I would call this winning.

On the Contra side:

US now rather unpopular in the region (to put it mildly)
Alienated some important allies
Went to war by bending facts, i.e. WMD (see above)
Country split about the war
approx 500.000 Iraqis dead, same number fled
Oil industriy in Iraq still not working as it should
Very high deficit, because of costs of war
No incoming turnover in means of oil, regional stability
Taking the counterpart of Iran from the field, which is now the region´s biggest power and no body there to balance this.

Technically won, strategically rather doubtful win and economically rather a loss.
Also, considered the loss of reputation for the US abroad, the misuse of patriotism and the upbringing of more than very doubtful facts to justify the invasion of Iraq, I see this as a total loss.


I can not see, that anything was gained by it, only Saddam out of office. But that he is a brutal massmurder was common knowledge since he came to power (in the 1970s?) Nobody cared then. 

Forgotten anything ? 

Regrds 
The germanguy
______________________________

Cmdr. Tomalak: "Consider the men and woman you lead into a lost cause, Captain"
Cpt. Picard: "If the cause is just and honorable, they are prepared to give their lives..."
Star Trek TNG - The Defector


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 30, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > In answer to the question posed by the thread, WE LOST.  We lost lives and treasure, prestige, allies and influence.  We lost over 200 years of tradition when we invaded and occupied a nation which did not attack us, and, if the only measure of winning is to conquer the enemy, we failed.
> ...




Stop repeating false information.  Since the invasion there have never been insurgents in iraq.  Learn what the term means instead of swallowing msm propaganda.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 30, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



They didn't.  That's my point.


----------



## barry1960 (Oct 30, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The neo-cons went to war, CF, and then proceded to throw away an incredible military victory.  When we are gone the Iraqis will ally with the Iranians.  If that is what Bush had in mind, then we "won" the war.
> ...



Swearing, the last refuge of the mentally incompetent. Put up a pole and denigrate anyone who votes differently than you.

Here is a question for you. Was the war effort worth the objectives achieved. The cost would be the dollars spent, lives lost and the effect on our raltions with other nations. To that i would answer no.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 30, 2009)

barry1960 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Granted that has little to do with this thread.
On what do you base that? What were the alternatives and how would things have played out otherwise?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 30, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I enlisted in the US Navy at age 19, in 1967.  YOU?  FYI, in 1967 our nation was engaged in armed conflict in the Republic of Vietnam, another war of choice brought forth by the same stinking thinking that lead us to invade Iraq.
When I've visited the Vietnam Memorial Wall in The District, I don't simply see names, I see the faces of guys I served with, went to schools with, grew up with and who died in vain.  
My guess is you're a typical chicken hawk, and I'm sure as hell if we were toe to toe you'd call me Sir.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


And you dare insult them and their loved ones by claiming they died in vain.  How very selfish of you.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 30, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...





The truth hurts, dwiddle dumb.  If it saves one life from the stinking thinkers even a right wing chicken hawk such as you ought to excuse a minor affront.
[and, your edit of Rabbi's quote shows how dishonest you are]


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 30, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...





I only verbalized what your posts scream.  You couldn't write a single paragraph on this is that would not contain msm soundbites.  Instead of wasting time complaining about what others see, your time would be better spent getting educated beyond CNN.  Nah, I'm sure you still think calling people names is a better use of energy.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You are a selfish asshole, but most know that already.

I didn't edit a goddamn thing, you lying sack of shit.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 30, 2009)

"And you are one deluded asshole.
A good thing you weren't around for WW2 when 50k plus Americans were killed. I could just see your posts: Germany never attacked us. The war is weakening us. FDR lied to get us into war. Whine whine whine."

A lie, dwiddle dumb, by omission, is still a lie.


----------



## rdean (Oct 30, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Read the "standard".  It is only "fire proofed for one measly hour".

fire tested in accordance with ASTM E-119 (UL-263, ULC-CAN 4-5101, NFPA-251) has
been assigned fire resistant rating of 1 hour


----------



## rdean (Oct 30, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It is only "fire proofed for one hour". I know that's called "fire proofing", but seems an exaggeration.

From your link:

"fire tested in accordance with ASTM E-119 (UL-263, ULC-CAN 4-5101, NFPA-251) has
been assigned fire resistant rating of 1 hour"


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 30, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



In 1967 I was five years old.  I don't need some guy with an Agent Orange haircut and 1000 yd stare who probably shoveled shit in the repple deppel somewhere lecturing me on anything.  I might call you sir if you were spending money at my shop.  But since all you do is talk big I'd probably be telling you to get your sorry overage ass out my door and stop wasting my time.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 30, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Actually you're still five years old; and my overage ass is still supporting a 6'2", 235 pound man.  You would call me Sir as you peed your pants, sonny.
But, I digress.  In 1980 you were old enough to join the frey, you could have invaded Panama or Granada, if you were not a yellow belly chicken hawk coward.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 30, 2009)

Wry I spent 16 years in the Marine Corps. 1979 to 1995. And I find your bullshit offensive as hell. Go cry to your yellow crybaby liberal buddies.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 30, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wry I spent 16 years in the Marine Corps. 1979 to 1995. And I find your bullshit offensive as hell. Go cry to your yellow crybaby liberal buddies.[/QUOTE
> 
> And I find chicken hawks offensive as hell.  What part do you call "bullshit"?  My calling out some clowns who never served, but are willing to send you into harms way without blinking an eye?  I've seen the wounded, and it ain't pretty.  And when I've walked along the mall and read those names, I wonder what hey gave their life for.  The Domino Theory, thought up by some chicken hawk right wing asshole who never served?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 30, 2009)

Mark my words!!! The SECOND we leave Iraq the MAJORITY will BRUTALIZE the MINORITY. They will become second class citizens and there will be mass roundups and the "RAPE" rooms Saddam had will look TAME by comparison.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 30, 2009)

As sick and twisted as it was Saddam brought that nation to some semblance of normalcy. He had a sick and twisted JACK BOOT mentality but how else do you propose to protect the MINORITY from the MAJORITY when we leave?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 30, 2009)

Let's put it this way......Sunni and Shia don't play well together.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 30, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Who's probably due for his first (maybe not his first) MI.
Yeah, like 90+% of guys my age I had better things to do than join the military.
Your pissing contest with your prior alleged military service is frankly pathetic.  You are frankly pathetic, an overage bully who spends his days recounting how wonderful he was because he was too fucking stupid to avoid a draft.
Go get a life and leave the adults to talk.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The truth hurts, dwiddle dumb.  If it saves one life from the stinking thinkers even a right wing chicken hawk such as you ought to excuse a minor affront.
> ...





Wry Catcher said:


> "And you are one deluded asshole.
> A good thing you weren't around for WW2 when 50k plus Americans were killed. I could just see your posts: Germany never attacked us. The war is weakening us. FDR lied to get us into war. Whine whine whine."
> 
> A lie, dwiddle dumb, by omission, is still a lie.


Your dishonesty knows no bounds.  What a worthless piece of lying shit you are.  I edited nothing.  I omitted nothing.

You dishonest fuck (post no. 165) [emphasis added so that the lying sack of shit, Wry Catcher, can see his lie]:  





Si modo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...






You are so easy to discredit that I find you fascinating.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 30, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Mark my words!!! The SECOND we leave Iraq the MAJORITY will BRUTALIZE the MINORITY. They will become second class citizens and there will be mass roundups and the "RAPE" rooms Saddam had will look TAME by comparison.




This is usually the ubiquitous justification for any occupation that has run its course.  It has never made much sense.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 30, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




The emotions are understandable but the question must be answered. What is more important to you?  Parroting embarrassing name calling or the message? We cannot help the debate against nation building by falling into the ancient trap of distraction.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 30, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



When Clinton went into Somalia and Serbia I didn't hear much from the Dums on the dangers of nation building.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 30, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




Can you explain how that qualifies as nation building?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 30, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Umm, can you explain why it isnt?  In both cases we were interfering in the internal affairs of another country where order had broken down in order to impose stability.  Ditto Haiti, as I think of it.
This was a big deal in the 2000 election.  I remember Bush pledging he wouldn't do that (different times).


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 30, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Where I come from the speaker of the claim owns the responsibility of supporting said claim. Once again, can you please explain how that qualifies under nation building?


----------



## HUGGY (Oct 30, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



There is a big difference between nation building and trying to help prevent geniocide.

What the hell is wrong with you?  Do you really lack humanity on this scale?

Astounding!


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 30, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




He made the mistake of assuming others would simply take the bait and probably didn't expect to be asked to explain how those events fall under the definition of nation building.


----------



## foggedinn (Oct 30, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Mark my words!!! The SECOND we leave Iraq the MAJORITY will BRUTALIZE the MINORITY. They will become second class citizens and there will be mass roundups and the "RAPE" rooms Saddam had will look TAME by comparison.




This is probably true, yet we will leave Iraq.  Bush the elder, when he gave his reasons for not going to Baghdad and removing Saddam in the first Gulf War, said there was no viable exit strategy.  It was true then, and it's true now.  We will leave behind an unholy mess.  It was unavoidable from the moment we chose to depose Saddam.

If we won, it was a pyrrhic victory.


----------



## rdean (Oct 30, 2009)

foggedinn said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Mark my words!!! The SECOND we leave Iraq the MAJORITY will BRUTALIZE the MINORITY. They will become second class citizens and there will be mass roundups and the "RAPE" rooms Saddam had will look TAME by comparison.
> ...



Actually, "unholy mess" was unavoidable once George Bush was elected president and Republicans became the majority party.  There is not a single American institution that they haven't heavily damaged and brought disgrace.  We only hear about the big ones, the Justice Department, the EPA, the CIA, but all of the smaller ones also suffered.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 30, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Mark my words!!! The SECOND we leave Iraq the MAJORITY will BRUTALIZE the MINORITY. They will become second class citizens and there will be mass roundups and the "RAPE" rooms Saddam had will look TAME by comparison.
> ...






REALLY? Ethnic and religious CLEANSING has not made much sense? Well I agree but when you consider that MOST religions are STEEPED IN BLOOD then you may see my point.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 31, 2009)

rdean said:


> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...




What's up with the shrill of dyed in the wool partisanship?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 31, 2009)

How different the world would be had anti-Semitic Jimmy Carter and the Dems not given Islamists and Jihadist state sponsorship in Iran? 

How much better would we be even today had Clinton holdover at State not sabotaged our efforts to bring pressure on Iran and assist the uprising?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 31, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



When Britain invaded Iraq a hundred years ago they gave many of the same justifications.  It worked so well we are repeating the same process.  Glorious students of History!


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 31, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How different the world would be had anti-Semitic Jimmy Carter and the Dems not given Islamists and Jihadist state sponsorship in Iran?
> 
> How much better would we be even today had Clinton holdover at State not sabotaged our efforts to bring pressure on Iran and assist the uprising?



Pretty funny in contrast to the post above this one.  How was Carter anti-Semitic?  How can you have such disdain for America you would rather exploit our freedoms to falsely blame some group instead of using the freedoms to try and solve issues?  Or is this bitch session mode more appealing because it means all you have to do is type?  The alternative is scary.....get out and do some actual work.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 31, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How different the world would be had anti-Semitic Jimmy Carter and the Dems not given Islamists and Jihadist state sponsorship in Iran?
> 
> How much better would we be even today had Clinton holdover at State not sabotaged our efforts to bring pressure on Iran and assist the uprising?



Pretty funny in contrast to the post above this one.  How was Carter anti-Semitic?  How can you have such disdain for America you would rather exploit our freedoms to falsely blame some group instead of using the freedoms to try and solve issues?  Or is this bitch session mode more appealing because it means all you have to do is type?  The alternative is scary.....get out and do some actual work.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 31, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Clinton tried to defend the food and medicine given to the Somali people from being ripped off by criminals.  That's not nation building.
Bombing, invading, occupying and putting a puppet government in power in a soverign nation is nation building.  See Iraq for an example.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 31, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Or Haiti.


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 31, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War To Do List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam
> ...



Is that how you define winning? Going through that to do list?

I think you will know the war was won when it is obvious that it was (say in 10 years of a stable Iraqi democracy). In the meantime, I think it's too early to judge.

By the way, the world isn't binary, maybe you should allow for a third option (or more), along the lines of "outlook looks good", "outlook looks bleak", "no, but we haven't lost either", etc.

Binary is only good for computers.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




You still haven't explained how our actions in Somalia and Serbia qualify as nation building.  Are you really trying to hide the current nation building in iraq and afghanistan behind those events?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



No, I'm trying to point out the continued hypocrisy of the Left, which was fine with nation building under Clinton but now somehow complain that under Bush it was wrong.
But finding hypocrisy among the leftists is like shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq War To Do List
> ...



That's the biggest dodge I've seen outside of a GM dealership.  By that measure we didnt know whether we had won WW2 until 1955 or so.


----------



## code1211 (Nov 1, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War To Do List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam
> ...




We won't have the answer to this for another 40 or 50 years.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

code1211 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq War To Do List
> ...



Bullshit.
Based on that we're still wondering whether we won in Panama, or the British won the Falklands Islands war.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 1, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq War To Do List
> ...



But it's never too early to say "The War is Lost" or that "Iran will run Iraq", amiright?


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 1, 2009)

All of this arguing over winning a war.

Getting to the point.....it's impossible to win a war when you never declare one in the first place.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



When and where did Clinton engage in nation building?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




WW2 ended when Germany and Japan surrendered.

It's also pretty brave to accuse others of dodging when you have yet to defend your claim our actions in Somalia and Serbia qualify as nation building.  Are you going to do so or shall we expect more partisan pie?


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Somalia, Bosnia,.......

Said we'd be back by Christmas from Bosnia......we're still there.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How different the world would be had anti-Semitic Jimmy Carter and the Dems not given Islamists and Jihadist state sponsorship in Iran?
> ...



Carter is anti-Semitic because he hates Jews and Israel and love Arafat and Islamists, pretty fucking straight forward.

Carter handed Iran to the Islamists, or are you going to dispute that?

The Democrats at State absolutely sabotaged our Iran policy during the Iraq War and there are many dead Iraqi students to show for it AND the mullahs are still in power AND Iran is going nuclear. 

Bush should have had the CIA eliminate a few key people at State in the ME, I don't know why he allowed it. Since it was too politically explosive to properly charge them with treason, he should have had them whacked.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



frontline: give war a chance: nation building in bosnia
Haiti:
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/haiti-a-clinton-catastrophe/

But now that we've established that truth, why is it that the left screams about nation building by Bush but were OK with it under Clinton?  Isn't that raw hypocrisy in action?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Yes it is hypocrisy to support nation building under one administration while denouncing it under another.  Is your only interest here centered around deriding the Left?


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I see similarities here.

The Dems were constantly asking for a time line for withdrawal.

The GOP is asking for a time line on a decision to send in more troops.

That's got to be hypocrisy at work. Right?

Who cares that people are dying while Obama procrastinates or people would have died if we had tipped off the enemy in Iraq. But that's really beside the point.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yes.
Because the Left is the root of all that is wrong with America.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




The bush admin signed a troop withdrawal timetable agreement long before obama got in office.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




The admission is appreciated and there is no possible dialogue with that approach.  Hate has never been born with a tongue.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You are right.  Because the Left is filled with lies and dissemination there can be no meeting with truth.  Hate is an entirely appropriate emotion towards people who are trying to destroy this great country.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




You deride the Left on the accusation of lying while dishonestly attributing my post.  What was that complaint about hypocrisy?  Please have the last word as I do not intend to give your hate a platform anymore.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Rabbi, what about Granada and Panama?  
[I'm much too polite to ever suggest you're a hypocrite ]


----------



## Varth Dader (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> That's the biggest dodge I've seen outside of a GM dealership.  By that measure we didnt know whether we had won WW2 until 1955 or so.



I think the recent terrorist attack in Iraq shows that it's still work in progress.

The problem is that "winning" the war in this case is much more than the todo list that was posted -- or at least the last item on that list isn't done yet ("Rebuild infrastructure")
Plus I think you need to have "11. Stable government, stable society" -- and that is clearly still work in progress.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



What about them?
I never suggested that creating stable regimes was not an appropriate exercise of power.  That little thought comes from the Left, which suddenly wants to see that in Iraq.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > That's the biggest dodge I've seen outside of a GM dealership.  By that measure we didnt know whether we had won WW2 until 1955 or so.
> ...



There have been terrorist attacks in Spain and France too.  I guess those are also "works in progress" by your reasoning.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


.

Being against nation building has always been a Conservative position.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that drowns dialogue.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Really?  I guess Reagan wasn't a conservative then.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Varth Dader said:
> ...



No, the intellectual dishonesty is from the Left, which refuses to admit the obvious.  Instead of admitting that yes, we won the war in Iraq by any measure, they insist either: The war wasn't worth it (a totally different question) or It's too early to tell (which it isnt).

It is funny: The Left cannot admit they were wrong. Cannot admit they were wrong on the surge.  Cannot admit we won the war.  Cannot admit they have been wrong on every foreign policy question over the last 40 years.


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Only a rabid moron would try to make this about left or right or east and west, up and down.  Fuck you.. you war mongering asshole jew.  By any rational standard what we did to Iraq was a fucking war crime.  Piss on you and those in israel that promoted this fucking abomination.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I'm not the left, but if I were, why would I admit we won a war when we still have 140,000troops on the ground, are still taking casualties and spending $$$ we don't have?  Why would anyone, right or left, admit we won a war when there was nothing to win, and lives and treasure to loose.  
Or, was killing Saddam worth killing thousand of civilians, nearly 5,000 Americans and suffering thousands of casualties?  You righties are damn stupid.


----------



## Varth Dader (Nov 1, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



How does one's religion (jew) enter your argument?

He might be a war mongerer, but I don't see how you injecting religion in this debate does anything but paint you as a racist.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Ithink technically that would make him a bigot, not a racist.
But anyway you slice it, his posts make him a moron of the first order.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



We still have troops in Germany, Japan, and Korea too.  They are still taking casualties and we are spending money to maintain them.
But nice to see BOTH of my Left-dodges incorporated into your one post.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 1, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Oh Look, RETARD ALERT< RETARD ALERT


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Doesn't matter if anyone thinks he was a conservative or liberal.....that would not change the fact nation building is liberalism.  There is absolutely nothing Conservative about shedding our blood and money to build a different nation.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




It is absolutely ludicrous to try and compare france and spain to our occupation in iraq and you damn well know it.  There never was victory nor defeat to be found in iraq. Claiming victory is a last ditch effort to try and justify the War.  It's also silly to claim those against the war are only found on the "Left."  I believe that is known too but the hunger for trying to spread hate is much greater than even a whisper of honesty.  You cannot even give an honest definition of victory and anything claimed to be evidence of such a farce would be unbelievably vague.  Even if this forum were reduced to a single thread with the topic limited to pocket lint you'd desperately try to find a way to blame the left.  "Look! There is no lint in my right pocket!  It's all on the Left."


----------



## foggedinn (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Hail to Dick Cheney, the great icon of liberalism.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



There was a definition of victory given in this very thread.  All those goals and objectives were met.
What is ludicrous is the Left trying still to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.  They tried so hard during the war itself that I guess it is now habit.
You can argue all day long whether it was worth it or not.  You can argue the same about WW1 and WW2.  But it doesn't change teh facts on the ground.


----------



## Varth Dader (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It always is, but trying to compare the stability of France or Spain with the stability of Iraq is puzzling.

But yet, if tomorrow, there are waves and waves of terrorist strikes by the ETA in Spain, I think you should seriously start questioning the stability of a country like Spain.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Where is the definition of victory?  I'm curious to see how "installing an islamic theocracy" fits in that definition.  Is it already time to say "It's been posted so go find it yourself."   Can you give a definition in your own words?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 2, 2009)

foggedinn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Just like Reagan, it doesn't matter if one views Cheney as Lib or Con.  Nation building is liberalism.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 2, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


It was in the first post made here.
Is Iraq an "Islamic theocracy"??  By that measure Italy is a Catholic theocracy.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




The op does not have a definition of victory.  It has a half-assed dishonest laundry list that looks like it was put together by a 3rd grade class.  As suspected, you cannot give a definition of victory in your own terms.  

Iraq is an Islamic theocracy as defined by its own Constitution.  Why do you deny this?  The best you can do is try to deflect with Italy?  Also, it wouldn't be a "Catholic" theocracy but a Christian one.  Catholic is not a religion......it is a denomination of Christianity.  Do I dare ask how in the joogles you compare italy to iraq?


ARE YOU AWARE VATICAN CITY IS NOT A CITY UNDER THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT?


