JointPleasure,
Half of the soldiers currently in Iraq will come home but will be replaced by 70,000 new soldiers, Right ? That cant mean we are cutting the size of our forces in half that quickly. It would seem to me the remaining half would be in even more danger.
BigGames,
Like you elude to, it is going to take a lot more than a constitution to get us out of there.
Half of the soldiers currently in Iraq will come home but will be replaced by 70,000 new soldiers, Right ? That cant mean we are cutting the size of our forces in half that quickly. It would seem to me the remaining half would be in even more danger.
BigGames,
Like you elude to, it is going to take a lot more than a constitution to get us out of there.
2cents
Osamas still on the Pakistan/Afghan border.
Saddam is in N.Iraq or Russia.(probaly Iraq)
WMD never really existed, apart from what was used in the 80's.
Iraq war.
Currently being expanded into Saudi by the extremist groups.
With Saddam gone, various groups of nutters can operate throughout Iraq far more easily.
Apparently our strategic genius, George Bush never foresaw this.
If they can spread the chaos across the border and F-up Saudi Arabia, then they can have a serious impact on the flow of oil to the west, and its price.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3257127.stm
Osamas still on the Pakistan/Afghan border.
Saddam is in N.Iraq or Russia.(probaly Iraq)
WMD never really existed, apart from what was used in the 80's.
Iraq war.
Currently being expanded into Saudi by the extremist groups.
With Saddam gone, various groups of nutters can operate throughout Iraq far more easily.
Apparently our strategic genius, George Bush never foresaw this.
If they can spread the chaos across the border and F-up Saudi Arabia, then they can have a serious impact on the flow of oil to the west, and its price.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3257127.stm
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eek:
Iraq war.
Currently being expanded into Saudi by the extremist groups.
With Saddam gone, various groups of nutters can operate throughout Iraq far more easily.
Apparently our strategic genius, George Bush never foresaw this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So Saddam was helping our war on terrorism by torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his people?
Iraq war.
Currently being expanded into Saudi by the extremist groups.
With Saddam gone, various groups of nutters can operate throughout Iraq far more easily.
Apparently our strategic genius, George Bush never foresaw this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So Saddam was helping our war on terrorism by torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his people?
He'd already done in hundreds of thousands over the last 20 years, during 10 of which, he was a US ally (he hated Iran, so he was one of your bestest buddies in the Iran/Iraq war, no matter how many people he tortured and abused).
This was/is about oil, and unlocking one of the biggest most accessible reserves on the planet.
------------------------------------
Robert Mugabes country doesn't float on oil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3209399.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2958154.stm
No-one will invade.
The place will fall to bits or descend into anarchy, and then the international community will try to pick up some of the pieces.
Most of the reconstruction will be done by the community, well those that are left anyway.
----------------------------------------
Saddam hated/feared Islamic extremists more than most.
Any dissent by a Mullah got him a one way ticket to a prison camp.
Islamic groups were told in no uncertain terms.
Stick to religion, avoid politics, or pay the price.
No sane person would say he was a good-guy.
But thats not why you're there.
[This message was edited by eek on November 11, 2003 at 12:51 PM.]
This was/is about oil, and unlocking one of the biggest most accessible reserves on the planet.
------------------------------------
Robert Mugabes country doesn't float on oil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3209399.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2958154.stm
No-one will invade.
The place will fall to bits or descend into anarchy, and then the international community will try to pick up some of the pieces.
Most of the reconstruction will be done by the community, well those that are left anyway.
----------------------------------------
Saddam hated/feared Islamic extremists more than most.
Any dissent by a Mullah got him a one way ticket to a prison camp.
Islamic groups were told in no uncertain terms.
Stick to religion, avoid politics, or pay the price.
No sane person would say he was a good-guy.
But thats not why you're there.
[This message was edited by eek on November 11, 2003 at 12:51 PM.]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shotgun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eek:
Iraq war.
Currently being expanded into Saudi by the extremist groups.
With Saddam gone, various groups of nutters can operate throughout Iraq far more easily.
Apparently our strategic genius, George Bush never foresaw this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So Saddam was helping our war on terrorism by torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his people?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eek, it was a simple question. Why not answer it?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eek:
Iraq war.
Currently being expanded into Saudi by the extremist groups.
With Saddam gone, various groups of nutters can operate throughout Iraq far more easily.
Apparently our strategic genius, George Bush never foresaw this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So Saddam was helping our war on terrorism by torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his people?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eek, it was a simple question. Why not answer it?
If you want to keep it really simple...
He wasn't helping it.
