2trap_4ever wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: No, not ticked about the Yankee thread at all--you think I haven't heard it all before. And why would I be ticked? 27 rings baby, don't care if you like it or not--don't hate the player hate the game. It's just like this, I could present an argument but you won't listen to any of it. Same thing goes for the Yankee thread. I'm not going to argue about it with you, but the war is the war on terror and Iraq is most definitely connected to the same reason we're in Afghanistan. And basically, if it wasn't for liberal pussies we'd probably be out of there by now, or at least much closer. The way Obama is handling this is a joke. Don't believe me? Then believe my marine friend that was home for Thanksgiving that can't wait to go back to fight (he leaves for his 2nd tour December 16th) and is one of those people that isn't afraid to talk about it because it's what he lives for. He hates Obama and straight up told me that his superiors hold them back and have gotten soldiers killed because of it--and that goes straight up to the top. For whatever reason we decided to let public perception control war decisions and wanted to fight a PC war--which is a terrible plan for winning, use Vietnam as an example.

I have many friends from high school in the military, most of whom have served or are serving in Afghanistan and many of them believe in and still support Obama. Even had the chance to talk to one on Skype last night after he heard Obama's speech, and he liked it.

We all know folks in the military, and there is absolutely no consensus among them as far their like/dislike of Obama, from what i have seen.

I understand what you're saying, but the "friend in the military" argument really doesn't work, which is why i gave my own personal example as well.

But, god bless your friend.

The only thing I want to say about soldiers not saying if the like/dislike Obama,,,and its this,,,,,,How many of us really verbalize our pleasure or displeasure of our boss,,,,I was in the Army and they tell you up front whether you like the president or not he is your boss, what he says you have to do whether you like the idea or not.

Fair enough, thanks for your insight.

ccrunner609 wrote:

Footwedge Wrote:
Kudos to Obama for putting up front the total cost of these wars and in particular, the cost of the new surge. I don't agree at all with his decision, but unlike the last guy, he made it painfully clear that we are talking real money here...as in 40 billion dollars.

As for the Bush bashing......good for him. America needs to be reminded over and over again...that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...a concept that still escapes many, many people.

Let me fill you in, if 9/11 wouldnt of happened, we wouldnt of went into Iraq. Got it? Good.

I disagree. I'll wager Iraq was on the drawing board from 1/20/01. 9/11 just accelerated the timetable.

cbus4life wrote: Why do we need to be in Iraq?

some douchebag dictactor was brutalizing his country. maybe its just my personality, but i dont like to see that happen to people.

Glory Days wrote:

cbus4life wrote: Why do we need to be in Iraq?

some douchebag dictactor was brutalizing his country. maybe its just my personality, but i dont like to see that happen to people.

There are dictators all over the world brutalizing their countries who are equally "douchey". Why pick this one in particular?

ccrunner609 wrote:

Footwedge Wrote:
Kudos to Obama for putting up front the total cost of these wars and in particular, the cost of the new surge. I don't agree at all with his decision, but unlike the last guy, he made it painfully clear that we are talking real money here...as in 40 billion dollars.

As for the Bush bashing......good for him. America needs to be reminded over and over again...that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...a concept that still escapes many, many people.

Let me fill you in, if 9/11 wouldnt of happened, we wouldnt of went into Iraq. Got it? Good.

Corrected syntax for you...."Let me fill you in, Iraq wouldn't have happened, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Got it? Good."

Just in case there are any English teachers out there.

fish82 wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote:

Footwedge Wrote:
Kudos to Obama for putting up front the total cost of these wars and in particular, the cost of the new surge. I don't agree at all with his decision, but unlike the last guy, he made it painfully clear that we are talking real money here...as in 40 billion dollars.

As for the Bush bashing......good for him. America needs to be reminded over and over again...that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...a concept that still escapes many, many people.

Let me fill you in, if 9/11 wouldnt of happened, we wouldnt of went into Iraq. Got it? Good.

I disagree. I'll wager Iraq was on the drawing board from 1/20/01. 9/11 just accelerated the timetable.

This is true Fishy....despite Bush's campaigning in 2000 that he was definitely against nation building and policing the world. He promised America that we would be a "peace loving" country. Cough, cough.

The problem would have been selling the war without 9-11. I truly doubt that the congress would have bought into any land invasion.
Even cheney claimed in 1994 that invading Iraq would have been a horrible mistake....citing horrible blow back repercussions. The "regime change" argument had been bantered about for a long time.

But I do agree...the drawing board was in place 1-20-2001.

Glory Days wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote: atleast he wouldnt have been lying to you.

No the last guy in power lied...at least this guy tells the brutal truth. As much as I hate his desicion, it's refreshing to know that the cards are on the table...and if you count them, there will be 52 of them.

this

Yeah, except Obama isnt playing cards, he is playing Uno. Obama wouldnt know what the brutal truth was if it hit him in the face. the brutal truth, we need to be in Iraq. No one wants to say it because it wont get them elected. That is brutal truth.

If one looks at the map, all we need to do is now invade Pakistan...which will give us occupation of 3 in a row. By rule, we can then build houses and hotels ...as long as we collect 200 bucks for passing go.