You look so desperate to deflect you say anything without even knowing what in the hell you are talking about.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 2, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Dismissing valid and cogent points makes you look like a loon.
Do you understand what "theocracy" means?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




You tried to reference Italy because of Vatican City but you didn't know VC is not under the Italian government and you want to follow that up by calling someone else a loon? Rotfl!

I know the section of the Iraq Constitution showing it is a theocracy has already been posted.  You want to ignore it again?  Do you really want to further embarrass yourself by trying to deny something that has been public knowledge for years?  Is your next move to try and claim in a Theocracy only one religion can exist therefore Iraq cannot be a Theocracy?  Aren't you tired and weary of this backwards approach?  It would be so much less work and not nearly as embarrassing if you simply let the facts shape your opinions.  Instead, you form your opinions out of some bizarre wish list then when proven wrong you ignore it and call other people names.  Do the majority of posters on here put up with that garbage?



For the third time, please give a definition of victory in iraq in your own words.  Can you?  It doesn't look like you can......


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 2, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You are right: Italy has no official religion.  My bad.
However Lichtenstein does, namely Catholicism.  So I guess that can be the example of a theocracy now.  Or Monaco.
I seriously doubt you understand the difference between theocracy and an official religion in a country.
What is wrong with the definition of victory given in the OP?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




The op does not contain a definition of victory.  It has a laundry list of which the majority is not complete.  For the fourth (or fifth) time, can you give a definition of victory in iraq in your own words?

Let's look at what a theocracy means:

The·oc·ra·cy *(th&#65532;-&#65532;k&#65532;r&#65532;-s&#65532

n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies 

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

2. A state so governed.
theocracy - definition of theocracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Now let's look at the relevant portion from the Iraq Constitution:

(from the Preamble)

"In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate 

We have honored the sons of Adam......"

"Acknowledging God's right over us, and in fulfillment of the call of our homeland and citizens, and in response to the call of our religious and national leaderships and the determination of our great (religious) authorities and of our leaders and reformers..."

(from Section 1 Article 2)

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: 

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established. 
Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com


Do you see where it says Islam is a fundamental source of legislation?  Now please read the dictionary definition of a Theocracy.  A State can have an Official religion without it also being a "fundamental source of legislation."  By trying to deny Iraq is an Islamic theocracy via Official State religions you have simply helped prove why Iraq is an Islamic Theocracy.



Are you really going to try to claim it is simply the official religion of iraq?  Is that your escape plan?


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 2, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



If you do not subscribe to the belief that "the project for a new american century" cosigners such as Krystol and Abhrams beat the drums louder than anyone then I guess you must conclude me a racist.

The jews wanted Iraq neutralized. Oh I'm sorry...you didn't know israel is a jewish state?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 2, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...




The problem is trying to exploit the PNAC as representative of all Jews.  It looks like anti-Semitism no matter how much spin is put on.


----------



## Polk (Nov 2, 2009)

How the hell is handing a big chunk of land over to de facto Iranian control a win for the US?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 2, 2009)

Polk said:


> How the hell is handing a big chunk of land over to de facto Iranian control a win for the US?



Iran is no where near in control of any significant portion of Iraq.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 2, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



That is the case.  Sorry if that doesn't meet with your preconceived notions of failure.  But there you have it.
Vatican City, which you rightly bring up as an example of a theocracy, should tell you how wrong you are.  Who is the head of Vatican City?  The Pope.  Who is the head of Iraq?  Some mullah?  Some cleric or other?  Nope.  See the difference?
Maybe you'd like to explain how this wasn't done democratically and represents the will of the people?


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 2, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Varth Dader said:
> ...



I'm not concerned with what it "looks" like.  One cannot in any good conscience distance the center of judaism from the remainder of the jews in the world.  The amount of support of Israels war crimes is the only differentation among those not actually living in thier "homeland".  Any jew that pays any tribute in gold to Israel is a participant.  If the "good" jews of the world wanted to apply preassure against aparthied and mass murder they would and could.   Our incestuous relationship with Israel should be ended immediately.  Our forfathers warned us against foreign entanglements and one of my heros Dwight Eisenhower warned against the political military industrial complex which is fascistic at its extreme.  The jews have commited geniocide .
I have no illusions that the world is not for the most part still a festering shit hole.  But..somehow we must take a stand against wrong.  Every time I see a filthy neo con wrap himself in our flag I want to burn it for it has been soiled.  They shout how great our land of freedom is ..stolen from the natives that lived here long before us and that flag reminds me of the small pox infested blankets these good americans gave them to wrap up in.  This nation was founded on fine principals and then immediately shit on by people like those in Israel that "claim" others property in the name of thier fake religion and the same manifest destiny that served as the excuse for the geniocde we commited here.

I don't give a flying fuck if the jews don't like it.  We have seen this in our humanity before.  I say no more.  If they are such good people...prove it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 2, 2009)

Anyone suggested you seek professional help?  Lately?


----------



## Varth Dader (Nov 2, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



You are using the same technique that allows people to paint Palestians as a group with the terrorist brush, thanks to the actions of a few.

There are lots of jews that are fighting the right fight as well. People that write for Haaretz like Amira Hass, or people like Max Blumenthal, or people that belong to tons of pro-peace pro-human rights group. Just because some people in the PNAC were jewish, doesn't mean that jews do thing X or thing Y.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Rabbi, are you Si modo or California girl in drag?  If not you act much like dwiddle dumb or dwiddle dumber.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 2, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Great response.  Not.
I would be happy to be in the company of thsoe two, who can form a coherent thought based on something other than Keith Olbermann talking points.
Do you recognize the difference between a theocracy like the Vatican and a state religion like in Monaco and Iraq or not?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 2, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Varth Dader said:
> ...






Certainly not ALL Jews but certainley the nation of ISRAEL!


----------



## Varth Dader (Nov 2, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Certainly not ALL Jews but certainley the nation of ISRAEL!



Using that logic, the terrible Bush years could be blamed on all Americans, regardless of how they individually voted.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2009)

All Americans, of course, are collectively responsible for the Bush years, some more than others.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Like I guessed would happen.....you completely ignored every thing that was posted.  You cannot create your own personal definition of a Theocracy just to avoid admitting iraq is one.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




I posted the def and you completely ignored it then tried to write your own personal definition of a theocracy.  It is you who completely fails to understand the difference.  I'm dumb for even continuing this when you have already proven you willfully ignore any and all information that shows you are wrong.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...





That's some seriously disturbing anti-Semitism.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Ah changing the goal posts I see.  Good strategy when the actual answer would mean defeat.
Your definition of theocracy does not describe Iraq in the least.  It does describe Iran and the Vatican though.
Keep guessing.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




There is no guessing as you have demonstrated your affinity for ignoring pertinent information.  A Theocracy is subject to religious authority and iraq's constitution states Islam is a fundamental source of its legislation.  That is what separates it from an official religion of a State.  X nation can have Y as its official religion but that doesn't mean that nation is governed by anything found within that religion.  That is not the case with iraq as we can all clearly see it states it is a nation subject to religious authority by its legislation being fundamentally sourced from Islam.  Now dance some more or man up.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



What religious authority is Iraq subject to?  It is no different than saying hte U.S. is a Christian nation (regardless of whether that is true or not, many people say it).
Vatican City is subject to the religious authoirty of the Pope.  Iran is subject to the religious authority of the clerics.  Iraq has no such institution.
You are grasping at straws here.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Why do you keep ignoring the Iraq constitution says islam is a fundamental source of its legislation?  Did you also ignore how it says no law that violates islam may be passed?  

There is nothing in the US Constitution stating the bible is a fundamental source of legislation.

I really don't have the patience to deal with people like you.


----------



## Polk (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > How the hell is handing a big chunk of land over to de facto Iranian control a win for the US?
> ...



Except that the entire government of Iraq is filled with Iranian loyalists.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2009)

Polk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


Support that claim with something of substance.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Polk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...




Even IF that is true, so what? Do you really want us to believe we invaded and occupied iraq and afghanistan to give iran de facto control of iraq?  Do you think it's an accident we have set up permanent military bases on each side of iran?  Do you realize Iran has always been one of the major targets?


----------



## Polk (Nov 3, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Maliki spent large portions of his time in exile in Tehran.
The largest parties in the governing coalition are Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (who's current and former leaders lived in exile in Tehran and organized pro-Iran militia movements during the Iran-Iraq War), the Badr Organization (military arm of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and also a pro-Iran militia movement during the Iran-Iraq War), and the Islamic Dawa Party (Maliki's personal party, which supported the Iranian Revolution, is funded by the Iranian government, and has committed terrorist attacks which have killed Americans).


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2009)

Polk said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


Ummm.   Your words?  I asked for something of substance.  Support your claim that the entire government of Iraq is filled with Iranian loyalists.


----------



## Polk (Nov 3, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Everything I said is factual.

Maliki spend a large portion of his time in exile in Tehran: Leader Description

ISCI/Badr's Iran ties: 
Sayed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/6100739/Abdul-Aziz-al-Hakim.html
IRAQ: Militia Groups - Council on Foreign Relations

Dawa's involvement in terrorist attacks against Americans:
frontline: target america: terrorist attacks on americans, 1979-1988

Dawa's ties to Iran (and more of a general primer overall):
Understanding the Iran Crisis - Council on Foreign Relations


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You won't answer the question because to answer it is to reveal you are wrong.  Iraq is not ruled by any religious body.  Islam is the source of law in Iraq about as much as Protestant Christianity is to the U.S., lack of mention of it notwithstanding.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Polk said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...




You're citing basically the same people who swindled america into invading iraq as evidence iran is doing terrorism against americans in iraq.  There is nothing there showing iraq's government is under any influence from iran.


----------



## Varth Dader (Nov 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> You won't answer the question because to answer it is to reveal you are wrong.  Iraq is not ruled by any religious body.  Islam is the source of law in Iraq about as much as Protestant Christianity is to the U.S., lack of mention of it notwithstanding.



Lack of mention of it notwithstanding?

That's the whole point! 

I'd say the source of law in the US is witchcraft.

Lack of mention of it in the Constitution notwithstanding.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > You won't answer the question because to answer it is to reveal you are wrong.  Iraq is not ruled by any religious body.  Islam is the source of law in Iraq about as much as Protestant Christianity is to the U.S., lack of mention of it notwithstanding.
> ...



He completely ignored the fact Iraq's Constitution clearly states Islam is a "fundamental source" of its legislation.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



And "our Creator" is the source of American law.  Your point?
As to VArth Dader's stupid point: if he could show that the Founders practiced witchcraft, that basic tenets of witchcraft showed up in their other writings, that their world view was colored by witchcraft, he would have a point.
But since he can't, while the connection with protestant Christianity can be demonstrated, my point is entirely valid.

So do you understand the difference yet between the Vatican and Iran, where clerics control the law-making process, versus the United States and Iraq, where they dont?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 3, 2009)

We and the Iraqi people have won.

No news is good News

You won't read it in the morning paper or see it on the evening news, but the U.S. military has dramatically - and perhaps irreversibly - turned the corner in Iraq, as the nonpartisan Brookings Institution details in it's Iraq index:

* Iraq rates forth in the region in political freedom, behind Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Under Saddam Hussein, there were no commercial TV stations and no independent newspapers; by 2006 there were 54 commercial TV stations and 268 Independent newspapers and magazines.

*Pre-war Iraq had just 833,000 telephone subscribers; today there are 17.7 million cellular and 1.3 million land line phone subscribers.

* Attacks on energy installations and personnel have fallen from 30 per month in late 2004 to one per month in 2009.

* The size of Iraqs security force has grown from 30,000 in mid 2003 to 589,000 in late 2008.

* Monthly U.S. troop fatalities that once were as high as 137 now are in the single digits and low teens.

Iraq Index - Saban Center for Middle East Policy - - Brookings Institution


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Varth Dader said:
> ...




Where in our Constitution does it say anything about any religious text being the source of our legislation?

Yet again you completely ignored the relevant information.  I'm not playing this game with you.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 3, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> We and the Iraqi people have won.
> 
> No news is good News
> 
> ...




That can easily be translated as a desperate attempt to try and justify a completely optional invasion and occupation.  It's understandable as some must find a reason or justification for the many many sacrifices.  But that dog won't hunt.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, because you if you do you lose.
Do you understand the difference yet between the Vatican and Iran, where clerics control the political process, and the U.S. and Iraq, where they don't?
You won't answer the question because you know the answer shows the truth.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 3, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > We and the Iraqi people have won.
> ...





It's called facts.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

Yeah.
That was an example of #2: But it wasn't worth it because gosh look at all the money and lives it cost.

That argument is Number Two in more ways than one.

The other is, maybe we won, maybe we lost.  It's too early to tell yet.  When Iraq looks like Switzerland politically then we can say we won.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Look at post 263 where I explained the difference between an official state religion and a theocracy.  No, I mean really look at it.  No.  I mean please stop reading this post until you read 263.  Done that yet?  When you have then please continue reading this post.  You do realize iran is a theocracy that has democratic elections right?  Let's look at some more info:




"One can clearly see that already the powerful influence of clerics is apparent," Hamdan said. "The parliament and government cannot take any step without first consulting the clerics." 


But the U.S. occupation forces and their leadership have depended on clerics since the early days of occupation. The Iraqi Governing Council included clerics like Ayatollah Bahrul-Uloom and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, together with leaders of other Islamic parties like al-Dawa and the Iraqi Islamic Party. 

The elections in January 2005 were almost completely controlled by religious groups and their political parties. 

Shia parties, especially The Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, led by Hakim, cited Sistani asking "believers" to vote for the political list that included the Shia coalition. That list continues to play a powerful role in government today."
IRAQ: Clerics Begin to Take Over - IPS ipsnews.net


Once again you completely ignore the fact the Iraq Constitution states islam is the fundamental source of legislation.  Impress us with how ridiculously stubborn you can be and ignore that again.  Kind of like how you have never given a definition of victory in iraq in your own words.  Dazzle and shine!


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




I can cherry pick facts to show Elvis is still alive and the moon really is made of green cheese.  The bottom line is many of our Troops have paid the ultimate and nearly ultimate Sacrifice when they were forced to out of sheer greed and political agendas that had nothing to do with defending our Constitution.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Yeah.
> That was an example of #2: But it wasn't worth it because gosh look at all the money and lives it cost.
> 
> That argument is Number Two in more ways than one.
> ...




So which is it?  You've been stampeding the Victory drum and now you Perot that to say it's too early to tell if we've won?  Wow.  All that without even a definition of Victory. I'm impressed.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Now you are simply substituting your own definition of theocracy.
Iran does not have democratic elections.  The council of mullahs vets each candidate before allowing them to stand.  Not so in Iraq.
Do clerics have influence in Iraq?  Yes, of course.  It is a religious country so religious leaders have a lot of influence.  That is not the same as having veto power over everything, like in Iran and Vatican City.
By that definition NYC is a theocracy since the Catholic Cardinal and the Jewish rebbes in Brooklyn both wield considerable influence.
Do you see the difference yet?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




I was going to let it go but I can't....so.....how can it be claimed the study is from a non-biased source when the lead author is a signatory participant of the PNAC?  On at least two occasions he signed letters to Congress urging they continue the neocon agenda.  Isn't that like asking Rudolph to criticize Santa's sleigh skills then claiming it was an unbiased assessment?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 4, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> We and the Iraqi people have won.
> 
> No news is good News
> 
> ...



Smells like victory


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




You didn't learn from your Italy mistake.

"The Parliament of Iran, comprises 290 members elected for four-year terms........

The President is elected by universal suffrage, by those 18 years old and older[1], for a term of four years."
Politics of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I did not say iraq is a theocracy because of "influence" from clerics.  You ignored post 263.....again.  Is this fun for you? Is this your form of personal entertainment? To come on here and pretend to be honest?  I've always said iraq is a theocracy because its Constitution clearly states Islam is a fundamental source of legislation: 

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 


Did you see that yet?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

Jesus are you uninformed.  As they say, a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
Try this:
Guardian Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note the virtual veto power the mullahs have over candidates etc.
Note that the Pope has virtual veto power over anything that goes on in Vatican City.
Note the absence of any similar body or person in Iraq.
Case closed.  I will not post on this again as the proof has been offered and demonstrated to anyone without a burning desire to think the US lost the Iraq War.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Jesus are you uninformed.  As they say, a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
> Try this:
> Guardian Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Note the virtual veto power the mullahs have over candidates etc.
> ...





Classy.  Claim iran does not have elections and ignore the presented evidence showing they do.  Something like the GC is not necessary for iraq to be a theocracy.  You cannot rewrite the definition to ignore that it says a theocracy is based in religious authority.  For iraq, that religious authority is Islam and it doesn't matter if someone has the title of cleric or pope or not.  Legislation being founded in a religion is what defines a theocracy.  But go ahead and ignore that again as you already have 7 times already.  Just like you claim victory in iraq but you can't even write a simple definition of that victory in your own words. As much as you have embarrassed yourself I would hope you stop posting on the matter.  That's your safest move.  Unless you want to make more false claims followed by continually ignoring the definition of a theocracy.   Oh, and you ignored post 263 again. Bravo! Jolly good show mate! You are helping to show why the pro war crowd are generally ignorant of basic info and too arrogant to be honest.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

That distraction out of the way, it is amazing that more people think we lost the Iraq War than think we won it.
I can't imagine what could account for this, other than opposition to the war and especially to Pres Bush.
Did we destroy the enemy's ability to wage war?  Yes.
Did we unseat the enemy's government?  Yes.
Did we impose our will and control over the country?  Yes.
What other definition of victory can there be??


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 4, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > We and the Iraqi people have won.
> ...






It smells like SOMETHING.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> That distraction out of the way, it is amazing that more people think we lost the Iraq War than think we won it.
> I can't imagine what could account for this, other than opposition to the war and especially to Pres Bush.
> Did we destroy the enemy's ability to wage war?  Yes.
> Did we unseat the enemy's government?  Yes.
> ...




You just described Imperialism and not a War.  Iraq was not a threat to the US so it could not have been an enemy.  You probably don't even know five days after 9/11 Cheney told the world Iraq was not involved in any way for that day and Iraq was NOT a threat because Saddam was "bottled up."  Be honest...you didn't know he said that and when.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

Are you planning on redefining words to suit your own warped view?  Again?

I guess we demonstrated imperialism over Nazi Germany.  England and Russia demonstrated imperialism over Napoleonic France.  That's why France is still a colony of England, right?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Are you planning on redefining words to suit your own warped view?  Again?
> 
> I guess we demonstrated imperialism over Nazi Germany.  England and Russia demonstrated imperialism over Napoleonic France.  That's why France is still a colony of England, right?




Is this how you get by?  If you want to lie I can't stop it but I can hope someday you will find the courage needed to have honest discussions.  

You probably don't know Germany Declared War on the US.  Do you also know Germany was engaged in Imperialism by invading and occupying nations that did not attack it?  Napolean engaged in Imperialism.  In both examples you gave the allies fought against imperialism. We are now the nation engaging in that same form of Imperialism.  

You see, Germany and Napoleon were both threats because.....they invaded nations and continued to do so.  Iraq was not a threat to the US.  Got anymore wonderfully bright analogies? Lol.

You have just joined the divecon crew.  Congratulations.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

Ok.  So when a nation declares war on another nation, that is imperialism.  I see.

Do you have a clue?  I mean, do you understand that words have specific meanings, not just what you think they ought to mean?
Imperialism is pretty well defined.  And it doesn't mean declaring war on another nation.
Victory is pretty well defined.  And it doesn't mean achieving bloodless triumph and turning your enemy into the political equivalent of Switzerland.

I am sorry if the war didn't go the way you wanted.  I know you were really rooting for Saddam and then al Qaeda.  But you have to accept that sometimes it just doesn't work out that way and teh bad guys--the United States to your thinking--end up winning.
But just accept that and don't engage in these infantile rantings of yours that make you look like a boob.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Ok.  So when a nation declares war on another nation, that is imperialism.  I see.
> 
> Do you have a clue?  I mean, do you understand that words have specific meanings, not just what you think they ought to mean?
> Imperialism is pretty well defined.  And it doesn't mean declaring war on another nation.
> Victory is pretty well defined.  And it doesn't mean achieving bloodless triumph and turning your enemy into the political equivalent of Switzerland.




I never said that.  I did say it is Imperialism when one nation invades and occupies another nation just because it can.  That is what Napoleon did.  That is what Germany did.  That is what we have done and are doing in Iraq.  It is NOT Imperialism when two sovereign nations declare war on each other.  That is why it was NOT Imperialism when we entered WWII.  Try to read what my posts say instead of trying to jump on what you perceive to be an error.  Maybe you could dazzle us again with your dancing around of how Iraq is not a Theocracy even though the Iraq Constitution states Islam is a fundamental source of legislation.  C'mon! That was fun!