He wasn't hindering it either.
He didn't care.
His repression of Iraqis was unconnected to your war on terrorism.
He murdered and tortured them for 20 years and you didn't give a rats ass.
It was an Iraqi-only problem.
His anti-islamic stance on preventing important religious individuals and groups from having any political power whatsoever in Iraq would have helped more than hindered the US in the Middle East, by coincidence only of course.
His Foreign minister was actually a christian.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2266978.stm
[This message was edited by eek on November 11, 2003 at 05:33 PM.]
He wasn't helping it.
He wasn't hindering it either.
He didn't care.
His repression of Iraqis was unconnected to your war on terrorism.
He murdered and tortured them for 20 years and you didn't give a rats ass.
It was an Iraqi-only problem.
His anti-islamic stance on preventing important religious individuals and groups from having any political power whatsoever in Iraq would have helped more than hindered the US in the Middle East, by coincidence only of course.
His Foreign minister was actually a christian.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2266978.stm
[This message was edited by eek on November 11, 2003 at 05:33 PM.]
posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
posted November 11, 2003 04:35 PM
If you want to keep it really simple...
He wasn't helping it.
He wasn't hindering it either.
He didn't care.
His repression of Iraqis was unconnected to your war on terrorism.
He murdered and tortured them for 20 years and you didn't give a rats ass.
It was an Iraqi-only problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very well-put. Too many people attempt to parlay Hussein's obvious shortcomings as a leader into a justification for our invasion of Iraq, as well as making the enormous and implausible leap of citing it as justificaton for the "War on Terror." Exactly how this philosophic alchemy is effected is beyond me.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
posted November 11, 2003 04:35 PM
If you want to keep it really simple...
He wasn't helping it.
He wasn't hindering it either.
He didn't care.
His repression of Iraqis was unconnected to your war on terrorism.
He murdered and tortured them for 20 years and you didn't give a rats ass.
It was an Iraqi-only problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very well-put. Too many people attempt to parlay Hussein's obvious shortcomings as a leader into a justification for our invasion of Iraq, as well as making the enormous and implausible leap of citing it as justificaton for the "War on Terror." Exactly how this philosophic alchemy is effected is beyond me.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eek:
If you want to keep it really simple...
He wasn't helping it.
He wasn't hindering it either.
He didn't care.
His repression of Iraqis was unconnected to your war on terrorism.
He murdered and tortured them for 20 years and you didn't give a rats ass.
It was an Iraqi-only problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eek, Saddam Hussain was knee-deep in terrorism, from sheltering Abu Nidal to paying off families of suicide bombers.
www.insightmag.com/news/319351
If you want to keep it really simple...
He wasn't helping it.
He wasn't hindering it either.
He didn't care.
His repression of Iraqis was unconnected to your war on terrorism.
He murdered and tortured them for 20 years and you didn't give a rats ass.
It was an Iraqi-only problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eek, Saddam Hussain was knee-deep in terrorism, from sheltering Abu Nidal to paying off families of suicide bombers.
www.insightmag.com/news/319351
All I get is "Story not found."
Hussein was on the terrorist sponsor watch-list for years before most Americans had ever heard of him. What my (and I believe eek's) point is is that he was never any kind of threat to the U.S. until he ceased to be an asset. He was certainly more dangerous prior to Desert Storm, now nearly thirteen years in the past. Yet rolling into Baghdad and screwing up a country that already had enough problems, and creating a twelve-digit crater in the pocketbook of the American taxpayers, killing hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis, practically stealing $ 100 billion from the purse of Russia and other major nations that were creditors of Iraq (yet somehow expecting this to not bode poorly for international relations) is all somehow tucked under the quilt as being part and parcel of the "War on Terror."
I do not buy it, and nor should you -- because if you do, you're buying into an huge pack of lies.
Phaedrus
Hussein was on the terrorist sponsor watch-list for years before most Americans had ever heard of him. What my (and I believe eek's) point is is that he was never any kind of threat to the U.S. until he ceased to be an asset. He was certainly more dangerous prior to Desert Storm, now nearly thirteen years in the past. Yet rolling into Baghdad and screwing up a country that already had enough problems, and creating a twelve-digit crater in the pocketbook of the American taxpayers, killing hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis, practically stealing $ 100 billion from the purse of Russia and other major nations that were creditors of Iraq (yet somehow expecting this to not bode poorly for international relations) is all somehow tucked under the quilt as being part and parcel of the "War on Terror."
I do not buy it, and nor should you -- because if you do, you're buying into an huge pack of lies.
Phaedrus