Footwedge wrote:If one looks at the map, all we need to do is now invade Pakistan...which will give us occupation of 3 in a row. By rule, we can then build houses and hotels ...as long as we collect 200 bucks for passing go.

Homes and hotels can come later. Oil and gas pipelines first. And a lot more than 200 bucks for passing go.

Glory Days wrote:

cbus4life wrote: Why do we need to be in Iraq?

some douchebag dictactor was brutalizing his country. maybe its just my personality, but i dont like to see that happen to people.

We've got a lot more countries head into, then.

Africa is going to be one large area for the US military to occupy.

We already have troops in Africa, its just not big news so you dont hear about it.

queencitybuckeye wrote: There are dictators all over the world brutalizing their countries who are equally "douchey". Why pick this one in particular?

which other countries had similar dictators at the time? i'll give you N. Korea, although he still wasnt even killing his civilians the way Saddam was. So go ahead, give me one more.

Footwedge wrote:

If one looks at the map, all we need to do is now invade Pakistan...which will give us occupation of 3 in a row. By rule, we can then build houses and hotels ...as long as we collect 200 bucks for passing go.

Really? Last I checked there is a little country named Iran in between Iraq and Afghanistan.

fish82,

I give you alot of credit, because you are one of the few people that supported President Bush who is willing to admit the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/2001.

I think Bush felt that going into Iraq would turn out much different and that it would end up being of benefit to the USA and the entire world, but I also believe he was looking for a reason to invade Iraq from the moment he was elected President.

As for Afghanistan, that was a direct result of the attacks on 9-11-2001, and I supported the invasion of Afghanistan 100%. My problem was when the focus was shifted off Afghanistan and placed on Iraq, and when that took place the progress which was being made in Afghanistan slowly started to erode over time.

unique_67 wrote: fish82,

I give you alot of credit, because you are one of the few people that supported President Bush who is willing to admit the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/2001.

Of course it didn't. And, despite some very early moves by Cheney to pump up the alleged meeting between Atta and the Iraqis, the administration never once said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The myth that they did has now become "fact," merely through repetition. They pumped the fact that Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism, via his financial sponsorship of Hamas...which was completely true.

Now did they exploit the psyche of the nation to advance the approval of the invasion? Absolutely.

unique_67 wrote:I think Bush felt that going into Iraq would turn out much different and that it would end up being of benefit to the USA and the entire world, but I also believe he was looking for a reason to invade Iraq from the moment he was elected President.

He didn't need to look far. Lest we forget that his "predecessor" (I love that word...lol) was the one that made "advancing regime change in Iraq" the official policy of the US Government. Technically speaking, that's the only reason he needed. Now I'll gladly stipulate that Iraq has been a colossal intelligence and foreign policy clusterfuck from the get go. But what chaps my ass is this stupid drumbeat that W "lied" us into this war. He did no such thing. He made a decision based on intelligence he was given, the same intel that those in congress based their decision on. The notion that W and Darth sat in some dark corner and said "Well, let's just claim that he has the WMD...it's not like we'll get found out or anything." is just silly.

unique_67 wrote:As for Afghanistan, that was a direct result of the attacks on 9-11-2001, and I supported the invasion of Afghanistan 100%. My problem was when the focus was shifted off Afghanistan and placed on Iraq, and when that took place the progress which was being made in Afghanistan slowly started to erode over time.

I don't disagree in principle, but Afghanistan was doomed from the outset. History has proven again and again that it's not a winnable theater...and we'd be in this exact same spot, Iraq or no Iraq. IMO, we should have declared victory after their elections were held, and left with the friendly warning that we'd be happy to come back and bomb them some more if they ever wanted to fuck with us again.

^^^Fish...with all due respects, you are certainly well read on the subject. I guess I fall into the category of those that "chap your ass".

First of all, both Bush and Cheney did in fact link Al Quada to Saddam Hussein. By doing so, they also by default linked 9-11 to Saddam Hussein, given that Bin Ladin took full responsibility for the attack. Bush said the following in a letter:

"the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

The actual letter is no longer available for internet viewing...but I could source it through other sites.

As for Cheney, not once but twice he said this...on Meet the Press:

"that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. Then, on the September 14, 2003, edition of the NBC program, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11.""

On these specific quotes, the 9-11 commission officially stated that "at no time did any intelligence agency link either Al Quada to Saddam or bin Ladin to Saddam".

Secondly, the administration made a number of out and out bogus claims regarding Saddam buying aluminum tubes for enriching uranium, after all the American experts publicly debunked that these tubes could be used for such purposes.

Thirdly, the use of the "16 words" in the SOTU speech given by Bush was so far off the wall, that even the CIA, including George Tenet, the head of the CIA said that he had no idea where Bush came up with it. The State Department admitted as much. Even the White House admitted, albeit 6 months later, that the "16 words" should never have been used in his speech.

If you don't like the term lie...then substitute the terms "manipulated the intelligence to fit an agenda". To me, they are synonymous terms.