> I am sorry if the war didn't go the way you wanted.  I know you were really rooting for Saddam and then al Qaeda.  But you have to accept that sometimes it just doesn't work out that way and teh bad guys--the United States to your thinking--end up winning.
> But just accept that and don't engage in these infantile rantings of yours that make you look like a boob.



This is the real test of loving America isn't it?  When I was fighting in Iraq in 91' I never ever thought some years down the road another American would accuse me of rooting for Saddam.  You know what?  I would still gladly give my life to defend the Freedom necessary for people like you to make such accusations.  March on brother!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 4, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

    * Strengthen American democracy;
    * Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and
    * Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.

Brookings is proud to be consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank.


What more need anyone say?


Quality. Independence. Impact. - Brookings Institution


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

No, we occupied Germany and Japan after WW2 because we could.  So I guess that makes us imperialists.
The North occupied the South in the civil war.  So I guess they were imperialists too.

I am convinced you have no idea what you are talking about.  Simple terms in common use in political science elude you.  So you substitute whatever you think might bolster your case.  It is sad.  A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Fallacy: Red Herring


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> No, we occupied Germany and Japan after WW2 because we could.  So I guess that makes us imperialists.
> The North occupied the South in the civil war.  So I guess they were imperialists too.
> 
> I am convinced you have no idea what you are talking about.  Simple terms in common use in political science elude you.  So you substitute whatever you think might bolster your case.  It is sad.  A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.




All of those references are known as a Reconstruction Period.  That usually happens after a Nation Surrenders.  One more time......your Germany and Napoleon analogies fail because in both cases the Allies fought against Imperialism committed by those Nations.  In this situation it is us, America, that is guilty of the Imperialism.  Iraq posed no threat as Cheney stated on 9/16/01.  (it really doesn't help your case to spend more time trying to say how stupid others are instead making your case)


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 5, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > No, we occupied Germany and Japan after WW2 because we could.  So I guess that makes us imperialists.
> ...


Yes, that is what we are doing in Iraq, reconstruction.  Or did you miss that part of it?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 5, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Cherry picking should only be a lifestyle for farmers.  We had no legit reason to invade and occupy so what we are doing is Imperialism.  Reconstruction only happens after a legit War has ended.  By your logic the victim of a stab would should thank his attacker for helping clean up the blood.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...






How much of that "rebuilding" has actually been succesful? There are a good number of buildings built by KBR that are not fit for use. Shoddy workmanship and substandard materials have resulted in MASSIVE number of FAILED projects.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 5, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



And redefining should only be done by lexicographers.
Reconstruction is the process of reconstructing.  Nothing more. Dragging in whether the invasion was justified or not is a red herring and irrelevant to the issue of reconstruction.
And the war was justified. There was ample legal and historical justification for it.
You're not happy with that?  You thought somethign else should have been done?  Bully for you.
But you lost.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





First of all I thought OIL was supposed to pay for "reconstrution" but I guess you are MORE than happy to have tax $$$ go to "reconstruction".


Second there is absolutely NO legal justification for the war in Iraq, NONE!! What we did was a PREVENTITIVE war not a PREEMPTIVE war. There IS a difference you know. So go get a fucking education on the topic before you spout off. Now I'm gonna help you out a bit hey little guy. Go look up the terms PREEMPTIVE and PREVENTITIVE wars and you may begin to understand how ILLEGAL our attack on Iraq really is.

Note also an Israeli attack on Iran would ALSO be illegal.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You were either asleep while this debate was going on or more likely watching Sat morning cartoons.
There was ample legal justification.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...






Bullshit it was TOTALLY unjustified and ILLEGAL. Go look up the terms I asked you to and tell me on WHAT basis EXACTELY we had the right to declare war on Iraq.......The terrorists came from SAUDI ARABIA. Do you get it? Do you UNDERSTAND? Obviously you don't and you clearly don't WANT to.

We based our attack on info provided by a guy code named CURVEBALL!!!!


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



I am not going to sit here and rehash the US's legal claim to use force to enforce the Gulf War treaty terms and UN sanctions.  These have been covered well enough.
And I am not going to engage someone who wants to use a discredited red herring argument about 9/11 not coming from Iraq.  That has already had way too much bandwidth devoted to it before dying a justified death.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




So based on your reasoning we should attack Israel because they have broken so many UN sanctions it's not even funny.


And I am not sure you understand the term "Red Herring". There was and still is ZERO connection between Al Qaeda, in fact, Saddam DESPISED Al Qaeda.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

Sorry that you can't back up your claims with facts but that's YOUR problem not mine. I have showed you that PREEMTIVE and PREVENTITIVE wars and that th US engaged in the latter which is NOT a legal justification.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

Oh and quit trying to equate WWII to the Gulf war it is a demeening to those who fought in WWII who are STILL the finest generation of our time. It's sad to see them dying out.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 5, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Reconstruction has a specific geopolitical meaning regarding the end of a war between nations where one formally surrenders.  By your standard here it means it is impossible for imperialism to exist because when one nation invades another and blows the shit out of it followed by an occupation, you can just call it Reconstruction and completely ignore the fact it was not a legitimate invasion. You're just pissed because your lousy analogies to Germany and Napoleon helped prove our actions in Iraq are Imperialistic.  So what do you do? Make false accusations.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 5, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




The US had no legal authority to arbitrarily enforce a UN Sanctioned Cease Fire Agreement.  I think you are smart enough to know all of that but your Nationalism is prevailing over intellectual honesty and will continue to do so until you learn to define yourself as an individual rather than rely almost entirely on the government as a crutch for self identity.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 5, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




The US had no legal authority to arbitrarily enforce a UN Sanctioned Cease Fire Agreement.  I think you are smart enough to know all of that but your Nationalism is prevailing over intellectual honesty and will continue to do so until you learn to define yourself as an individual rather than rely almost entirely on the government as a crutch for self identity.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

Hey Rabbi isn't cutting and running a bad thing? How about you come back here and answer the questions.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 5, 2009)

Perle is the only pro colonialism freak who had the balls to be honest and you have to respect that. 



"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." 


"international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone",
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal | UK news | The Guardian


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

Wasn't it GHW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld who saw the perils of removing Saddam not worth the risk. I am sorry but the sad FACT of Iraq is that the MINORITY rule is the only way to keep them from being slaughtered. Mark my words when we leave it will be a blood bath for the minority.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 5, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



As I said, I'm not arguing whether the US was justified.  That has been rehashed too many times already.
Suffice it to say, your arguments have been show to be fallacious and rely on idiosyncratic redefinitions of words to suit your own desires.
Thanks for playing, boys.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 5, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Watching you try to criticize argument style, even with the false accusations aside, is like paying Michael Vick to teach kids how to take care of dogs.


----------



## shane (Nov 5, 2009)

To give you a simple answer to a simple question, yes we did win.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 6, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...







Whether it was justified or not is the ONLY question that matters. Don't you get that? You just REFUSE to accept the FACT that this was a PREVENTITIVE war and as so is an illegal war and you can't "WIN" a war based on LIES and flat out THUGERY the Bush projected to the world after 9/11........."You're either with us or you are against us" Gawd what a wonderful little black, white, and BLOOD RED world Bush lives in. The sad fact is that the WHOLE WORLD would have helped us to fight a war on terrorist groups but Bush got a coalition of the "WILLING" (see paid off) to attack a country that had NOTHING!!!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! to do with 9/11.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 6, 2009)

Actually the only question that matters is whether we won the war, which is the thread title here.
If you want to post a thread on "were we justified to go to war" then go ahead and I can ignore that too.


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 6, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Actually the only question that matters is whether we won the war, which is the thread title here.
> If you want to post a thread on "were we justified to go to war" then go ahead and I can ignore that too.



Nobody likes an ignorant bossy jew.  I confirmed that from one of my jewish friends yesterday.


----------



## VodkaIce (Nov 6, 2009)

The Iraq War is yet another example of destruction imposed by IMF Riots.

If you revisit the facts, we engaged Iraq because they were dumping the dollar, and moving to the Euro.  This would devastate the US economy, to which was already suffering more economic blows as well executed and planned by the neo cons (e.g. the Bush family, Cheney, Clintons, the British Monarcy and so forth).

Moreover, the agriculture destruction such as seen in wiping out the SEEDS harvested even before the time Christ (i.e., "b.c.").

The United States and it's allies wanted Iraq's Oil fields, and rather than negotiating terms, they resort to genocide, bully antics, chaos and devastation.  In other words, they KILL AND THEY STEAL.

It's our national montra.


----------



## VodkaIce (Nov 6, 2009)

No, we ENGAGE IRAQ ILLEGALLY.

The United States broke both Federal and International Laws of engagement.  Please don't have me cite them all, but I do have all the laws archived, to which delineates all ILLEGALITIES OF ENGAGEMENT.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 6, 2009)

VodkaIce said:


> The Iraq War is yet another example of destruction imposed by IMF Riots.
> 
> If you revisit the facts, we engaged Iraq because they were dumping the dollar, and moving to the Euro.  This would devastate the US economy, to which was already suffering more economic blows as well executed and planned by the neo cons (e.g. the Bush family, Cheney, Clintons, the British Monarcy and so forth).
> 
> ...



What fantasy did you learn this one from?
Never mind.  I see you are a nutjob.  Keep on at it.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 6, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Actually the only question that matters is whether we won the war, which is the thread title here.
> If you want to post a thread on "were we justified to go to war" then go ahead and I can ignore that too.




ROTFL!!!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES WERE YOU ASKED TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF VICTORY????


(don't bother responding man.....5 day old diaper juice holds more value than the crap you try to sell.)


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 7, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> VodkaIce said:
> 
> 
> > The Iraq War is yet another example of destruction imposed by IMF Riots.
> ...







Are you capable of ANYTHING other than Ad Hominen atacks Rabbi? You have ZERO facts to base your OPININONS on so you attack the poster......My Gawd you are a weak little fool trying to formulate a counter point.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...






The point is, and I think you are WILLFULLY ignoring it, is CAN you EVER win an ILLEGAL war the answer is an absolute NO! Bush sold our national SOUL for his greedy, misguided, and ARROGANT war to avenge his daddy who wanted NOTHING to do with ousting Saddam because he LISTENED to his military advisors.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 7, 2009)

No.  

And if we did "win" what exactly was won?

Counterinsurgencies aren't "won" or "lost", you merely stabilize the country or you don't.  There is no surrender by the enemy and definitive cessation of hostilities.  

It's the same for Afghanistan.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 7, 2009)

No, the U.S. did not "win" a war that could not be won.  Saddam is gone, good.  The shi'ite majority is in power, which is bad for the sunni minority, which will continue an insurgency.  And the Iraqi government will ally with our enemy Iran once we are gone for good.   Anyone who thinks we won this war is crazy.

I get a kick out of cockeyed OPs that have no relation to reality, and then the original poster gets bent out of shape when that is exposed.

You far right wing fools are not fooling anyone except yourselves.  The rest are laughing at you.

OK, got a jet to catch for the rest of the weekend's party.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 7, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War To Do List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam
> ...



What about the whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" thing?

You know, the reason we were told we had to enter into this conflict to begin with?


----------



## Kingpin (Nov 7, 2009)

Many military personnel have themselves questioned the wisdom of this war.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 7, 2009)

Kingpin said:


> Many military personnel have themselves questioned the wisdom of this war.




Even with the culture of silence in the military many have been outspoken and it is because they are paying the price with their limbs and lives.  

Back here in the states those who support it the most are the least informed.  Go figure.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 7, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> No.
> 
> And if we did "win" what exactly was won?
> 
> ...



You need to go and ask what happened to Malaya in the 1950s.  Or the Philippines in the 1900s.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 7, 2009)

Kingpin said:


> Many military personnel have themselves questioned the wisdom of this war.



So?
I don't understand what makes that statement worthy of consideration.  The military is a big place.  It recruits fro the general population.  It will have everyone from hard core libertarians to Muslim terrorists (as we just found out) in it. Why is their opinion more worthwhile than anyone else's?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 7, 2009)

zsezse said:


> Philip Nute
> 28 Easy St
> Weymouth, Mass 02190-1104
> philipnute.com
> ...



The drugs must be kicking in.

Quite literally it seems.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, the U.S. did not "win" a war that could not be won.  Saddam is gone, good.  The shi'ite majority is in power, which is bad for the sunni minority, which will continue an insurgency.  And the Iraqi government will ally with our enemy Iran once we are gone for good.   Anyone who thinks we won this war is crazy.
> 
> I get a kick out of cockeyed OPs that have no relation to reality, and then the original poster gets bent out of shape when that is exposed.
> 
> ...



Yeah the old completely discredited Iraq = Iran Theory.

If you keep repeating it maybe someone other than another Librul might believe it


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 8, 2009)

Ollie, I'm not saying the presented facts are lies.  Even if every item is one hundred percent correct that does not remove the bias source.  Look at what the list focuses on and what it ignores.  He's trying to polish a turd into a truffle.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 8, 2009)

Kingpin said:


> Many military personnel have themselves questioned the wisdom of this war.






Yeah and so did Cheney, GHW, and Rumsfeld. I don't know what changed between GWI and GWII. Note that I agreed with GWI because Saddam illegally occupied another country.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq War To Do List
> ...



The Soviets were able to relocate them out of Iraq before the shooting started.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2009)

The initial West Nile Outbreak in the Northeast was a fizzled bioterrorist attack.

I know, flame away, but them's the facts and that was plenty reason to take Saddam out.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The initial West Nile Outbreak in the Northeast was a fizzled bioterrorist attack.
> 
> I know, flame away, but them's the facts and that was plenty reason to take Saddam out.



It must be scary in your head.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





Care to try and PROVE the Soviets moved WMD out of Iraq?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The initial West Nile Outbreak in the Northeast was a fizzled bioterrorist attack.
> 
> I know, flame away, but them's the facts and that was plenty reason to take Saddam out.






O.K. if its a FACT then you should have NO PROBLEM proving it.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 8, 2009)

Wow I guess you don't have any FACTS......Too bad so sad.


----------



## Missourian (Nov 8, 2009)

The fact that 24 people still can't bring themselves to support the tremendous job our fighting forces have accomplished in Iraq proves once again that the far-left is completely divorced from reality.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Me personally? Yeah, I have complete access to Mossad Intel and NSA satellites.

I can't prove it.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 8, 2009)

Missourian said:


> The fact that 24 people still can't bring themselves to support the tremendous job our fighting forces have accomplished in Iraq proves once again that the far-left is completely divorced from reality.






TOTAL F'ING bullshit. Support of the TROOPS has NOTHING to do with support of the leaders who put them there.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The initial West Nile Outbreak in the Northeast was a fizzled bioterrorist attack.
> ...



The FACT is that West Nile was NEVER found in the USA until Patient Zero died of it in Queens and that person was never in the Middle East, and never had recent contact with anyone just from the Middle East.

The other people who got infected never had contact with Patient Zero and also were never out of country or in contact with the Middle East.

The outbreak then vectored up and down I-95 infected other people who never had any contact with each other or had been in the Middle East.

Really weird way for a virus to propagate, if not with human aerosol assistance.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...







Of COURSE you can't PROVE it because you are just spouting SHIT!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that 24 people still can't bring themselves to support the tremendous job our fighting forces have accomplished in Iraq proves once again that the far-left is completely divorced from reality.
> ...



Yerh but the OP Is about winning the war irrespective of the reasons or personalities involved!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



It's more like hearsay.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Look who's talking.  Mr Shitspouter himself.
Hey, why not accuse the US of atrocities since by your definition anything that results in civilians getting killed must be an atrocity.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





Well I guess THAT proves it. DUH!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 8, 2009)

Wow so in ONE page we have had people claim (with NO proof to back them up) that the Soviets took the WMD out of Iraq and that the West nile virus was a failed attack by Saddam Husein to attack the US. What a bunch of F'ING scumbag lying pieces of shit. 

You know throw out enough baseless claims and one may stick eh? If you were going for mindless propoganda then you hit the mark right on.


----------



## Missourian (Nov 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


 

Exactly.

The War is won.

24 voted we LOST the war in Iraq, a view that is totally divorced from reality.

They only wished and hoped for a loss.

They may have better luck rooting against the US in Afghanistan. 

I hope the left fails and the US succeeds there as well... 

... regardless of the political affiliation of the current C-in-C.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 8, 2009)

Missourian said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...




If Iraq Vets said it was a huge mistake to go there and we lost you would just accuse them of being whiners or unPatriotic.  Your position is based not on information but simply a Bullho
rn chair. 

Oh, and this approach of trying to say those who don't support the war also don't support our troops is rather moldy.  Got anything new or just more useless emotional strings?


----------



## Missourian (Nov 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
If the troops didn't win the war, who did?

Quit sobbing over victory, all is not lost...there's still a war you can help to lose.

(Edit) P.S.- I am a Vet...I speak to soldiers face to face and the vast majority believes in the mission in Iraq and believe this war is won.


----------



## VodkaIce (Nov 8, 2009)

> What fantasy did you learn this one from?
> Never mind. I see you are a nutjob. Keep on at it.



This is merely a factoid.

Sites to visit includes GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization

Articles:

1. Carola Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, &#8216;Iraq returns to international oil market&#8217;, Financial Times, June 5 2003, FT.com | Error | Page No Longer Available 

2. Kazi Mahmood, &#8216;Economic Shift Could Hurt U.S.-British Interests In Asia&#8217;, March 30 2003, IslamOnline.net 

3. Shahanaaz Habib, &#8216;Use euro for oil prices, says Dr M&#8217;, The Star, June 16 2003, http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2003/6/17/nation/sboil&sec=nation 

4. Reuters, &#8216;EU says oil could one day be priced in euros&#8217;, June 16 2003, http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/030616/energy_euro_2.html 

5. C. Shivkumar, &#8216;Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms&#8217;, June 16 2003, http://thehindubusinessline.com/stories/2003061702380500.htm

Also visit General Clark's url: Cause of Iraq War--gen. William Clark

I have oodles to back this remark.  Counter your statement if you dare.  Otherwise, banters of such ilks is utterly IGNORED BY ME as I find them utterly banal and it shamefully characterizes your personal of lacking in intelligence and it great dire need of a serious overhaul, but LOBOTOMIZED - sorry, you're hosed.


----------



## VodkaIce (Nov 8, 2009)

url is given above as I shall extrapolate General's Clark Summary:

...."Summary 

Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the 

Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the 

core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further 

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the 

euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they 

need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. 

The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement 

by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending 

phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with 

Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue 

of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of 

`petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar 

hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates 

graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency 

`trading band' with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and 

multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially 

reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique 

of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections 

will have a large impact on the 21st century."


(One more thing, I don't give  A F#$%KING RATS ASS what you people THINK ABOUT ME, it's the message that I attempt to share that is IMPORTANT, at least to me and to those who are concern about the future.  So you can give me a minus 10,000 and I shall take that as a compliment)


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 8, 2009)

Missourian said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...




The only winners are those who are profiting.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Which would seem to be the Iraqis:


> Iraq's economy is dominated by the oil sector, which has traditionally provided about 95% of foreign exchange earnings. Although looting, insurgent attacks, and sabotage have undermined economy rebuilding efforts, economic activity is beginning to pick up in areas recently secured by the US military surge. Oil exports are around levels seen before Operation Iraqi Freedom, and total government revenues have benefited from high oil prices. Despite political uncertainty, Iraq is making some progress in building the institutions needed to implement economic policy and has negotiated a debt reduction agreement with the Paris Club and a new Stand-By Arrangement with the IMF. Iraq has received pledges for $13.5 billion in foreign aid for 2004-07 from outside of the US, more than $33 billion in total pledges. The International Compact with Iraq was established in May 2007 to integrate Iraq into the regional and global economy, and the Iraqi government is seeking to pass laws to strengthen its economy. This legislation includes a hydrocarbon law to establish a modern legal framework to allow Iraq to develop its resources and a revenue sharing law to equitably divide oil revenues within the nation, although both are still bogged down in discussions. The Central Bank has been successful in controlling inflation through appreciation of the dinar against the US dollar. Reducing corruption and implementing structural reforms, such as bank restructuring and developing the private sector, will be key to Iraq's economic success.
> GDP:
> $102.4 billion (2007 est.)
> GDP growth rate:
> ...


A 5.9% growth rate in GDP is nothing to sneeze at.  Maybe Obama could learn a thing or two about growth from Iraq.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 8, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...




We've been killing and hurting people in Iraq for 19 straight years and you want to say they are the winners?  You're also either very ignorant or very dishonest to reference the GDP structure without taking into account obvious important factors.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



What important factor is that? That it contradicts your entire view of the situation?
And we were pikers compared to what Saddam did.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





And Saddam was killing and hurting people in Iraq for over 25 years. At least we have turned their government over to them and for the first time in history they are actually free to decide for themselves what they want in their country. As a people.


----------



## JW Frogen (Nov 8, 2009)

Saddam is gone, time to move on.

I am not sad, I am glad.

Uncle Sam I am.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 9, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




We killed and injured far far far far more people than Saddam.  Do you see the problem?  If you want to justify invading iraq based on saddam killing iraqis then you must advocate a nation invades and occupies america.  Or were the iraqis we killed somehow less dead than those saddam killed?


As for claiming we gave iraq to iraqis......huh?  You can't be serious.  First of all you have to know we are not letting iraq do anything without approval.  Second, how the hell can you claim they are free while a foreign military occupation is up their ass?


The real kicker?  Claiming iraq is free for the first time.  Apparently you are not aware this is the first time Iraq has had a Constitution with democratic elections.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 9, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




First of all your citing numbers that are suspect since they are derived from US controlled sources.  But, let's say those numbers are accurate.  Why gloat and give false credit?  Iraq's GDP was perpetually stifled by the US driven UN Sanctions.  We removed the sanctions which increased commerce and you ignore that obvious piece just to fluff up?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 9, 2009)

A 5.9% growth rate in a global recession is phenomenal.  You are merely carping. Again.
Get over it, your side lost and America won.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 9, 2009)

Missourian said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...






Well if putting Iraq under the same rulling religious type of laws that IRAN has then surely we "won". If putting the MAJORITY into power over the MINORITY then we "won". If Iraq turns into a BLOOD BATH of Shia VS Sunni the second we leave is then that is a "win". The FACT is that these opposing sects of Islam have been waring for a MILLENIA and if you think we did ANYTHING but to DESTABILIZE the region then you know NOTHING about the ME. The FACT is that as sick a fuck as Saddam was he kept Iraq from self imploding. Why do you think GHW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld didn't take Saddam out in GWI? You just answer that one little question.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 9, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...





Yeah and we SUPPORTED Saddam for 25 years. Does that make us complicant in the slaughter the Iraqi Kurds? Did you know that during GWII that the CIA was arming the Norther Kurds and giving them intel to overthrow Saddam? Did you know that after GWI we left the Kurds with their dicks hanging out. We ABANDONED THEM!!


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 9, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Are you still beating this dead horse?  Face facts, the U.S. won, Saddam lost, the Iraqis are much better off today than they were under Saddam, the world is a lot safer, and America commands more respect (or did until BO started apologizing for our success) in that region.
Sorry if that makes you unhappy.  Maybe al Jazeera has a discussion board or something.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 9, 2009)

WE WON NOTHING YOU FOOL! When Iraq goes up in flames it will be due to OUR intervention in their INTERNAL politics. The blood of the minority will be on OUR hands!


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 9, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> WE WON NOTHING YOU FOOL! When Iraq goes up in flames it will be due to OUR intervention in their INTERNAL politics. The blood of the minority will be on OUR hands!


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 9, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > WE WON NOTHING YOU FOOL! When Iraq goes up in flames it will be due to OUR intervention in their INTERNAL politics. The blood of the minority will be on OUR hands!



Wow. You really did post a pic of yourself.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 9, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





War is hell, actual combat is a Mother..........
People die in a war. Bush and Rumsfeld had a perfect plan for taking Iraq. And it did work almost flawlessly. It was the occupation and insurgency where they screwed it up. 
And Iraq has had 2 elections or more, I suppose you think we fixed those too. They wrote their own constitution.

Yes they have a constitution and democratic elections, For the first time ever. Freedom and Liberty. Just as I said. 

And as far as our troops, well we are still in Germany and they don't seem to mind so much. Though over half the troops we had in Germany in 1991 are no longer there. The barracks and housing areas were turned over to the German Government who made them into slums for Turks and what not.

We will leave iraq when the time is right (I hope) and not a minute before.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 9, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





Actually , yes I did know all this and more. That doesn't mean I supported it. I retired in 93 and this was part of the reason I retired when I did.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



But remember that we lost that war.  I guess losing means demolishing another country's military, ousting their rulers and putting them on trial, and installing a regime that is more representative of the people.  Defeat has always been defined this way. Didn't you know that?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 10, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Earlier I saw you say "God iam glad I retired."  Guess what?  You aren't the only one.

"Well, Bernard Lewis, the great expert at Princeton [University] on the Middle East, and I wrote a piece in The Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago that said why not use the 1925 constitution and appoint the governing council as the senate under the constitution? It's appointed by a constitutional monarch. And there's an elected parliament under it. They can amend the constitution."
CNN.com - Woolsey: Why not use 1925 constitution? - Nov. 12, 2003


Now that we have established your time in retirement has not been spent getting educated on Iraq let's move on to your claim of a "perfect plan" for taking iraq.  First of all there were no insurgents.  It is impossible for insurgents to exist in a nation that has no government and is under control by a foreign military occupation.

in·sur·gent *(&#65532;n-sûr&#65532;j&#65532;nt)

adj.

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.

2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
insurgent - definition of insurgent by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


You say they had a perfect plan for taking iraq but screwed up the occupation and (the ignorant term) insurgency.  Golly gee gomer.......what the fuck are you talking about?  Do you even know?  The invasion and occupation were designed to justify permanent military bases. If we had actually tried to forge a coherent governing structure without much fighting it would have been damn hard to justify keeping over 100,000 Troops on the ground.  

Then you further embarrass yourself by mentioning WW2.  In that era we fought against imperialism and many germans were united against hitler and glad it was over.  There were also several cultural similarities which helped our post war reconstruction period.  In this case it is we who are the imperialists.  Do you have any idea what is going on?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 10, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Installing an Islamic Theocracy that put iraqi women back in the 18th century is a good thing?  Do you realize under their Sharia law wives can be legally raped now?  Go try and actually fucking learn something instead of waving your bullshit like it's a basket of rose petals.

Don't forget....I asked you about 8 times to define victory and you ignored it every time.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 10, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




From what I've seen it looks more like you were forced out under Clinton's draw down plan.  But you're right...citing the Kurds as "part" of the reason sounds better. Much much better.


----------



## johnrocks (Nov 10, 2009)

That war never was "winnable", a huge waste of lives and resources.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



By that measure I guess the war against the Japanese was a failure too, since the Emperor retained his throne.
Why not give up beating this dead horse and get a fucking clue?


----------



## Varth Dader (Nov 10, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Don't forget....I asked you about 8 times to define victory and you ignored it every time.



It's called reverse engineering : Look at the results... that is victory! 

Don't be so hung up on minor details like trying to define where the goalposts are. 

We shoot the ball... VICTORY! (The goalposts will adjust)


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget....I asked you about 8 times to define victory and you ignored it every time.
> ...



Could you define victory in a way that would exclude the U.S. achievement in Iraq?  Could you do it in a way that will pass the laugh test?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 10, 2009)

Our so called victory in Iraq 

Is along the same lines as our success in Vietnam

The future history books will view Iraq as a total failure.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 10, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




How do manage to come up with analogies that are more clueless than the previous ones?  The Emperor had absolutely no power.  None.  His office stayed open purely for imagery.  Somehow......fucking mysteriously stupid....you try to compare that to our helping create a government that makes it legal to RAPE WOMEN! What in the fuck man!?!  Dude....just pretend your computer broke and you couldn't access this thread anymore.  That would be more honorable than digging new canyons of stupidity.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 10, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You consider it an achievement to create a Theocracy where polygamy and spousal rape are legal?  What do you consider pedophilia to be? Excellent early childhood education?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 10, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Varth Dader said:
> ...



spousal rape is legal

What does that mean?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 10, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Think of the Old Testament.   It reduces women to property and means it is legally impossible for her to have consensual sex.  She is never allowed to say no.  In the OT there are two clear examples of this in action.  In one case the punishment for a man raping a virgin is he must marry her and pay her father the going rate for Virgins.  The other more familiar yet overlooked example is Sodom and Gomorrah.  When Lot offered his virgin daughters to the crowd of men, women, and children he was essentially trying to pay them off.  Virgin females were one of the highest forms of currency.  This has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan since our occupations began.
Karzai reviews &#39;spousal rape&#39; law - President Hamid Karzai - Zimbio


However, the US is not entirely innocent of this either as Arizona has spousal rape as a misdemeanor and the legislators refused to make spousal rape a felony.  It kind of makes sense in a twisted way when compared to places like Texas where it is legal for a 50 year old to marry and fuck a 13 year old.  
Arizona: SPOUSAL RAPE BILL DIES | Crime Control Digest | Find Articles at BNET


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2009)

I'm not sure whether you are more ignorant of the Bible or of foreign affairs.  But it's close.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 10, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> I'm not sure whether you are more ignorant of the Bible or of foreign affairs.  But it's close.



You're probably one of the geniuses that goes around telling people S + G was about homosexuality on some level.

As for foreign affairs....did you forget you just tried to compare the propaganda of Japan's emperor to legalized rape?  How do you do it?  Is it because you don't have to look anyone in the eyes? How else could you explain saying some of the dumbest rosie odonnel shit followed by accusing others of being ignorant?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure whether you are more ignorant of the Bible or of foreign affairs.  But it's close.
> ...



Given that it's explicit in the text it's hard to refute.
But someone who can redefine victory as defeat is an easy mark for satire.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 10, 2009)

History on Iraq is far from over. 

The biggest question of success is religous. 

Which side will win, Shia, Wahhabi-Sunni, Sunni, Moderate-Sunni, Iranian-Shia, Kurd-Sunni, or will the country be democratic and provide liberty for all people. 

Can these different religions live in harmony or must they fight one another until the death.

We cannot be there policemen so the immediate question must be answered, will they all get along or not.

Iran has a historic right to Iraq, all who worship Islam have a religous right to Iraq, will Iraq be able to accept all these different factions or not.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> History on Iraq is far from over.
> 
> The biggest question of success is religous.
> 
> ...



News yeserday was that they agreed on a framework for democratic elections in January.  So they appear to be learning how to negotiate and work with each other.
So much for the "we lost" doomsayers.


----------



## Varth Dader (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Like I wrote earlier, I don't think what we have right now is "victory", considering the terrorism that is still going on and that is a post Saddam phenomenon, but maybe in the future it will be clear that we (or really the Iraqui) won.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

I guess Israel never won a war then because terrorism is still going on there.  And Spain never won its revolution because they still have terrorist incidents.  The Soviet Union is still standing because they continue to experience terrorism.  The communists did not win the civil war in China in 1948 because they are still experiencing terrorism from the Uighers.

Do you honestly believe that???


----------



## Varth Dader (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> I guess Israel never won a war then because terrorism is still going on there.  And Spain never won its revolution because they still have terrorist incidents.  The Soviet Union is still standing because they continue to experience terrorism.  The communists did not win the civil war in China in 1948 because they are still experiencing terrorism from the Uighers.
> 
> Do you honestly believe that???



I think China has a strong government and strong country. You cannot compare to that to Iraq. Spain as well, although things could change. As for Israel, it's pretty clear to me they still have not "won": the borders are not finalized, the country wants to be a Jewish democracy yet has 20% of its population not Jewish, etc. It clearly has the upperhand, but to say that Israel "won", I think you need more than years and years of uncertainty.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Like I guessed....you don't have the first clue about Gen 19.  Let's go back to how you tried to compare the Emperor of Japan keeping his office open, with absolutely no power in the government, to legalized rape in Iraq.  Are you a fan of rape? Is that why you called it an "achievement" in iraq to put a theocracy in place that makes rape legal? If not, why would you call it an achievement?


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > History on Iraq is far from over.
> ...




Glad a nice, informed, and unbiased person like yourself is spreading the word.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Wow.  Just wow.
I want to hear the sermon of CurveLight on Gen 19.  Maybe you can explain how Lot actually lost in the encounter.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Let's go back to how you tried to compare the Emperor of Japan keeping his office open, with absolutely no power in the government, to legalized rape in Iraq.  Are you a fan of rape? Is that why you called it an "achievement" in iraq to put a theocracy in place that makes rape legal? If not, why would you call it an achievement?


(if you want schooled on Gen 19 then start a thread in religion)


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

Someone who can define victory as defeat should have no trouble defining Sodom as, I don't know, a lifestyle choice?
I know I can't wait for this whopper.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Someone who can define victory as defeat should have no trouble defining Sodom as, I don't know, a lifestyle choice?
> I know I can't wait for this whopper.






CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

Come come, you're deflecting.  Again.
Please please post your deep wisdom on Sodom and Gemora.  And then explain how the U.S. suffered a grievous defeat in Iraq.
Surely someone of your erudition and knowledge can't have a problem doing that.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 11, 2009)

I've clearly invited you to start a thread in religion if you wish to discuss S+G and you ignore that just like you have ignored the theocracy we put in iraq legalized rape.  I never meet anyone like you on the street because the only place you can play these games in safety with a trumped up feeling of superiority is on a message board.  How many times did you refuse to define victory in iraq?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2009)

I answered that question many pages ago.
Are you still insisting that Iraq is a theocracy?  Have you learned nothing from this and the other thread?
Merely asserting in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary indicates a serious psychological problem.  Ask your doctor.


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 12, 2009)

Did we "win" the war in Iraq?  Ask the thief if he likes his stolen property.  The question is obscene.  Do you not think that the hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqi families and orphans and thier futur families will not hate us for generations?  You who think we won something in Iraq are evil sick ignorant pieces of shit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Did we "win" the war in Iraq?  Ask the thief if he likes his stolen property.  The question is obscene.  Do you not think that the hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqi families and orphans and thier futur families will not hate us for generations?  You who think we won something in Iraq are evil sick ignorant pieces of shit.



I'm guessing you voted "no" and like the other NO Voters your "reasons" and "ideas" are pretty fucking stupid.


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 12, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Did we "win" the war in Iraq?  Ask the thief if he likes his stolen property.  The question is obscene.  Do you not think that the hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqi families and orphans and thier futur families will not hate us for generations?  You who think we won something in Iraq are evil sick ignorant pieces of shit.
> ...



Ya ..stupid....  If the tables were turned and I lived in Iraq I would spend the remainder of my life with one goal.  That goal would be to exact revenge...ya stupid...you would just cower and in no time at all start sucking up to the invaders wouldn't ya frankie?  I'll take stupid over yellow any day sport.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Dems Just Loves their Dictators: Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Chavez and Uncle Saddam

Sniff. Sniff.  Uncle Saddam loved us and cared for us. We miss him so badly. Bad USA! BAD!


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 12, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Put a cork in your poop shooter frankie.  If I lived under Saddam he would have been a dead man before we ever showed up.  Him and his kids.  I didn't care about his bullshit one way or the other but that raping the girls ...that would have done it in my book.  You probably would have taken girls to him.  That is the one thing that would have cost the stupid fuck in my world.


----------



## CurveLight (Nov 12, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Th
Is helps explain a lot about why you support fierce liberalism.  You love it.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 13, 2009)

I think Rabbi prefers RAPE in every home rather than "Saddam rape rooms". 

The FACT is that Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for a MILLENIA and they won't stop now because of some "feel good" constitution that we crafted FOR THEM. The minority is going to be in EEP SHIT the second we leave. Hundreds of thousands already left Iraq and hundreds of thousands more have congregated into ethnic seclusion. There are Sunni areas and there are Shia areas and you wouldn't want to be in the wrong one.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 13, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...






Oh yeah you big badass I am SURE YOU would have been the ONE to take out Saddam. Do you think that is an idea only YOU thought of? 


Listen up and learn sonny. During GWI in which GHW Bush, Rummy, AND Cheney decidied that taking out Saddam would result in EXACTELY the type of insurgency we have now we were covertly supporting the Northern Kurds to take out Saddam and when GHW decided to leave we laft them to be SLAUGHTERED!!!! Did you know that RAMBO!!!??? We took our weapons and our intel and FUCKED THEM IN THE ASS for being for getting rid of Saddam. I wonder how bad off they and their DAUGHTERS had it......What do you think Rabbi? I suspect a LOT of Kurds were draged off in the night to horrible torture and DEATH because they DARED to take the U.S. and the C.I.A.  at their word!!!


Go fuck yourself Rabbi because when we leave that shit is goint to be a fucking POWDER KEG because Sunni and Shia DON'T PLAY WELL TOGETHER.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 13, 2009)

Gawd Rabbi are you really THAT ignorant of ME politics?


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 14, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You might have seen one too many Sylvester Stallone movies.  Maybe I didn't make myself enough less opacqe.   You don't have to be "rambo" to stick up for the women in your family.  When I was 12 up on the Island a distant cousin and I'll name the Fuck..Jack Cadden dropped by for some unknown reason and he started getting pushy with my mom.  I didn't get the whole conversation but interceeded and told him to leave...he claimed he was gonna kick my ass so I high tailed it up stairs to my bedroom and got my british 303 enfield out from under the bed. Loaded and unlocked  I went back down the stairs and stuck the rifle barrel in his face.  He pissed himself and ran out the back door screaming threats.  He never bothered us again.  Iraqis are not unnarmed now and they never have been even under Suddam.  It doesn't take a rambo to do what is right.  I have been in several situations requiring a violent resolution in my life since childhood.  Not suprising considering the line of work I chose.  Again ...you don't have to be rambo.  In regards to the big picture...If we took out saddam or if an Iraqi took out saddam I think you are looking at the insurection delema incorrectly.  There would still be a standing army.  After we threw out the army is when it became danagerous for the population.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 14, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I think Rabbi prefers RAPE in every home rather than "Saddam rape rooms".
> 
> The FACT is that Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for a MILLENIA and they won't stop now because of some "feel good" constitution that we crafted FOR THEM. The minority is going to be in EEP SHIT the second we leave. Hundreds of thousands already left Iraq and hundreds of thousands more have congregated into ethnic seclusion. There are Sunni areas and there are Shia areas and you wouldn't want to be in the wrong one.



Your fantasies about me are becoming disturbing.
Anyway, so now the constitution is "feel good"??  The Sunnis and Shias seem to be working together just fine, having recently hammered out an agreement for their upcoming election.
I would say reports of the demise of Iraq are greatly premature.  Sorry to disappoint you.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 14, 2009)

I have been looking into this for the past week, as I'm seeing a pattern between Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran.  It really does look like, whether Iraq is partitioned or not, iran is going to control it as it is now controlling much of Lebanon through Hezbolla.  I think we're legitimately seeing the rise of an Iranian-Shia empire, which will soon take on the entire gulf region.  

I think the US has effectively not only lost iraq, but it has handed over Iraq's oil wealth to iran.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 14, 2009)

let me tell you something.  If Iran and the USA can negotiate on an even ground.  That is, if the Iranians are willing to be rational (and they have proven that, for foreign policy purposes, they ARE) and the Americans can shift their alliance away from the Saudis and towards the Iranians, the US may actually benefit greatly.

Saddam was brutal and insane.  He invaded Kuwait which was batshit crazy of him.  The US couldn't deal with him at all.  Now the Iranians, who want to be dealt with as a power (that is, as Russia or China, instead of a Client state) get their wish, the Americans could be looking at a much more stable partner to administer the Gulf.  So, depending on how the long term diplomacy works out, this could be a huge win-win for both Middle East stability, and US interests in the Gulf (namely, the majority of the world's energy resources)


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 14, 2009)

The_Halfmoon said:


> I have been looking into this for the past week, as I'm seeing a pattern between Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran.  It really does look like, whether Iraq is partitioned or not, iran is going to control it as it is now controlling much of Lebanon through Hezbolla.  I think we're legitimately seeing the rise of an Iranian-Shia empire, which will soon take on the entire gulf region.
> 
> I think the US has effectively not only lost iraq, but it has handed over Iraq's oil wealth to iran.



You have any proof for this?


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 14, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> > I have been looking into this for the past week, as I'm seeing a pattern between Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran.  It really does look like, whether Iraq is partitioned or not, iran is going to control it as it is now controlling much of Lebanon through Hezbolla.  I think we're legitimately seeing the rise of an Iranian-Shia empire, which will soon take on the entire gulf region.
> ...