Footwedge, just because Iraq and 9/11 are used in the same paragraph, does not mean they are directly linked. and terrorism does not always equal Al-Qaeda, there are many different terrorist organizations and groups, however its funny how the media always assumes every attack is from Al-Qaeda.

many of those quotes you posted refer to terrorists SIMILAR to the ones who committed the attacks on 9/11, not THE terrorists who committed the attacks.

Fish,

Im a person holds every member of Congress that voted in favor of giving President Bush the authorization to invade Iraq every bit as responsible for the invasion as Bush/Cheney. And, this includes ALL members of the Democratic Party who later took the position that they were "for it, before they were against it".

Yes, it was President Bush who made the ultimate decision to launch the war in Iraq, but he could not have done so without the approval of Congress, and he had true bi-partisan support giving him the approval to launch said war.

As for Afghanistan, I think the biggest mistake was having the focus shift from Afghanistan to Iraq, at a time when the US/NATO troops were actually making very good progress in Afghanistan. It made total sense to send troops to Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11/2001 to hunt down and capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and members of the Taliban. And, we will never know what the situation in Afghanistan might be like at this time had the US not invaded Iraq, diverting attention and valuable resources away from Afghanistan and into a war with a country that posed very little threat to the USA or any US allies.

We went into Iraq because Sadaam had dirt on the Bush family, we had to shut him up. People were stealing his oil by slant drilling and we were selling them the technology to do it. Wouldn't you get mad if someone was stealing from you? I mean the CIA trained the guy then turned their back on him from what I hear and gather.

Notice how the Repubs are happy about Obama going to war? Because that is where there bread is buttered waste all kinds of tax payer money so their business and stocks grow and make money! If you want I can tell you which stocks to buy and that will go up because of this, might cost you a small fee though.

JTizzle wrote: We went into Iraq because Sadaam had dirt on the Bush family, we had to shut him up. People were stealing his oil by slant drilling and we were selling them the technology to do it. Wouldn't you get mad if someone was stealing from you? I mean the CIA trained the guy then turned their back on him from what I hear and gather.

Thats a new one. I hadn't heard that one yet. You sparked my curiosity. What dirt? You seem to be in the know with all these accusations perhaps you could back them up.

Their is few things I guess really don't wanna spew to much on the net because everything is very traceable and I do value my life! I don't wanna be one those people who has a mysterious heart attack or something. A lot started back years ago not all is very fresh right now would have to go back through some things and talk to some people. It was Kuwait that Sadaam invaded that caused the Persian gulf war wasn't it?

Also about the new war in Iraq research and look up how many tanker trucks it takes to support military functions. Then look up how many tanker trucks that we are using over there. From my research it's a very high ratio to what is really needed. So why do you think that we have so many? My guess is that they taking the oil to the coast line putting the oil on barge tankers sending it where they want.

Well, I don't know, JTizzle.

Perhaps some of the vets that post here, and have actually served their time over there can tell us how much oil they've seen transported. Or helped transport.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Well, I don't know, JTizzle.

Perhaps some of the vets that post here, and have actually served their time over there can tell us how much oil they've seen transported. Or helped transport.

That wouldn't bother me I'm open for opinions, thoughts but I doubt if they weren't allowed to boo Cheney that they will speak out too much. I do respect our troops very much for what they do. I am in no way against them, just sounds like they are not so much for the war for obvious reasons.

Glory Days wrote: Footwedge, just because Iraq and 9/11 are used in the same paragraph, does not mean they are directly linked. and terrorism does not always equal Al-Qaeda, there are many different terrorist organizations and groups, however its funny how the media always assumes every attack is from Al-Qaeda.

many of those quotes you posted refer to terrorists SIMILAR to the ones who committed the attacks on 9/11, not THE terrorists who committed the attacks.

Glory...that is spin and you know it. The subliminal message was loud and very clear.

I will look it up...and find a poll or polls showing that about 80%/85% of Americans were convinced that Saddam had a hand in 9-11.

The propaganda campaign went full force in September/October 2002, only 12 months after America was attacked by Al Quada. People were scared shitless. I was scared shitless.

If the president says "Saddam Hussein" in the same sentence with "the terrorists of 9-11" then only idiots would not connect the dots.

When the Vice President states on national TV that Iraqi officials met with Mohammed Atta, then one would have to be an idiot in not deducting a connection.

When the Secretary of State (Condi Rice) states on National TV says that "the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud", one would have to be an idiot for not having the beJesus scared out of them.

It wasn't until Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei stated that they searched Powell's sites...and found no bio labs, no chem weapons and no nukes, did I pause in reflection. And this was announced 3 weeks prior to the invasion...an invasion that was primarily sold on Saddam holding and going to use these weapons.

To Unique....you are entitled to your opinion in laying blame on the Congress. I don't....for the simple fact that they watched (Congress)these same television shows and were rightly, scared shitless.

JTizzle, actually i read a new report on Iraq that shortly before the first gulf war, UFOs were spotted making landings in Iraq. However since Bush Sr did not chase the Iraqi army back into Iraq, it could never be confirmed. But since our latest invasion we have discovered evidence that Saddam was influenced by beings from another universe. problem is, i dont want to divulge this information because this can be traced.