Well yes, I'm saying this based on fairly mainstream conclusions drawn by Middle Eastern and American experts and intelligence officers.  books are being written on it, and it's a hot topic of discussion in academic circles.  The concept of the Shia revival is based largely on this.  Let me dig up an interview which is fairly interesting, but I urge you to look into it though a simple google search.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 14, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3YlOYlTgfU]YouTube - Interview with former CIA agent Robert Baer[/ame]

here's an article re: Iran's gain of the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan:

New Persian Empire: Iran Strengthens Its Hand Amid War On Terror - NAM

and here:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/...foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3705


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 14, 2009)

One question is we find the WMD's?  Remember that was why we invaded in the first place.

Chalk on up for the good guys?  We have not even validated our reason for invading a sovern nation.


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 14, 2009)

The_Halfmoon said:


> let me tell you something.  If Iran and the USA can negotiate on an even ground.  That is, if the Iranians are willing to be rational (and they have proven that, for foreign policy purposes, they ARE) and the Americans can shift their alliance away from the Saudis and towards the Iranians, the US may actually benefit greatly.
> 
> Saddam was brutal and insane. * He invaded Kuwait which was batshit crazy of him*.  The US couldn't deal with him at all.  Now the Iranians, who want to be dealt with as a power (that is, as Russia or China, instead of a Client state) get their wish, the Americans could be looking at a much more stable partner to administer the Gulf.  So, depending on how the long term diplomacy works out, this could be a huge win-win for both Middle East stability, and US interests in the Gulf (namely, the majority of the world's energy resources)



Are you aware of why Saddam invaded Kuwait?  First..The Kuwaitis were drilling at the border miles into Iraqi land and stealing oil.  Secondly Saddam asked our embassy what the Americans would do if he went into Kuwait to recover what he considered stolen property.  Our embassy told him we had no position on the matter.  I can provide facts or you can look it up youself.  I don't understand the willfull ignorance of my fellow americans.  It seems history must change its facts to accomodate anything we do.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 14, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> > let me tell you something.  If Iran and the USA can negotiate on an even ground.  That is, if the Iranians are willing to be rational (and they have proven that, for foreign policy purposes, they ARE) and the Americans can shift their alliance away from the Saudis and towards the Iranians, the US may actually benefit greatly.
> ...



I'm fully aware of that, and I agree that it is true that Saddam was essentially a client of the US.  BUT, he was an IRRATIONAL actor.  

For example, observe how Hezbollah conducted the war with Lebanon in the 80s.  It had clear strategic goals, but did not advance past them.  It was rational and EXTREMELY disciplined.  NOT because it was such a nice guy, but because it was careful about its international image. It behaved like Germany, Japan or China.  

Saddam was ineffective and had a terrible image. Iran's arm in Lebanon, Hezbollah, builds and supports hospitals, acts like a good guy (even though it's not), to win over people's minds.  It is the type of benevolent dictator which could help stabilize the middle east.


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 14, 2009)

The_Halfmoon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > The_Halfmoon said:
> ...



I offer no defense of Saddam Hussein as a rational man.  What he did was fall into a trap set by our foreign policy.  The truth is if the truth be told that all of the leaders in the mid east especially the muslims are brutal assholes.  Gudaffi...The Saudis..I mean name one that isn't.  When we trumpet up the war mongering machine we conveniently ommit that fact.  "Our" neo con military industial/media complex howls to the heavens how bad this one or that one is like they clearly stand out amongst they rest of the murdering assholes.  Reality check...first ...these media conglomerates are not *ours* any more than these thugs they want to steal from after we invade are any different from each other.  The painfull truth is that the american viewing public are idiots that will react violently and stupidly any time someone raises the flag and claims we are being threatened.  We are a country of frightened morons.  The fact that no property of the US has been invaded or has been threatened in more than sixty years never seems to enter into the conversation.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 14, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



I agree with everything you're saying, but want to add one point that I think you may have omitted.

Observe what happened in the June 12 elections in Iran.  People, millions, marched on the streets and for the most part were not slaughtered. Saddam GASSED his own people because they rose up against him.  In Iran, the government jailed a few hundred, beat them up, executed a few and let them go.  

Iran acted cruelly, but acted sort of the way you would expect China or even Russia to respond.  As in, it didn't behave like previous Muslim dictators who were for the most part Sunni. 

Maybe the word "rational" was wrong of me to use.  Maybe the word "competent" is far more accurate.  The Shia governments that have been gaining power, in Iraq, Lebanon, etc. have also behaved this "benevolent" way.

I know benevolent for us probably means a whole different thing, but as an Iraqi or an Iranian, the term has a less utopian meaning.  I don't think democracy could unite the Muslim world, divided between Sunni/Shia and more importantly, Persian/Arab.  But the Shia have made it work, by adopting strategies similar to those of China... which is hardly democratic, but FUNCTIONAL.  

The US has an opportunity to hand Iraq over to these people, and I think its long term interests are in doing this.  So that's why i say there is a good chance for the US to salvage this situation.  But it has to accept that it is being blackmailed and not react violently.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 14, 2009)

Iran's government is hanging on by a thread.  There is large internal dissent (not helped by the Obama Administration I might add) and disagreement.  To call that "competent" is to redefine competence beyond recognition.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 14, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Iran's government is hanging on by a thread.  There is large internal dissent (not helped by the Obama Administration I might add) and disagreement.  To call that "competent" is to redefine competence beyond recognition.



That flies against absolutely ALL evidence.  The June 12th riots were a reaction against a coup by the IRGC to control the building and oil contracts throughout the country.  The clerics controlling the current economy respond to Rafsanjani and are represented by him. 

I watched all the pre-election debates, and Ahmedinejad made clear mention of removing "corruption" by the clerical elite.  Iran has gone from fragile clerical rule to a direct military dictatorship led by the IRGC commanders and the Bazaris.  

And even if the regime collapsed, don't be confused. Mousavi is absolutely an Iranian nationalist and as anti-American as it gets.  It's a fight about who is going to rule the future of the economy, which will be revived if sanctions are lifted.  There is no going back for the Iranian country.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 14, 2009)

Thanks for agreeing with me.
I think.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 14, 2009)

Again, the word "competent" as in "benevolent" have to be taken into context.

No, Iran is not Germany.  Yes, the government is still very far from being even India or China.  But it IS like China around the time of Tienmen square.  The government easily stayed in power. Although it was weak, the society remained under the rule of law and the government was able to reform quickly. Or the collapse of Russia... Russia suffered, but it didn't look like the Balkans or Central Asia after their withdrawal from the Soviet Union.  

There is a centralized, competent government.  Whoever is in power, the machinare of social control is well established.  Something that is not true of Iraq today, but the Iranians may understand how to control the Shia majority better than Saddam, who did so brutally.  I don't buy any argument that they would mass murder Sunnis or something ridiculous like that.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 14, 2009)

OK you are starting to post word salads with little coherence.  There is no sense arguing against someone who thinks "competent" and "benevolent" mean about the same thing.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 14, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> OK you are starting to post word salads with little coherence.  There is no sense arguing against someone who thinks "competent" and "benevolent" mean about the same thing.



I mean competent and benevolent are RELATIVE terms. They're the MOST competent and MOST benevolent in a region where brutal and corrupt dictators rule.

Hezbollah is never going to be appealing to Westerners and Westernized people.  But you don't see money disappearing from their war chest.  They are capable of ruling in the Middle East without excessive repression.  That is all I'm saying.  It is a logical partner for both the US and Israel, so long as it concedes Israel's right to exist... and the US has carrots which can entice them to behave.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 14, 2009)

Thanks, I enjoyed the argument and maybe we'll get back to it, but I have to get going.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 15, 2009)

The_Halfmoon said:


> Thanks, I enjoyed the argument and maybe we'll get back to it, but I have to get going.



There is a god.....


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 16, 2009)

> thanks to Jihadist supporters at State Dept and in Congress aka: Democrats) we hit all our strategic objective! That's calling winning!!
> 
> We trained up the ISF to be the most lethal force in the Middle East probably including the IDF (sorry, Israel, you better do more than just show up next time



1. I really don't know if we won or not, or for that matter why we were there.  Guess we'll see in ten or twenty years and base it on how much support we give Iraq vs the new country's actions.  I'm sure we can kick Paraguay's butt and more or less establish a government also.  Question remains why?

2. lol @ the Israeli Defense Force comment.  Ridiculous statements like that show a certain level of military intelligence.

Oh, and never take anything I say about U.S. or Bush's foreign policy as being "against the troops".


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 16, 2009)

I should point out something about the `stability`in Iraq:

The stability is a direct consequence of Sunnis turning against the armed Sunni resistances and terrorists. Their cooperation with the US was the primary reason for stability amongst Sunnis. Here`s an article from march 2008:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17iht-edletmonweb.html
_
`There are several reasons why the level of violence in Iraq has not increased in the last several months. Among them, the surge gave the United States the needed manpower to better fight insurgents, and Moktada al-Sadr declared a truce with the U.S. and Iraqi governments. *But the effectiveness and commitment of the so-called "Sunni Awakening Councils" was the most significant factor in keeping the peace.*`_

What`s happening now according to many sources is that the Sunni awakening strength is crumbling.  The Sunnis didn`t get paid, and there are Sunni-on-Sunni killings going on. 

The Shias are being held back by Iran, who doesn`t want to compromise it`s attempts to get into the G20 (they won`t, but they`re really trying).

The violence is growing rapidly, and will probably escalate some more:

Iraq gripped by violence - UPI.com


----------



## SpearTip (Nov 17, 2009)

Can you say youve won a war when it never needed to be fought and there was no benefit to waging it?  

Iraq War To Do List
1. Defeat Iraqi Military 
2. Overrun Baghdad
3. Capture Saddam
4. Begin Martial Law
5. Defeat Insurgency
6. Facilitate Elections
7. Establish New Currency
8. Establish New Constitution
9. Establish Fair Markets
10. Rebuild infrastructure

None of the 10 points capture the real, failed, objective of why we went in the first place.  Some of these points are just plain crazy.  We went to establish martial law? Establish New Currency??  Many service members and civilians were killed or wounded and this is what they died for???


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 17, 2009)

By that reasoning I guess we lost WWI as well.
Amazing what you can learn on the internet.


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 17, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> By that reasoning I guess we lost WWI as well.
> Amazing what you can learn on the internet.



The only thing we lost in WWII was peace in the mid east when Israel was created.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 17, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > By that reasoning I guess we lost WWI as well.
> ...



My post referenced WWi, 1914-1918.
WW2 ended in 1945 and Israel wasn't declared until 1948.
You're too stupid to be a bigot.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 24, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...





In fact care to prove the "SOVIETS" even exsisted when we went into Iraq?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 24, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > History on Iraq is far from over.
> ...







Did I see somewhere that that fell apart? LOL. What an idiot. If you think Iraq will become the "SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY" then you know NOTHING about Iraq.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 24, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...







Sorry but it wasn't the DEMS who put Saddam in power. Check again.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 24, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> By that reasoning I guess we lost WWI as well.
> Amazing what you can learn on the internet.








You know you ignorant cock sucker you should really stop comparing IRAQ to WWI OR WWII it makes you look like the most out of touch with reallity DOUCHE BAG on this entire board.


----------



## Missourian (Nov 24, 2009)

We are winning in Iraq.


Find a way to deal with it.


I suggest therapy.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

Missourian said:


> We are winning in Iraq.
> 
> 
> Find a way to deal with it.
> ...






No we have LOST it. We have compromised our principles and DESTABILIZED Iraq. Oh it may seem stable NOW but that ONLY came due to PAYING off insurgents to get the Sunni "awakening" and that is a FACT. Tell you what when and IF we finally get out of Iraq give it six months to a year and you will see just how bad our FAILURE Iraq really was. The minority will have VERY little power in the Gov't and will be BRUTALIZED becuase the RULING majority will have an axe to grind due to how Saddam ruled.

Oh one more thing......(in my opinion)The "LOST" TEN BILLION $s and small arms are all a part of of someone's wet dream to create a "shadow" army and Gawd only knows what, why, and where it will show up.


End result a SEGREGATED Iraq along ethinc lines, hundreds of thousands, if not millions who have fled Iraq never to return, land basically SEIZED by the majority resulting in DISPLACED minorities, and a Gov't that will eventually force the minority out of gov't and thus UNREPRESENTED in passing legislation. When we are gone the scope of our LOSS will become apperent.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

We went in and BRUTILIZED a country with a broken military and some of you are PROUD of that? We are no better than Saddam attacking Kuwait; it is all about the oil because it sure as HELL wasn't about WMD or Iraqi links with Al Qeada......Saddam was SECULAR and HATED OBL. Remember we got our "intel" from a guy called "CURVE BALL" who was an exile from Iraq.....Not a very trustworthy source.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> We went in and BRUTILIZED a country with a broken military and some of you are PROUD of that? We are no better than Saddam attacking Kuwait; it is all about the oil because it sure as HELL wasn't about WMD or Iraqi links with Al Qeada......Saddam was SECULAR and HATED OBL. Remember we got our "intel" from a guy called "CURVE BALL" who was an exile from Iraq.....Not a very trustworthy source.




Damn, so who exactly got all that Oil that this was all about? 

Fact:
    The USA gets as much as 4% of their imported oil from Iraq. That would be just over 1% of the oil that we use everyday. We could have got that with our own oil a whole lot easier than starting a war.

SO many people simply refuse to think.


----------



## Missourian (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > We went in and BRUTILIZED a country with a broken military and some of you are PROUD of that? We are no better than Saddam attacking Kuwait; it is all about the oil because it sure as HELL wasn't about WMD or Iraqi links with Al Qeada......Saddam was SECULAR and HATED OBL. Remember we got our "intel" from a guy called "CURVE BALL" who was an exile from Iraq.....Not a very trustworthy source.
> ...



_* You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SFC Ollie again._ *


----------



## Missourian (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > We went in and BRUTILIZED a country with a broken military and some of you are PROUD of that? We are no better than Saddam attacking Kuwait; it is all about the oil because it sure as HELL wasn't about WMD or Iraqi links with Al Qeada......Saddam was SECULAR and HATED OBL. Remember we got our "intel" from a guy called "CURVE BALL" who was an exile from Iraq.....Not a very trustworthy source.
> ...




The U.N.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > We went in and BRUTILIZED a country with a broken military and some of you are PROUD of that? We are no better than Saddam attacking Kuwait; it is all about the oil because it sure as HELL wasn't about WMD or Iraqi links with Al Qeada......Saddam was SECULAR and HATED OBL. Remember we got our "intel" from a guy called "CURVE BALL" who was an exile from Iraq.....Not a very trustworthy source.
> ...



it's not about oil consumption, it's about distribution

Wolfowitz wanted to go to Iraq to flood the market with oil and break the Saudis and OPEC in general

That failed MISERABLY. Mainly because everyone else in the administration preferred high oil prices for their friends and didn't push for stability, only CONTROL of Iraq's oil.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

The_Halfmoon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...




So you believe that Bush believed that the world would allow us to steal control of Iraqs oil? Contrary to popular belief, President Bush was not that stupid.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > We went in and BRUTILIZED a country with a broken military and some of you are PROUD of that? We are no better than Saddam attacking Kuwait; it is all about the oil because it sure as HELL wasn't about WMD or Iraqi links with Al Qeada......Saddam was SECULAR and HATED OBL. Remember we got our "intel" from a guy called "CURVE BALL" who was an exile from Iraq.....Not a very trustworthy source.
> ...






Who do you think PROFITS from that oil WHEREVER it goes? American oil cos.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > We went in and BRUTILIZED a country with a broken military and some of you are PROUD of that? We are no better than Saddam attacking Kuwait; it is all about the oil because it sure as HELL wasn't about WMD or Iraqi links with Al Qeada......Saddam was SECULAR and HATED OBL. Remember we got our "intel" from a guy called "CURVE BALL" who was an exile from Iraq.....Not a very trustworthy source.
> ...



Exactly, and their names are Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz...need I go on?  If we didn't invade Iraq, sacrifice the lives of over 4,000 American service men and women, and five times that number with life long disabilities, why did we invade and occupy Iraq for six years after "Mission Accomplished"?
Please, NCO, explain why.  What did we gain, and what did we lose?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...






Perhaps you could tell me what cos got the oil contracts to the Iraqi oil.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The_Halfmoon said:
> ...



Actually I was looking for that but haven't found it by company .....YET.....


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

Shock and awe a great way to lose friends and aillinate people.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

Get back to me and we can discuss WHY we went into Iraq to get rid of a scumbag that GHW, CHENEY, and RUMMY all said would be a DISASTER of a plan. Why do you think we didn't go into Baghdad during GWI? Let me guess we didn't have enough fuel to make it. Ask yourself WHY GHW, CHENEY, and RUMMY chose NOT to oust Saddam. They DID have some pretty reasonable reasons you know, most of which came TRUE when we did oust Saddam. Oh and disbanding the Iraqi army.......GREAT FUCKING PLAN!!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...




First off, why is it so difficult to understand that the Ships Mission was accomplished?

What did we gain? Hopefully we will gain some stability in the Middle East. What did Iraq Gain? Everything!

No news is good News

You won't read it in the morning paper or see it on the evening news, but the U.S. military has dramatically - and perhaps irreversibly - turned the corner in Iraq, as the nonpartisan Brookings Institution details in it's Iraq index:

* Iraq rates forth in the region in political freedom, behind Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Under Saddam Hussein, there were no commercial TV stations and no independent newspapers; by 2006 there were 54 commercial TV stations and 268 Independent newspapers and magazines.

*Pre-war Iraq had just 833,000 telephone subscribers; today there are 17.7 million cellular and 1.3 million land line phone subscribers.

* Attacks on energy installations and personnel have fallen from 30 per month in late 2004 to one per month in 2009.

* The size of Iraqs security force has grown from 30,000 in mid 2003 to 589,000 in late 2008.

* Monthly U.S. troop fatalities that once were as high as 137 now are in the single digits and low teens.

Iraq Index - Saban Center for Middle East Policy - - Brookings Institution


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Get back to me and we can discuss WHY we went into Iraq to get rid of a scumbag that GHW, CHENEY, and RUMMY all said would be a DISASTER of a plan. Why do you think we didn't go into Baghdad during GWI? Let me guess we didn't have enough fuel to make it. Ask yourself WHY GHW, CHENEY, and RUMMY chose NOT to oust Saddam. They DID have some pretty reasonable reasons you know, most of which came TRUE when we did oust Saddam. Oh and disbanding the Iraqi army.......GREAT FUCKING PLAN!!!




Now you are actually thinking (at least some) Yes in hindsight disbanding the Iraqi Army in totality was the dumbest thing they did.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





You know Ollie I would LOVE to beleive that but since Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for a MILLENIA I don't think they will join hands and sing Kombaia together. The way Iraq stayed STABLE was because the MINORITY ruled the MAJORITY and I fear for the minority when we leave. There will be NOTHING standing in the way of the minority being BRUTILIZED!! UN sanctions? Yeah that will get it done. International outrage. Ditto. The US going back IN to Iraq. BINGO!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




That is a problem, Which is why I have always been against any timetable for withdrawal.
  We shall see.....


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Get back to me and we can discuss WHY we went into Iraq to get rid of a scumbag that GHW, CHENEY, and RUMMY all said would be a DISASTER of a plan. Why do you think we didn't go into Baghdad during GWI? Let me guess we didn't have enough fuel to make it. Ask yourself WHY GHW, CHENEY, and RUMMY chose NOT to oust Saddam. They DID have some pretty reasonable reasons you know, most of which came TRUE when we did oust Saddam. Oh and disbanding the Iraqi army.......GREAT FUCKING PLAN!!!
> ...





Fair enough. You see I don't think Bush EVER wanted to bring harm or lower our standing in the world I think he did what he TRUELY thought was right but his goal was coopted by others like those leaders from PNAC. Now I say to you as well that I don't think OBAMA would do ANYTHING to harm our country the way Beck and Limbaugh accuse him of doing. I thing virtually EVERYONE who posts here wants what is BEST for our country because we LOVE our country. We differ on WHAT we think is best for our country but we ALL share a common desire to be the GREATEST nation on Earth. Some already think we ARE but we could do SO much better in SO many ways.


Just so you understand THAT is what I want for my country.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Well that has to be one of the more intelligent posts I've seen coming from the Anti-Bush crowd.

I do believe that Bush did what he believed was right. And I do disagree immensely with most everything that Mr Obama has done so far.But then I didn't agree with Bush all the time either.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

Ollie I would LOVE to hear your take on my more or less troops Afghanistan. Since you are Ret military I would like to see if you agree with my take I will post my basic premise here.

I think we need MORE special ops troops NOT more troops overall. I just don't like the way that turned out for the Soviets........ROWS of rusting hulking heavy armor and the Soviets BROKEN by a FAR less advanced military. Now I know we gave them stingers and so forth but still I don't think you can win a war in Afghanistan with conventional military tactics. As I said on my thread you can't take an Abrams M1 up a donkey trail. I also don't think you could EVER drop enough bombs or artilery to force the taliban out of the mountains and caves.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...






The question that rests on my mind is do you beleive that Obama wants to DESTROY our country the way the likes of Beck and Limbaugh spew every day. I really do think Bush is a man of TRUE convictions though I don't share his RELIGIOUS convictions and basing US policy on what God "told" him to do. I still think he felt he was doing the RIGHT thing even the RIGHTOUS thing but I also think he had handlers with alterior motives like PNAC and although I don't think they WANTED to do harm to our country but their greed and lust for power have shown them to be rather wreckless with our countries policies.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



I believe that Mr Obama wants his Liberal Utopia. I'm sure he believes that is what we should have. He is wrong but it is what he believes. I will continue to write my letters and talk on the boards to try to prevent his plans from taking our liberty. I do believe that socialism destroys liberty.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

Just consider that I beleive that Obama is doing what he TRUELY, DEEPLY, and INTENSLEY feel will improve the lives of the most Americans possible and improve our standing in the view of the world. He holds a Kensian world view which many disagree with but that does NOT mean it is not the best way to improve our country for the VAST majority of Americans.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...






Our LIBERTY!!?? What surprises me is how many conservatives beleive that LIBERTY only applies to views THEY hold where I beleive that LIBERTY means for ALL. The "Patriot" act was the one most damaging erosion of our LIBERTIES in the history of our country. Needless to say I disagree with Obama for his support of the "Patriot" act. But if you are for LIBERTY then how do you reconcile going outside the FISA laws which were ALREADY very permisive and then call for RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY for the telcos? Not very AMERICAN in my book to use wire taps and "data mining" to spy on AMERICANS.



Gotta go but I really would like to hear your views on my other thread.


Have a good night and a happy thanksgiving my fellow American.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

Under the original FISA laws ALL you had to de was go to a FISA court judge AFTER the wire tap recordings and show the judge that they are justified. 


The F.B.I. misused National Security letters for personal reasons to spy on ex-girlfriends and/or the new men in their lives. Data mining sifts through EVERY comunication and "Flags" certain words for further examination. So if I called my wife and said IS LAMB o.k. for dinner and told her I picked up some lip BALM I could be "Flaged" for further investigation. Not a cool way to use our intelligence resources in my LIBERAL opinion.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 26, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Prior to invading Iraq, Saddam controlled that oil.  They just wanted to get the oil flowing again.  It didn't matter to them whether or not American or Chinese companies were benefiting, because the goal was to flood the market with oil.  This was the neo-con plan for the most part. They wanted to break OPEC once and for all. Nobody in the world wanted Saddam to keep control of his own oil at that time.

But that was just one group pushing for war. There were the other usual suspects also, such as the companies that wanted contracts to rebuild Iraq and the hawks that wanted the 14 bases for use around the middle east (specifically for Iran). But these were scavengers taking advantage of the neo-con initiative. 

The entire thing fell apart because they didn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims. I didn't know at the time either, and my family's mainly Muslim, so it's not grand stupidity but just a detail that turned out to be quite significant. It was a poorly planned affair, that could have turned out very well if properly implemented.  I don't doubt that they had the best of intentions in turning Baghdad into a Dubai on steroids... but it didn't work out that way.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 26, 2009)

here's one article that deals with the issue better than I ever could:

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

"Oil as a geostrategic factor also figured in the neo-conservative mission to unseat Saddam as the first step of politically transforming the Middle East. Removal of his regime was seen as crucial to undermining the other established oil powers in the region, Saudi Arabia and Iran. These states are, respectively, the largest and second-largest oil producers in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a group dominated by Middle East oil exporters.

A US-friendly Iraq that abandoned OPEC and pumped more oil would, some neo-conservatives argued, weaken Saudi Arabia and Iran and break the grip of OPEC on the global oil market. In this way, so the theory went, the petrodollars that strengthen the grip on power of the House of Saud and Iran's mullahs and fund terrorist networks in the Middle East would dry up. The mission to remake the Middle East could be done by flooding the market with Iraqi oil. "


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 26, 2009)

It would have been so much easier to flood the market with Alaskan Oil.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

Sadly Alaskan oil is FAR to high in sulfer and we don't have the refineries to process it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 26, 2009)

All we had to do was take over Kuwait while we had hundreds of thousands of troops there and take their oil.
Or all we had to do was remove sanctions and we could have had as much Iraqi oil as we wanted.
The oil card is one of the biggest canards of the Left on the Iraq war.  That some people still believe it is testament to the truism that some people will believe anything.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 26, 2009)

Depends on who you ask.  Cheney/Bush/Blackwater/KBR/Haloburton?  Fuck yes they won.

The American people?  Fuck no.  The cost was too great.  We were scammed.  They looted the treasury thru war.  And got away with it.  As if Saddam was anything but a minor annoyance.  And now Iran and Iraq are both Shiite run.  Dumb mistake.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 27, 2009)

Wow.  Still trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Some people cannot give up their illusions.  Sad really.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 27, 2009)

Wow still unwilling to admit that EVERYONE in GHWB's advised AGAINST taking out Saddam. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush himself knew the risks and deemed them FAR TOO GREAT to press into Bagdad and remove Saddam. If you don't beleive me then compare their OWN words from GWI to GWII. What suddenly changed?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 27, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Wow still unwilling to admit that EVERYONE in GHWB's advised AGAINST taking out Saddam. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush himself knew the risks and deemed them FAR TOO GREAT to press into Bagdad and remove Saddam. If you don't beleive me then compare their OWN words from GWI to GWII. What suddenly changed?



Are you still using pre-surge arguments?  "The war is lost!" saith Harry Reid.  Too bad it didnt turn out quite like he said.
Victory is defeat.  war is peace.  1984 anyone?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 27, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Wow still unwilling to admit that EVERYONE in GHWB's advised AGAINST taking out Saddam. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush himself knew the risks and deemed them FAR TOO GREAT to press into Bagdad and remove Saddam. If you don't beleive me then compare their OWN words from GWI to GWII. What suddenly changed?




What changed was 12 years of Saddams Bull Shit games. Clinton had signed the Iraqi freedom act of 1998 and bush finally got pissed enough to act on it. He simply didn't follow up very well after the war was won in a few weeks time.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 27, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow still unwilling to admit that EVERYONE in GHWB's advised AGAINST taking out Saddam. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush himself knew the risks and deemed them FAR TOO GREAT to press into Bagdad and remove Saddam. If you don't beleive me then compare their OWN words from GWI to GWII. What suddenly changed?
> ...






No you dumb fucker I am using PRE-GWII arguments made by people from GHWB's own party.
PRE-SURGE!? We paid the Sunnis off to not make trouble. THAT was the surge. The "surge" of money out of our treasury to insurgents.
I really don't think you know ANYHING about Iraq you have shown yourself to be totally CLUELESS about Iraq over and over and over.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 27, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow still unwilling to admit that EVERYONE in GHWB's advised AGAINST taking out Saddam. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush himself knew the risks and deemed them FAR TOO GREAT to press into Bagdad and remove Saddam. If you don't beleive me then compare their OWN words from GWI to GWII. What suddenly changed?
> ...







Oh BUSH got PISSED no doubt the best thing to base foreign policy and the decision to go to WAR and get 4,000 US SOLDIERS killed.........All because Bush got PISSED. Well I am glad I know the REAL reason for attacking Iraq.


Usually decisions based on emotion don't lead to very good follow up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 27, 2009)

Iraq will make us leave in the next two years.

Iraq will ally with Iran.

The internationalist wing of the GOP has lost creditibility with the mainstream of America.

Yes, America lost the war.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Nov 27, 2009)

it seems that the Iraq war was the final straw for the arabs... they decided they'd rather side with a non-arab country than with a non-muslim country.  They feel threatened, and if they're backed into a corner the sunnis will support the shia governments of Iran and now Iraq.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 28, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



And no way he would have sold us on invading Iraq if it weren't for 9-11 and all the lies Bush told us.

I remember being behind the decision to invade.  I remember putting politics aside for about a year until Bush squandered all the support we gave him.  American liberals and the rest of the world.

Remember conservatives said FUCK THE REST OF THE WORLD when we told them the rest of the world was against us on Iraq?  Or the righties said that they had a lot of countries backing us.  One of their biggest was Poland, and they sent about 10 troops.  LOL.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 28, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Wow you really are clueless, arent you?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 28, 2009)

Ah yes the coalition of the PAID! I remember it well.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 28, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...







I could suffer a MASSIVE brain injury and know more than you EVER will about Iraq/Afghanistan.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 28, 2009)

You think the ONLY thing we need to do in the ME is be Israel's PITBULL on a chain. Let them bathe the ME in FLAMES then expect us to come in and solve the problems that THEY will start.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



What he said was true.  We paid off all the different groups we were fighting to have a siece fire and to help us get Al Queda out of the equasion.  But that still left the sunni's and shiites that don't like America.  What a mess.  Then we made Iraq and Iran best buddies because both are Shiites.  Are we stupid?  Defend that decision buddy.  Fill us in.  Obviously you are hear to give knowledge, not recieve it.  So give it.  Tell us the facts.  CLUE us in.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 29, 2009)

Rab really does not know, sealybobo, other than he has swallowed the koolaide and begs for more.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 29, 2009)

Rabbi couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper sack. He has no answers because he has no fucking IDEA what Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or ANY other ME country is about. The only thing he can EVER say is that Israel can do WHATEVER they want to do regardless of the reprecusions to the ME and the US!


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 29, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> What changed was 12 years of Saddams Bull Shit games.



Why do you even care? none of your business in the first place...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 29, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > What changed was 12 years of Saddams Bull Shit games.
> ...




It became our business when several different countries in the area asked us for military assistance because of Saddam. Or do you forget we were asked to be there.........


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 29, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



The first thing I'd like to clue you in on is something called "spellcheck."


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 29, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Did you forget we told Iraq "we don't get involved in arab on arab conflicts, encouraging him to invade Kuwait.  

Stop defending criminals like Ollie North and Rumsfeld.  Stupid.  You're like people who defend OJ.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



That's the best you got Rabby?  Lieberman?  Does your opinion have anything to do with the motherland?  I'm greek.  You don't see me siding with the Greek government just because, do you?   

I understand.  Fight them there so you don't have to fight them in Isreal.  Well maybe Israel can send more troops.  

But your logic is flawed.  Your bs reasons for why we are there or what we are doing is flat out wrong.  Oil companies and defense contractors are looting Iraq's oil and the US people are footing the bill.  And we're creating terrorists.  Plus we have basically turned Iraq over to Iran, so checkmate.  Dumb.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 29, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...








SPELL CHECK MY COCK!!! Oh sorry I know words with more than 15 letters are HARD for you to read.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 29, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



They run from real debate.  How the hell are they going to win in 2010 or 2012 if they aren't right about any of the issues?

No one is buying the GOP's arguments on healthcare.  I shouldn't say no one, but not enough believe a word they say.  They are just obstructing progress.  They didn't fix it on their watch.  It got worse on their watch.  They only represent the ignorant who have healthcare and don't want it getting worse for them.  The "leave my healthcare alone" crowd.  

Spending.  We can defend our spending.  They couldn't defend theirs.

Jobs and wages?  They don't even want to have the debate because they are anti labor.

Anyways.  If you look at the defense and oil contracts, very powerful rich Americans are making a fortune off Iraq.  They won and continue winning.  But for AMERICA, Iraq is a no win situation.  But every day we stay, there are a few Americans that get richer and richer.  There are also a very small number of Iraqi's who are benefitting from our occupation.  This is a rich vs poor thing.  Us Americans want to leave Iraq and most Iraqi's want us to leave too.  So what's the problem?  Haloburton and Hunt Oil?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 30, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You dont know any words with more than 15 letters.
And your homosexual fantasies about me are growing disturbing.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



What fantasyland do you live in?  Currently only 38% of voters support the current health care reform. So I guess the Republicans are winning that debate as well.
And who was in charge of Congress for the last two and a half years? Hint: not the GOP.
Anti-labor?  If you mean anti job killing labor unions then yes.  If you mean anti people working then you have the GOP confused with the Democrats, the party of free money.
Defend you spending?  Yes, please defend stimulus funds spent in non-existent Congressional districts.  I'd like to see that one.
All Iraqis have benefitted from free elections and the overthrow of a vicious tyrant.  Of course the Democrats are now the party of tyrants, having befriended Hugo Chavez and betrayed the Honduran and Iranian fighters for democracy.
With so little grounding in reality, it is a cinch the Democrats will have their ass handed to them in 2010 and 2012.


----------



## Douger (Nov 30, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War To Do List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam
> ...



Sounds good !
 When will something similar happen in the US ?


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 30, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



But more than 38% support healthcare reform.  They might not like the current bill, but neither do I.  We had to cater to the blue dog dems and lobbyists who wound up writing the bill.  If it weren't for republicans and blue dogs, we'd have the healthcare giants in check.  Instead, it will remain a problem. 

And we had a slim majority for 2 years.  BFD.  You had 6 full years of complete control.  Are you sure you weren't born yesterday?

And Republicans love jobs, just as long as they don't pay well.  Notice you didn't say good paying jobs?  Republicans only think they work hard or deserve a decent wage.  Ever notice that?

You're the one who doesn't live in reality.  But what do I expect from people who killed Jesus.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Ollie North is irelevant to todays topic. Rumsfeld had brilliant strategies for winning the war, he simply was stupid when it cam to winning the peace. We did not invite Saddam to invade Kuwait, and both Kuwait and Saudi asked for our help against Saddam. Had we invited him to invade why would they ask for our help?


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 30, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I've heard conflicting stories about Rumsfeld.  Like, he was against the way things were being handled in Iraq.  I don't know what to believe.  If you ask me, he should be hung right along side Chaney and Bush and Condy Rice.

We didn't invite Saddam to invade?  Not what I heard.

I thought Saddam was a Sunni and so are the Saudi's?  You mean the Saudi's wanted Iraq to become Shiite?  

And don't ask questions neither of us can for sure answer.  Why did they ask for our help?  Maybe they didn't know we encouraged him to invade.  Maybe your whole premise is flawed?  What help did Saudi Arabia need with Saddam?  Do you mean when he invaded Kuwait?  

You do realize we put Saddam in power, right?  You need to start watching those PBS documentaries on what really goes on behind the scenes.  Instead you just believe the Bush regimes lies, even though they've been proven liars over and over again.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 30, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Easy to win a war against a 3rd world country, especially when you aren't worried about an exit strategy.  

That alone should prove they wanted a never ending war so their defense contractors and oil companies could rape the American people of our $.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 30, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




There always was an exit strategy, it was called victory, unfortunately Bush listened to Rumsfeld too long. You haters just never would accept anything positive from Bush though.
He made his mistakes but going after Saddam wasn't one of them.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 30, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...









They KNEW the price of the REAL war occupation that is why GHWB, Rummy, and CHENEY ALL refused to go into Bagdad during GWI.......And I think you are smart enough to realise that.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 30, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Bush 41 was criticized for listening to the UN and not going into Baghdad. Bush 43 was crucified for not listening to the UN and going in. You ass wipes just can't have it both ways.
Yes it was a UN decision that we shouldn't take out Saddam during Desert Storm.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 30, 2009)

Ollie, get hatin', guy.  Bush41 did the right thing in not going into Baghdad in GWI.  His son was stupid to listen to Rummy and Dick and the rest of dark lords of neo-conservatism.  I am glad our colleges and public schools are correctly teaching that GW2 was a failure perpetrated by the bushies.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 30, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...







I thought people like you said FUCK the UN and we should tell them to go fuck themselves so I find it odd that you would bring the UN up.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 30, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Non-sequitur of the week.  And it's just Monday.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 1, 2009)

How cute!  Little Rabbi found a new phrase.  Now, he does not understand it, gang, and can't apply it.  But how cute, wanting to play with the grown ups!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 1, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...




I think the UN is a joke, but that wasn't the point.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 1, 2009)

But to repeat :::

This is an interesting article I am retyping from the September 2009 Issue of the American Legion magazine.

No news is good News

You won't read it in the morning paper or see it on the evening news, but the U.S. military has dramatically - and perhaps irreversibly - turned the corner in Iraq, as the nonpartisan Brookings Institution details in it's Iraq index:

* Iraq rates forth in the region in political freedom, behind Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Under Saddam Hussein, there were no commercial TV stations and no independent newspapers; by 2006 there were 54 commercial TV stations and 268 Independent newspapers and magazines.

*Pre-war Iraq had just 833,000 telephone subscribers; today there are 17.7 million cellular and 1.3 million land line phone subscribers.

* Attacks on energy installations and personnel have fallen from 30 per month in late 2004 to one per month in 2009.

* The size of Iraqs security force has grown from 30,000 in mid 2003 to 589,000 in late 2008.

* Monthly U.S. troop fatalities that once were as high as 137 now are in the single digits and low teens.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 1, 2009)

drmatically- and PERHAPS irriversally? PERHAPS? I sure hope so but I doubt it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 1, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> drmatically- and PERHAPS irriversally? PERHAPS? I sure hope so but I doubt it.



Yeah, because it would mean you are wrong.  Now, everyone knows you are.  Everyone knows we won the war.  Everyone knows a person who consistently posts how we lost is living in fantasyland.
So go ahead and point out that until Iraq resembles Switzerland we haven't achieved victory.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 1, 2009)

We haven't won shit and that has been explained to you on SO many levels and in so many ways that there is only ONE explanation...........Your WILLFUL ignorance. You have been shown to know NOTHING about Shia and Sunni and how quickly they will be killing each other after we leave. You know NO history of the region and just how DEstabilizing our invasion has made the ME. When Iraq blows up, and it WILL, I just hope you volenteer all YOUR relatives of comat age to go BACK into Iraq to try to stop their civil war, of course you will have to come up with some REASON to become involved an Iraqi civil war.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 2, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> We haven't won shit and that has been explained to you on SO many levels and in so many ways that there is only ONE explanation...........Your WILLFUL ignorance. You have been shown to know NOTHING about Shia and Sunni and how quickly they will be killing each other after we leave. You know NO history of the region and just how DEstabilizing our invasion has made the ME. When Iraq blows up, and it WILL, I just hope you volenteer all YOUR relatives of comat age to go BACK into Iraq to try to stop their civil war, of course you will have to come up with some REASON to become involved an Iraqi civil war.



When Iraq blows up from what?  Our leaving?  That would imply that we won the war.  I'm glad you're getting around to admitting reality.  The drugs must be kicking in.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > We haven't won shit and that has been explained to you on SO many levels and in so many ways that there is only ONE explanation...........Your WILLFUL ignorance. You have been shown to know NOTHING about Shia and Sunni and how quickly they will be killing each other after we leave. You know NO history of the region and just how DEstabilizing our invasion has made the ME. When Iraq blows up, and it WILL, I just hope you volenteer all YOUR relatives of comat age to go BACK into Iraq to try to stop their civil war, of course you will have to come up with some REASON to become involved an Iraqi civil war.
> ...






No it would explain how we COMPLETELY fucked up Iraq AND the entire ME. It would explain that unless we stay there FOREVER they Muslims will go at eachother like jackles and that will REALLY fuck up world energy prices huh? It will also make the region SO explosive that the SLIGHTEST thing will set it off like a powder keg and if you think ISRAEL will come out of that situation unscathed then you are clinically INSANE!


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 2, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Actually with every post you reveal yourself as a hyper=partisan tool intent on showing what cannot be shown.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 2, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Learn the facts and history shemp.  Clearly you are a revisionist when it comes to history and facts.  Bush listened to Rummy?  Ha!  Bush and Rummy stalled for as long as they could so the defense contractors and oil companies could sink their fangs into iraq enough that no treaty or agreement could get them out.  

And as we exited iraq, we doubled the number of defense contractors.

Ask yourself why the corporate media doesn't report on this.

And ask why they fill our airwaves with what Cheney thinks.  Who cares what that loser thinks?  He wasn't right about anything.  

And then tell us, are you on Chaney's side?  Do you agree with Chaney?  Because if you do, you are a loser and a liar. Are you a rummy gop or a bush gop?  Not much difference if you ask me.  Both are/were wrong on all accounts.  

Your quick explanation of history is seriously flawed.  Try again.  

We should have left Saddam in power.  He was Sunni and Iraq/iran is now shiite.  If he needed to be replaced, Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld were all seriously fucking wrong on how to go about it.  Which means so are/were you.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



He's right and you are wrong Rabbi.  He's stating facts and you are just blowing off his facts and only using facts generally accepted by Lieberman or Rush Limpballs.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 2, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



He is stating opinions.  You are stating nonsense.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



He said:

We fucked up in Iraq.  You can't argue.

Our involvement isn't positively affecting our energy prices.  He is correct.  Hunt Oil and Shell might be making a fortune in Iraq, but you and I aren't benefitting.

Israel stands to benefit more from the US involvement in Iraq than does the US tax payer.  And he's right again. 

So what is not fact and what is nonsense?  Jewboy.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 3, 2009)

If you want to define "fuck up" as destroying the enemy's military and achieving all our objectives then I'd have to agree.  Otherwise you're just another knee-jerk Democrat fuck-wad.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2009)

You are deflecting, Rabbi, and by far getting the worst of it.  The defeat was our failurre to effect an exit strategy that would have created a strong Iraq allied to us in the Middle East.  We leave in the next year or two, and the country will become our enemy.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...






If speaking the TRUTH makes me "Hyper partisan" then so be it but it doesn't change the FACTS that you refuse to acknowlege abou the ME. You prove more and more with each post how CLUELESS you are about the region.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 6, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



There isn't a single fact you have posted in this thread.  All of it is blathering about this and that and showing more that you opposed the war than anything else.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

The Rabbi is projecting his inadequacy here as one who is steadily knocked down in this argument.

Get over it, Rab.  You have lost again.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Rabbi is projecting his inadequacy here as one who is steadily knocked down in this argument.
> 
> Get over it, Rab.  You have lost again.



So sayeth Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 6, 2009)

Rabbi you still don't understand a f'ing thing about the ME.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 6, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Rabbi you still don't understand a f'ing thing about the ME.



Keep saying it like you mean it.

Meanwhile I will continue to ask what possible metric could lead you to the conclusion that we have lost a war that saw us defeat the enemy's army, imprison their leader, take control over all their cities and install a government more to our liking. If that's defeat I want more of it.


----------



## Samson (Dec 6, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Meanwhile I will continue to ask what possible metric could lead you to the conclusion that we have lost a war that saw us defeat the enemy's army, imprison their leader, take control over all their cities and install a government more to our liking. If that's defeat I want more of it.



No, I don't think the USA has "won" the war, nor do I think it will.

And I'm not happy about it, and I supported the invasion.

I believe Rumsfield's plan was to replace Saddam with a Democratic Government that would stabilize the region, and appease the US public after 9/11.

Unhappily I've begun to realize that there is no precedent for this happening, and every precedent for believing it will not ever happen. Metrics for Democracy in Iraq, if we want to stretch our imagination about the definition of democracy, is 26 years of history. Metrics for Brutal Dictatorships in Iraq (and all Islamic countries) are, practically speaking, almost the entire balance of recorded history.

So I conclude the US chances are slim to none.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 6, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Rabbi you still don't understand a f'ing thing about the ME.
> ...






Sayin it like I KNOW it. EVERYTHING you post about the ME is WRONG. It is actually starting to crack me up. LOL!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 6, 2009)

Oh and Rabbi you keep sqwaking about destroying their army like it was some kind of acheivment. THEY HAD NO ARMY!!! A couple of troops of determined GIRL SCOUTS could have toppled Iraqs army.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

Samson is the voice of reason and life for Americans.  

The Rabbi is the voice of death for Americans.  Such reasoning has placed our troops in a zero sum environment.  We will leave in the next 18 months, and the Iraqis will ally with their fellow Shi'ites, the Iranians.

America is resilient and will overcome the mistakes of the GOP and the Bush administrations.  Americans will never allow those criminal cretins anywhere never the levers of power again.  Notice how the Mitch McConnell pubs sigh and cry, while the Dems figure out how to make health reform happen.  The issue is among the Dems, not the pubs until they repent and rejoin the fold of America centrism.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 6, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Oh and Rabbi you keep sqwaking about destroying their army like it was some kind of acheivment. THEY HAD NO ARMY!!! A couple of troops of determined GIRL SCOUTS could have toppled Iraqs army.



Wow, are you fucking stupid, engaging in gross revisionism, outright lying, or just can't read?  I vote all of the above:
Iraq's military capabilities in 2002 ... - Google Books


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 6, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile I will continue to ask what possible metric could lead you to the conclusion that we have lost a war that saw us defeat the enemy's army, imprison their leader, take control over all their cities and install a government more to our liking. If that's defeat I want more of it.
> ...



And what in the world makes you think we "lost" a war that ended with U.S troops in control over every major part of Iraq and the former regime's leaders dead or in jail?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

Because your revisionism will not wash, Rab.  The Iraqis will ally with the Iranians the second we are out of Iraq.  That will be the final seal on our loss in Iraq.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 6, 2009)

> This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.



The most intelligent post from Jake I have seen yet.....


----------



## Samson (Dec 6, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> And what in the world makes you think we "lost" a war that ended with U.S troops in control over every major part of Iraq and the former regime's leaders dead or in jail?



Because I don't think the goal was, or is, for US troops to control Iraq.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 6, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And what in the world makes you think we "lost" a war that ended with U.S troops in control over every major part of Iraq and the former regime's leaders dead or in jail?
> ...



What is the goal of war generally?


> AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
> 
> (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
> 
> (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

The U.S. president has no legal authority internationally to enforce U.N. resolutions, Rab.  Have you noticed that major Bush admin foreign policy wonks are not traveling internationally and haven't recently?  Got any idea why?


----------



## Samson (Dec 6, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



In my opinion, the goal of war "generally" is conquest, which only describes two wars that America has fought:

1. War with Mexico
2. War with Spain

Is Iraq as much of a threat now as it was before the war? No

But has _all_ threat been eliminated? No. 

If all threat was eliminated, then there would be no US troops in Iraq. Therefore I cannot conceed Iraq is NOT a continuing threat to the national security of the USA, and the USA has NOT won the war.

I believe the definition for American victory in Iraq (or, if you prefer, when Iraq will no longer be a threat to US security) will be the same as it has been for Victory in Germany and Victory in Japan: The establishment of Legitamate Democracies.

The probability of this happening is very small.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 6, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



So the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam were not wars?  Or their goals were wrong?  Or what?  Do you even know?
All the threat that Saddam's regime posed has been eliminated.  Therefore it is not a continuing threat.
As for "legitimate democracy" I don't know what you'd call this:
Iraq clears way for parliamentary elections - Yahoo! News


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...







Your CONTINUED attempt to compare this BS war with REAL wars just shows how UNBELEIVABLY ignorant of the war in Iraq.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



You posted that a troop of girl scouts could run over the largest army in the Gulf and I'm the one who is unbelievably ignorant??
You need to check your meds.


----------



## Samson (Dec 7, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I was answering the question: 

"What is the Goal of War, _GENERALLY_?"

My answer was "Conquest."

No, I do not believe the USA conquered GB in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. I don't believe the USA conquered itself in the Civil War. I don't believe Germany became part of the USA after WWI or WWII. Ditto with Japan....

Do I really need to walk you through Korea and Vietnam?

So what do you think the goal of war should be, generally?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...






Largest army in the Gulf!!!??? PROVE IT!!! The Iraqi army NEVER recovered from GWI. They had NOTHING!!! A few anti aircraft sites that were LAUGHABLY out of date......Is that he largest military in the gulf? The Iraqis were surrendering to CAMER CREWS in GWI and we pulled out the "Shock and Awe" and DECIMATED their forces without even having to go "in country" in GWII. You are just 100% ignorant of military forces and tactics.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...






I'll answer for Rabbi........OCCUPATION!


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...





> Wow, are you fucking stupid, engaging in gross revisionism, outright lying, or just can't read? I vote all of the above:
> Iraq's military capabilities in 2002 ... - Google Books


I hadn't considered the possibility you were also too lazy to click a link and read it.  Let's add that to your long list of shortcomings.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 7, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



The goal of war should be to achieve the country's objectives they failed to achieve by any other means.  Typically that involves rendering the opposing country's military force ineffective.  Often it means replacing the country's government and/or dictating terms of surrender.
So on that basis looks like we won.
Still waiting to hear on what basis we lost.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

CONSCRIPTS!!! ONE THIRD REGULAR LONG TERM!!! Large #s of COMBAT WORN and OBSOLECENT!!! 300 combat aircraft with POTENTIAL operational status.........................ALL OF THIS FROM.....YOUR LINK. GAWD ARE YOU REALLY THIS GD DUMB!!! Did you think I wouldn't READ IT!!!??? Obviously YOU didn't.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Sorry Rabbi I just TOASTED you with YOUR OWN SOURCE!!! Maybe you should STFU before you make yourself look any more ignorant then you already appear.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Oh and if you look at their nifty graph of total military strength Turkey if FAR superior to Iraq.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Oh check the graph on page 90.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

*** Total tanks INCLUDE tanks in STORAGE or COVERSION!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Oh and the "AIR FORCE" include heavy surface to air missile launchers.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Any time dumb fuck Rabbi!


----------



## Liability (Dec 7, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Iraq War To Do List
> 1.	Defeat Iraqi Military
> 2.	Overrun Baghdad
> 3.	Capture Saddam
> ...



Stop with all the revisionist history.

Not only did we lose, but we got our asses thoroughly kicked.

This explains why, today, we all speak Arabic.  President Saddam Hussein has so decreed.


----------



## Samson (Dec 7, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> The goal of war should be to achieve the country's objectives they failed to achieve by any other means.  Typically that involves rendering the opposing country's military force ineffective.  Often it means replacing the country's government and/or dictating terms of surrender.
> So on that basis looks like we won.
> Still waiting to hear on what basis we lost.



Ok, use your definition, however unrealistic and void of all evidence that The Goal has been to establish a Legitamate Democracy in Iraq, and there is no such thing, nor is it likely that there ever will be.

You can confidently vote in your poll, "YES."

I however, will vote "No," because I'm not going to ignore reality: This war, (or any other), is not waged just to destroy an existing military or government. If this was so, then it would have ended long ago.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

WOW libility chimes in for Rabbi. How ODD!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Maybe we should have just continued our "Shock and AWE" for the last 5 years. Deny the "enemy" any electricity/water/food/medicine/fuel/military equip/ so on and so forth. I would say that eventually Saddam would have been turned in.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Let's see I think that would satisfy Rabbi's definition of "VICTORY". I bet you burn a big barrel of fuel puff yourself up and say "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning. It smells like VICTORY."


----------



## Liability (Dec 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> WOW libility chimes in for Rabbi. How ODD!



WOW Chilled confusion totally missed the point.  How expected.

For the record, my post was responsive JUST to the OP.  I had not read beyond the OP at that point.  I was not responding to Rabbi or to Chilly Confusion.  And -- uhm -- as is  almost always the case, CF got it right in the first place.


----------



## Samson (Dec 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning. It smells like VICTORY."



Does it smell a lot like an annoying post-whore who would destroy a relatively interesting thread with multiple meaningless Bullshit?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Well Samson if you had read Rabbis link you would have noticed everything I put up on the last page DIRECTLEY contradicted Rabbis claim of Iraqi military strength. Sorry if the facts disturbed you.


----------



## Samson (Dec 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well Samson if you had read Rabbis link you would have noticed everything I put up on the last page DIRECTLEY contradicted Rabbis claim of Iraqi military strength. Sorry if the facts disturbed you.



The only thing I noticed about your posts was that there were 7 of them in succession.

Facts aren't disturbing.

But, I don't suffer fools, and their juvenile stupidity.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 7, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > The goal of war should be to achieve the country's objectives they failed to achieve by any other means.  Typically that involves rendering the opposing country's military force ineffective.  Often it means replacing the country's government and/or dictating terms of surrender.
> ...



Well, they have had at least one election that was judged free and fair.  They appear to be on track to have a second such election.  That makes them better off than anyone else in the region (except Israel).
So I guess it depends on what your definition of "legitimate" is.


And Cold Fusion is a total wanker who is working towards my "ignore" list, joining other anti-semites and people too stupid to be worthy of debate.  Just saying.


----------



## Samson (Dec 7, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Can you place someone on ignore here? I'll have to check again, but if I can I may do the same with Mr. Fusion.

I'm thinking "legitamate" is a government something like 1950 Japan or Germany. A country capable of taking care of its internal affairs without US troops shadowing their every move.

Or, alternatively, a Disneyland being built in Bagdad.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 7, 2009)

The U.S. had and continues to have a military presence in both Japan and Germany.  In the early days, esp with Germany, that was to keep an eye on things and keep the Soviets out.
But it is hard to compare 1st world countries like Germany with a 3rd world country like Iraq.  In any case, the Iraqis appear to be needing our help less and less.

Oh yea.  Go to use CP and on the left side is a tab that says edit ignore list and when you get to that type Cold Fusion and the nasty little bugger is gone.


----------



## Samson (Dec 7, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> The U.S. had and continues to have a military presence in both Japan and Germany.  In the early days, esp with Germany, that was to keep an eye on things and keep the Soviets out.
> But it is hard to compare 1st world countries like Germany with a 3rd world country like Iraq.  In any case, the Iraqis appear to be needing our help less and less.
> 
> Oh yea.  Go to use CP and on the left side is a tab that says edit ignore list and when you get to that type Cold Fusion and the nasty little bugger is gone.



The fact that you agree that "1st World Countries" cannot be compared with "3rd world" countries is at the heart of the reason why I don't think the USA has won, or will win (establish a Legitamate Democratic Government) in Iraq.

Germany and Japan had adopted democratic governments ALL BY THEMSELVES, prior to Facism.

Iraq, had a loosly defined form of democracy imposed on them for only 24 years, almost a century ago, and Brutal Dictatorships that lasted DECADES. While it is certainly a nice photo op to see Iraqis holding up thier purple fingers after voting, they less about democracy than building igloos.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 8, 2009)

All by themselves, really?
Germany was ruled by a kaiser up until 1918.  As a result of Allied pressure the monarchy collapsed and a very weak democratic government took over.  That didnt last too long until Germans voted themselves another dictatorship.  It took another costly bloody war before Allies again dictated a government.  Japan still has an emperor, albeit with no real power.
Yes, Iraq doesn't have much in the way of a democratic history, but the above examples show the power of ideas and military force.  And currently Iraq seems to be doing fine in the democracy department.


----------



## Samson (Dec 8, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> All by themselves, really?
> Germany was ruled by a kaiser up until 1918.  As a result of Allied pressure the monarchy collapsed and a very weak democratic government took over.  That didnt last too long until Germans voted themselves another dictatorship.  It took another costly bloody war before Allies again dictated a government.  Japan still has an emperor, albeit with no real power.
> Yes, Iraq doesn't have much in the way of a democratic history, but the above examples show the power of ideas and military force.  And currently Iraq seems to be doing fine in the democracy department.



My point is that Germans "Voted Themselves."

And, when I say that Germans had some past with democracy, I mean in a parlimentary form as the Reichstag, the Diets or parliaments of the Holy Roman Empire, of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy and of Germany from 1871 to 1945. The Weimar Republic you refered to was a form of the Reichstag.

But really, this could be the subject of another thread.

My point is, compared with Germany, or really almost any Western, Christian, Nation, Iraqi culture has almost no democratic root, and worse, it has a very, very long history of the opposite: Islamic Dictatorship.

To believe that the USA can wage a war to reverse thousands of years of this culture, and "win" it only because national elections have been held under the guns of American Troops after 8 years is absurd.

Let's see the Iraqis have a national election _WITHOUT_ the nation-wide presence of US troops. This will be the day I agree with you, Rabbi.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 8, 2009)

Korea didn't have much of a culture of democracy either.  And indeed for many years until recently there was always some leading figure or other.
But Iraqis have something Germans etc did not have: access to modern communications.  Iran has an active democratic movement going on (unsupported by this administration btw) mostly due to the internet and contact with the West.
In any case, history in Iraq is moving against your view and towards mine.


----------



## Samson (Dec 8, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> In any case, history in Iraq is moving against your view and towards mine.



I hope you're right. 

But, I'm not one to extrapolate less than 8 years of history very far into the future. Call me pessimistic.

But it remains to be seen if the USA has won anything.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 8, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, history in Iraq is moving against your view and towards mine.
> ...



OK.  So two pages later I am still waiting to hear a definition of victory that somehow excludes what we've done in Iraq.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 8, 2009)

Ah the IGNORE list the last hope of those who can not debate. Knock yourself out Rabid. You too Samson.


I posted those rapid fire posts to show Rabid how completely his misconstrued his OWN evidence. He OBVIOULSY didn't read past the first paragraph.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 8, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...







Oh and HISTORY goes back more than TWO YEARS......HISTORY shows an Iraq that will ALWAYS be at war with itself........Go back a MILLENIA if you want to talk about the HISTORY of Iraq. Oh and by the way you are STILL an "Israeli Firster" your posts make it PERFECTLY clear. Your INABILITY to explain away the USS Liberty but to say "it was an ACCIDENT" when ALL the proof shows that to be an absurd beleif. Thus you are an ISRAELI FIRSTER because you are on the side of ISRAEL rather than the US SERVICEMEN who were MURDERED by that TOTALLY UNPROVOKED attack.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 8, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...






Neither Japan NOR Germany have the type of INTERNAL strife that Iraq has.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 8, 2009)

So tell me Samson did you read Rabbi's link? If not you should because it shows what a total joke Iraq's army was before our "Shock and Awe" attack.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 8, 2009)

You obviously have nothing to contribute here.  All your so-called points have been answered, except those based on your own misinformation and stupidity.
Off you go to iggy, with your friends Sunniman and Meshogun.


----------



## Samson (Dec 8, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Neither Japan NOR Germany have the type of INTERNAL strife that Iraq has.



I think you mean Germany and Japan did not have a Civil War after they were defeated by the USA, and that Bavarians were not killing Prussians, Calvinists were not killing Catholics.

The EXTREMELY Homogeneous societies of Germany and Japan made setting up new governments there very easy. Of course, the USA could have made the whole process in Iraq MUCH easier had they done what Patton did after Germany surrendered: Keep the Useful Part of the Nazi Party in Place. This pragmatic approach wasn't much politically appreciated by the Russians, or US Politicos. Preempting any such pragmatism in Iraq the US threw the baby out with the Baath-water (forgive my pun).



Cold Fusion38 said:


> So tell me Samson did you read Rabbi's link? If not you should because it shows what a total joke Iraq's army was before our "Shock and Awe" attack.



No, I didn't need to read any link to know what the outcome was of the military battle between Saddam's Iraq and the USA. The USA was very lucky the Iraqi's didn't use gas. Nonetheless, the USA won the battle, with very few casulties.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2009)

What a country. A slight majority don't think we won in Iraq.  A House divided cannot stand and a house where the Left is trying to blast the foundation is in real deep shit


----------



## Samson (Dec 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What a country. A slight majority don't think we won in Iraq.  A House divided cannot stand and a house where the Left is trying to blast the foundation is in real deep shit



I wouldn't make too much of the poll.

The way it is written makes it sound as if the war is over, and the USA either won or lost.

"The Fat Lady Hasn't Sung," makes a piss poor banner on an Aircraft Carrier.


----------



## antagon (Dec 8, 2009)

iraq: *a loss* on timing, cause, form and effect.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 8, 2009)

Samson said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Neither Japan NOR Germany have the type of INTERNAL strife that Iraq has.
> ...








GREAT POINTS Samson. You took my VERY basic premise and expounded upon it. You see this is the type of awareness about Iraq that Rabbi either doesn't or REFUSES to acknowledge. There MUST be an awareness of the history and the factions present in a country if you plan on occupying it..........We blew it about as badley as we could have in Iraq. We sent TOO FEW troops........Bush KNEW this because every military advisor told him so. We disbanded the Iraqi army which Bush KNEW would be a bad decision because his military advisors TOLD him it would be. We took out the Iraqi Gov't and FAILED to stop massive looting and mayhem that took place directly following our occupation.......Again Bush was warned about this but he wanted to do it HIS way....ON THE CHEAP which in the long run has been FAR too expensive both in lives and $s.

I like you Samson so I would prefer that you not put me on your ignore list but if you feel that strongly about, as far as I know, one incident then so be it.......Now comes the juvinile jab.....If you don't put me on ignore be sure to remind Rabbi that I am COMPLETELY disproving his "points" on a pretty regular basis.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 8, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> You obviously have nothing to contribute here.  All your so-called points have been answered, except those based on your own misinformation and stupidity.
> Off you go to iggy, with your friends Sunniman and Meshogun.






You didn't dispute a SINGLE point I made about Iraq's military strength and I based ALL my points on YOUR source. Sad but true Rabid I READ the article and you SCANNED it for one sentence that supported your FATALY FLAWED conclusion.


----------



## Samson (Dec 8, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I like you Samson so I would prefer that you not put me on your ignore list but if you feel that strongly about, as far as I know, one incident then so be it.......Now comes the juvinile jab.....If you don't put me on ignore be sure to remind Rabbi that I am COMPLETELY disproving his "points" on a pretty regular basis.



I've been on a number of boards for almost a decade. You'll need to become much more obnoxious before I ignore you.

You are correct: To accomplish the goals the USA wanted to accomplish, there needed to be MANY more troops. The USA _FLOODED_ Germany and Japan after WWII and as a result of the astonishing show of power, there were few incidents of IED's, etc.

What's scary is the number of troops sent into Iraq was actually quite a bit more than Rumsfield wanted (I don't think Bush had the slightest notion of what was going on). 

But, it is also quite astonishing given the fact that the Middle East had been under the USA's magnifying glass since let's say 1960, that advisors to the president, _INCLUDING HIS OWN FATHER_, could not have forseen the outcome more clearly.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 8, 2009)

Samson said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > I like you Samson so I would prefer that you not put me on your ignore list but if you feel that strongly about, as far as I know, one incident then so be it.......Now comes the juvinile jab.....If you don't put me on ignore be sure to remind Rabbi that I am COMPLETELY disproving his "points" on a pretty regular basis.
> ...



I don't think that's even possible.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 8, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...






What is that I hear?????? The sound of someone "ignoring" me. Give it up Rabbi until you can DISPUTE my points REFUTING your claim using YOUR OWN SOURCE then you come off as COMPLETELY IGNORant of what the ME is and is NOT. I really don't think you have a SINGLE clue about the ME yet you CONTINE to act as if you do proving OVER and OVER and OVER how foolish you are.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 8, 2009)

Samson said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > I like you Samson so I would prefer that you not put me on your ignore list but if you feel that strongly about, as far as I know, one incident then so be it.......Now comes the juvinile jab.....If you don't put me on ignore be sure to remind Rabbi that I am COMPLETELY disproving his "points" on a pretty regular basis.
> ...






You know Sampson that is the ONE think I just can NOT grasp, I mean I REALLY can't wrap my mind around it. GHWB, Rumsfeld, AND Cheney ALL knew what the risks were of removing Saddam and that's why they DIDN'T DO IT in GWI. They give their reasons for not "going to Bagdhad" in THEIR OWN WORDS! Why was it prudent for JR to invade, occupy, and NATION BUILD in Iraq? Why was it even JUSTIFIED? I find VERY few people here who know the difference between PREEMPTIVE and PREVENTITIVE war I suspect you are one of them so I would think you could NEVER call this war a "win" since it was an illegal occupation in the first place. 


WHAT RIGHT did we have to invade?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 8, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Why did Bush let Bin Ladin go?  They needed a bogie man on the loose so they could lie us into Iraq.  No other explanation.  Did we win?  Haloburton and Blackwater and Hunt Oil did.  I hear all the time of other rich oil tycoons winning contracts in Iraq.  Iraq only gets $2 of every barrell they sell.  

Yet the American people don't get the spoils of war.  The defense contractors and oil companies that own America do.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 8, 2009)

Samson......Would it surprise you to know that Rabbi and I used to agree on more things than not? There was a thread about the USS Liberty and all he could do was echo the Israeli claim that it was an ACCIDENT. If you know much about the attack then you know that ACCIDENTAL is one of the least likely words to acurately describe it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



And we know that Americans don't work for defense contractors like Boeing or GE or oil companies.  Nor are Americans shareholders in either of those companies.
And in any case please post earnings reports showing the windfall those companies made from Iraq.


----------



## Samson (Dec 9, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



As in all wars, any question of "legality" or "right to invade" will be answered by the victors. I think the Bush Administration at least knew this much, and that they expected to "win" much more quickly.......AND THEY COULD HAVE!

But they made a series of silly errors which were brought about because Bush tried to make all of the people happy all of the time. They didn't want to spend $ and lives in the invasion. So they sent slightly more than the necessary number of troops (I think they expected gas attacks, so the number of invasion troops was kept to a minimum to reduce these casulties.

Then, they eliminated the Baath Party Government to make the Shiites happy, and there was no one that knew how to turn on the lights, much less repair a generator.

Then, they tried to consolidate local power around a con man, who had convinced them he was the de facto government in exile. How Fucking Stupid.

Then, instead of getting the water running, they twiddled their thumbs for about a YEAR debating the way elections would be held in an Islamic Country that hadn't the slightest notion of what an election means. This made Americans Happy because pointy headed Ivory Tower dwellers insist there are "Universal Rights." We have ben brainwashed to believe democratic form of government is naturally the best form of government because it works well at Princeton University.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2009)

And of course they should have just asked you at the time.

It is sooooo easy to play Mon morning quarterback, especially when you have no idea what they knew or didnt know at the time.


----------



## Samson (Dec 9, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> And of course they should have just asked you at the time.
> 
> It is sooooo easy to play Mon morning quarterback, especially when you have no idea what they knew or didnt know at the time.



You are right, hindsight is 20:20.

This is why I really didn't mention these details regarding whether or not the war has been won or lost: In hindsight, who really cares why? The point is that it has NOT been won, and is unlikely to be won because if it WAS to be won, this should have happened 5 years (or more) ago.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2009)

Iam still waiting to hear a definition of victory that does not include decimating an enemy's army, taking control of its territory and replacing its government.


----------



## Samson (Dec 9, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Iam still waiting to hear a definition of victory that does not include decimating an enemy's army, taking control of its territory and replacing its government.



If we were sitting in 1943 Paris, you would be saying that Germany had won WWII.

Germany had;

1. Decimated the French Army
2. Taken control of France
3. Replaced the French Government


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 9, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Iam still waiting to hear a definition of victory that does not include decimating an enemy's army, taking control of its territory and replacing its government.
> ...






OH SNAP!! I know juvinile but funny. I STILL assert that no matter who wins the TIE goes to the country that was attacked. Once again there IS a difference between PREVENTITIVE and PREEMPTIVE war. One is LEGAL acording to INTERNATIONAL LAW and the other isn't.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 9, 2009)

My post 607 is one of HUNDREDS of facts that Rabbi refuses to admit or even acknowledge. He has NO CLUE as to the difference between Preemptive and preventitive wars. He has NO CLUE as to the politics of the ME. He has NO CLUE as to the HISTORY (that is before the 80's) of Iraq or the Shia/Sunni conflict that has been going on for a MILLENIA. Tell me Rabbi do you know the difference between Shia and Sunni? Don't look it up tell me RIGHT NOW in your OWN words what the differance is.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Iam still waiting to hear a definition of victory that does not include decimating an enemy's army, taking control of its territory and replacing its government.
> ...



Except WW2 was fought between the Axis Powers, i.e. Germany, Italy and Japan, and the Allied Powers, i.e. France, Britain, the U.S and USSR. Had Germany decimated the armies of all those countries, taken control of their territory and replaced their governments I would have to have said that Germany won WW2.
In fact the Allies won by
1) Decimating the armies of Germany, Italy, and Japan
2) Taking control of their territory
3) Replacing their governments.
Nice try but major historical fail.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 9, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...







Gosh so I guess that Bush's war can't be won until his moronic "axis of evil" are ALL decimated.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 9, 2009)

Good luck when one warhawk with a hardone convinces a President to get into open warfare with N. Korea. MILLIONS will die within the first few weeks. It WON'T be a pretty site I GUARENFUCKINGTEEIT!


----------



## Samson (Dec 9, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Well, then I suppose I'll just have to settle for the fact that Iraq has no government.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2009)

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 10, 2009)

Did I already say I think its too soon to tell if we "won" or not since our real goal is the creation of a peaceful, sympathetic to the US Iraq?  

Too bad something easily quantifiable like kicking a 3rd world dictator's butt back to the stone age doesn't count as winning.


----------



## Samson (Dec 10, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!



What fact have you changed? That there are no US Forces in Iraq?

There is no government in Iraq: If there was, then there'd be, at maximum, the same US military presence there as in Saudi Arabia. 

Rabbi, why do you care so much about making this war a Victory, now? I mean, for christssakes; are you so concerned that if we don't do it sooner, then later we won't do it at all? Do you think that US troops that have served there, or are serving there really give a fuck?

Given the choice, I believe they'd just as soon be home for Christmas than be able to say "yeah, we were able to destroy the Iraqi Army, and capture Saddam."


----------



## Munin (Dec 10, 2009)

> Simple Question: Did we (USA) win Iraq War?



I disagree, it is not a simple question. 

*Define the Iraq War: *
- If you mean a military victory against the Iraq of Saddam Hussain, then the answer is easy: Yes
- If you mean the war in Iraq that is still going on: no, because it isn't over. A better question is if it even is a US war and not an Iraqi civil war? The thing is: Iraq did not exist anymore after Saddam was defeated, he was the glue that held that country together (in an non-humane way, but he held it together none the less).  
- ... (probably other ways to describe this)

*Define winning: What did the US win?*

- Oil? Yes

- Territory? No 

- Credibility? 
Yes: the US made the point that it can mess with everyone
No: the US proved that it couldn't do much outside Iraq and Afghanistan because its troops were committed (for example: gave Russia an opportunity to invade Georgia, although they probably would ve done it anyway: but the US made it easier. And it made Iran bolder, because it didn't have to occupy itself with its former ennemy). Big mistake with using the argument of Weapons of Mass destruction argument ...

- Military power? No (because of the huge financial crater the war has created)

- Allies?
No, it damaged US relations with its allies. Mostly because of lying about the weapons of Mass destruction, the countries supporting the US also lost credibility.
- Military Experience? Yes and the US can use this experience to maintain technological and doctrinal supperiority (new ways to wage guerilla warfare).

- Ideological? Yes and no (not really clear to me. the relationships is at least better than with saddam, not that it could get any worse ), can the US really trust Iraq as a partner?

- ... (the things I forgot)


I voted NO, because the war isn't over yet. And if it was, what has the US won from this war? (f.e. after WWII, the US had won serious trade advantages: all former colonies were freed, meaning that the US could trade with them now)


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 10, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!
> ...



There is no government in IRaq?  Who is Maliki?  What is this website, | cabinet.iq | ÙØ¬ÙØ³ Ø§ÙÙØ²Ø±Ø§Ø¡ Ø§ÙØ¹Ø±Ø§ÙÙ |?  To whom are Iraqi police and military forces answerable?
Your contention is absurd.  You might as well claim the U.S. lost the Civil War, that Hitler escaped, the OJ is innocent.
What does the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, a country that has not waged war in generations have to do with Iraq?  Why not ask why we don't have the same presence in Iraq that we do in Korea?


----------



## Samson (Dec 10, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Why not ask why we don't have the same presence in Iraq that we do in Korea?



Ok.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 10, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Why not ask why we don't have the same presence in Iraq that we do in Korea?
> ...






Uh we have a FAR greater military presence in Iraq than we do S. Korea.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 10, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You just figured that out?  Wow, what a genius.  You deserve a MacArthur Award for the observation.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 10, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...





You deserve the "DOUCHE BAG" award for not ignoring me.


I think Sampson summed it up better.....O.K.


Do you have a point?


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 10, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



No, I deserve an Idiot Award for spending my precious time on earth reading your inane posts and actually bothering to respond.


----------



## Samson (Dec 10, 2009)

LMAO


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 11, 2009)

Come on Sam you must see that ONCE AGAIN Rabbi was trying to equate the Iraqi war another war.....ANY and EVERY other war to somehow justify his claim about iraq.


Rabbi said,


"Why not ask why we don't have the same presence in Iraq that we do in Korea?"

to which you responded........
O.K. 

I don't think you had any more clue than I did what Rabbi's point was.
   I mean REALLY what does troop strength in Korea have to do  have to do with Iraq,,,,,,,,,MOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!


Try to debate ALL those FACTS I used from you OWN SITE aboult Iraqs military strength.


----------



## Samson (Dec 11, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Come on Sam you must see that ONCE AGAIN Rabbi was trying to equate the Iraqi war another war.....ANY and EVERY other war to somehow justify his claim about iraq.
> 
> 
> Rabbi said,
> ...



I'm really not sure why he prefers to use Korea, rather than Suadi Arabia, as a country whose present US Troop level would be equal to a US troop presence in Iraq that would allow us to define Iraq as a legitamate government.

But if he'd like to use Korea, then that's "ok" with me.

As even he remarks, present US troop levels in Iraq are MUCH higher than those in Korea. 

Therefore, even by his own standards, the US is a LONG WAY from having won the war in Iraq.


----------



## mightypeon (Dec 11, 2009)

Dear Frank:

The war is currently in progress.
Due to the nature of the question "Did we win the Iraq war" (past tense) I have to awnser it with no.

Wether or not the war is winnable depends on ones definition of victory.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 11, 2009)

Samson said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Come on Sam you must see that ONCE AGAIN Rabbi was trying to equate the Iraqi war another war.....ANY and EVERY other war to somehow justify his claim about iraq.
> ...



We also have troops in Greenland as well.  I guess we can't consider that war won either.  We have 3 bases in Japan so I suppose WW2 is still likely to flare up any time.


----------



## Samson (Dec 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



You must have misunderstood.

I don't think that because The USA has ONE Troop in Iraq that the war hasn't been won.

I think the war hasn't been won, because there are more troops in Iraq than Saudi Arabia (or, if you prefer, Korea, or again Greenland, or Japan).


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 11, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



What troop level defines whether a war has been won or lost?


----------



## Samson (Dec 11, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



There are 115,000 US military personnel in Iraq.

The mandated US Troop strength for Korea is 28,500

True, the land masses are different, and Korea has Unfriendly North Korea to contend with, but Iraq has Iran....

Over all I think Iraq and Korea are comparable, tactically, and strategically.

So, I would expect a self-governing Iraq to have as many troops as are mandated for Korea: 28,500.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Fuzzy math.
Of course we're still at war in Korea.  And we never decimated the enemy's army, replaced their regime, or imposed our will on the country.
So I guess youv'e just proven (again) that we won the Iraq War.  Nice going.


----------



## Samson (Dec 16, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Um, Try again.

If we're still at war in Korea, then _we haven't won the war in Korea_, and we still have troops there.

Just like Iraq, but more.


----------



## JW Frogen (Dec 16, 2009)

I own a Hyundai, it is a great car. Thank you South Korea.

 South Korea is a prosperous, thriving democracy; North Korea is a concentration camp hell hole all dedicated to the praise of the "Dear Leader".

Every last person in South Korea owes the UN-US troops that fought through heaven and hell one hell of a heavily debt.


----------



## Samson (Dec 16, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> I own a Hyundai, it is a great car. Thank you South Korea.
> 
> South Korea is a prosperous, thriving democracy; North Korea is a concentration camp hell hole all dedicated to the praise of the "Dear Leader".
> 
> Every last person in South Korea owes the UN-US troops that fought through heaven and hell one hell of a heavily debt.



Frogen.....lmao.......


Is there a thread about South Korea, or Hyundais you could stagger into?

Can I get you a cup of coffee?....I hope you like Sumatra Beans


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Um, pay attention next time.
If we didn't decimate the Nork Army, didn't replace their leadership and didnt impose our will then we didnt win.
But we did do all those things Iraq.
How many troops were in Korea in the 6 months following the war?


----------



## Samson (Dec 16, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I'm gonna let someone else run circles around you for a while

Its been fun.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2009)

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Like a dog chasing its tail.  With about as much intellectual force.
Next time don't argue with reality


----------



## mightypeon (Dec 17, 2009)

Dudes, the Korean War was a Draw. So therefor no win for the USA/UNO there.
Also, the reason why the USA still is there (apart from exerting influence in a "interesting" region) is that the current state between north and south korea is cease fire, not peace.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 17, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> Dudes, the Korean War was a Draw. So therefor no win for the USA/UNO there.
> Also, the reason why the USA still is there (apart from exerting influence in a "interesting" region) is that the current state between north and south korea is cease fire, not peace.



And that explains why the US still has troops in Germany, right?


----------



## mightypeon (Dec 17, 2009)

The US has troops in Germany because it is a nice spot to have troops in (also known as the Big unsinkable Air Carrier of Krautland). The US has troops in Korea because the Korean War coul reignite, it is a nice strategic position and South Korea is a rather loyal Vasall.


----------



## germanguy (Dec 17, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> mightypeon said:
> 
> 
> > Dudes, the Korean War was a Draw. So therefor no win for the USA/UNO there.
> ...



To be correct, the FRG is only since 1990 a fully sovereign state.
The former Victor-States had a lot of rights reserved under the occupation regulation.
Good example was West-Berlin, which was legally no part of West-Germany, but under Allied control. 

Also, the big bad Red Army was next door and most NATO countries found it far better to defend their freedom on German soil than on their own. 

So, not only the US had a sizeable force here, but also the French, the Brits, the Canadians and the Belgians. 
In East Germany it surely were 300.000 Soviet Troops, so in case of WW III. even the conventional war would have flattened Germany. 

And that´s why there are still GIs here (the others already left).

regards 
ze germanguy


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 17, 2009)

Who was the mayor of West Berlin in 1980?


----------



## Munin (Dec 18, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> The US has troops in Korea because the Korean War coul reignite, it is a nice strategic position and South Korea is a rather loyal Vasall.



And the fact that North and South Korea are still technically at war.



> Since the ceasefire of the Korean War in 1953 the relations between the North Korean government and South Korea, European Union, Canada, the United States, and Japan have remained tense. Fighting was halted in the ceasefire, but both Koreas are still technically at war.


----------



## ColonelB (Dec 27, 2009)

ummm...

"Crusader" Frank...

You misquote the goals.  Here are the actual 8 goals identified as pillars of US government policy for victory in Iraq (see State Dept Iraq benchmarks)
1. Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgents
2. Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance
3. Help Iraqis to Forge a National Compact for Democratic Government
4. Help Iraq Build Government Capacity and Provide Essential Services
5. Help Iraq Strengthen Its Economy
6. Help Iraq Strengthen the Rule of Law and Promote Civil Rights
7. Increase International Support for Iraq
8. Strengthen Public Understanding of Coalition Efforts and Public Isolation of the Insurgents

Your strawman goals of "overrun Baghdad," "capture Sadam," etc. weren't ever on the list.

As to whether we have accomplished the ACTUAL GOALS:
1.  We certainly haven't defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgents.  Example: Dec 8 explosions killed 127 people in Baghdad alone.  While the overall number of attacks is vastly better than it was during the course of the Bush war, it remains at a level that U.S. citizens cant really comprehend.  We change our whole transportation economy when 1 guy sets fire to his shoes (or his pants).  Try to imagine living in a country where 150 bombing deaths PER MONTH was considered good news!
2.  Iraq has not transitioned to security self-reliance.  Ex: currently over 110,000 U.S. troops in Iraq PLUS at least that many contractors.  There are less than 50K Iraqi security forces trained to self-reliance levels (ORA LEVEL 1: capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations).
3. There is some progress in the national government goal, although recent stories of rampant corruption and the Kurdish problem still threaten a stable solution.  Iraq ranks 176 of 180 in a measure of governmental corruption (see Iraq Index - Saban Center for Middle East Policy - - Brookings Institution)
4.  Electricity total output is improved from pre-war levels and continues to improve, although it currently is still only 16 hours per day average.
5.  Oil production pre-war was approximately 2.5M BPD.  Today it is 2.45M BPD.  While Iraqs economy is slowly improving, the U.S. has spent over $650 BILLION on Iraq.  That works out to over $22,000 for every single man, woman, and child in Iraq, a country with a pre-war per-capita income of less than $4000.
6.   The rule of terrorism on the part of Sadam has been replaced by terrorists and the rule of graft.  I  guess you might consider that better.
7.  The Iraq coalition (and I use that term very liberally) has essentially disappeared.  The U.S. now bears essentially 100% of all non-Iraqi security responsibility.
8.  This last goal is VERY nebulous.  I think the U.S. public has come to understand that the Iraq war was the largest waste of U.S. resources ever committed.  So in that sense, maybe this pillar has been established.
And all at the cost of only 4,300+ U.S. deaths, a couple of hundred thousand Iraqi deaths, and many many maimed.  Yeah, George Bush and the republican cabal sure accomplished a lot.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 3, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Horsecrap, CF.  Basic services, including electricity, are at pre-war levels and it has been six years.  The second we are out of there, Iraq will ally with Iran.  I truly believe that was not part of Bush's plan.



Oops


----------

