So is America finally getting wiser? Who still believes this nonsense?

by Jourles 76 Replies latest social current

  • okie46
    It has achieved it's real objective - got American control of some oil. Does Bush and co. really care how many people suffer or how many poor Americans die because of it? Of course not. The real *problem* is that the American people refuse to coinsider CONSERVING energy and doing with less fuel like every other major western country can and has. This then dictates their foreign policy which is to trade peace for oil.

    Simon, I agree with your point on the real objective being American control of oil. That is the same reason we were in Afghanistan, to make sure we had control so the area would be available for a huge pipeline to be completed. If the real reason was to capture Osama, would make that our main concern, not Iraq, since Osama is still on the loose.

    YES, many American's refuse to conserve, instead buying bigger and bigger SUV's in which they mostly drive around empty, except for when their little family goes to the Country Club for dinner or they take the kids to soccer practice. I think many American's have reached a point where they feel they are entitled and refuse to make sacrifices, things like a huge house, huge gas guzzling vehicle are considered status symbols, not realizing that those things really mean nothing as to who you are and what kind of person you are and what you are contributing to society.

    I wish we would explore alternative sources of power. I know some has been done regarding solar power, wind power, etc., but it is still cost prohibitive for the average family. With all of our intelligence, you would think we would be further along in making alternative power more widely available and affordable to the average person. I also feel that our foreign policy is to trade peace for oil.

  • roybatty
    Are you guys saying you would rather have Iraq in the hands of Syria and Iran by next January? Really???

    Well, unfortunately, by Bush's & Dumsfeld's poor planning of the war, we have just about given Iran control of the region.

    And regarding poll questions. I really wish they would break it down into several questions, not just "do you support the war." Using minimum troops to secure Iraq, going in alone, not having clear goals and an exit plan, not having in place a plan to set up a government, poor military tactics in urban areas, etc...etc. all have led to this mess.

    From the beginning we should have had 500,000 troops there, we should NOT have disbanded the Iraqi army, we SHOULD have secured the borders, etc.. What was Bush thinking?? Didn't he realize that you can't play war on the cheap? It'll only cost you more in the end.

    It's obvious that the people of Iraq don't want what the U.S. is offer and our soldiers are dying for. At this point in time Iraq should be divided into three regions - Kurds, Sunnis & Shittes and we should leave.

  • hillary_step


    This is a serious question as I have not followed your posts, but were you not once a fierce defender of the Bush Administration and its Iraqi adventure, or am I getting you mixed up with someone else?

    Best regards - HS

  • roybatty

    This is a serious question as I have not followed your posts, but were you not once a fierce defender of the Bush Administration and its Iraqi adventure, or am I getting you mixed up with someone else?

    Best regards - HS

    From day one I was / am a supporter of the war but not solely based on the WMD search. UN mandates, shooting at US war planes, bringing stability to the region, threats of developing WMD, etc.. I also believed that the people of Iraq would move toward a democratic government and I believe the high voter turnout is evidence that they would have. However, thanks to a poorly planned occupation and influence of Iran, this will not come about.

    From the beginning I stated that a military cannot build a nation. They're not police officers, they're not diplomates. US forces should have been in and out within a year. I also said from the beginning that a huge military presense was / is needed. Basically, Iraq needed to be on lockdown. Its too late now. Just as Israel learned the hard way in south Lebannon, a small group of determined people can hold off a larger military force when things are poorly planned. At this point it doesn't seem to me that anyone in Iraq is willing to stand up and lead. The people of Iraq don't seem to want what we're willing to offer them. Iraq should be divded up into three sections, oil revenue split among them. Violence will drop and we can make plans to bring troops home. Option two, put a Saddam clone in charge,

    Impeach Bush? Put him on trial? Sure but next to him I want to see Bill Clinton and his cabinet for stating over and over again that Saddam had WMD. I also want to see all the congressmen who voted for the war also on trial esp. the members of the Senate Intelligence comittee. But seriously, Bush will go down in history as making the biggest military blunders in US history.

    And if anyone does want to see an investigation, I'd like to see the big companies making billions on thiswar investigated.

    One last point. I do agree with Simon and his comment about Amercians not conserving gas. One has to imagine if we spent the billions on conservation technology and tax incentives, instead of a war, we'd probably do more to damage those who finance terrorism.

  • MinisterAmos

    Most Americans that I've spoken to do not agree with George Dubya's 'War on Terror'. Funny how you can lie to 250,000,000 about WMD, be responsible for thousands of deaths and put the country into debt to the tune of over a trillion dollars and you're not impeached. I guess that's because Georige Boy didn't commit the unforgivable sin and have a 21 year old on her knees in the Oval Office when he was implementing the plans for invasion.

    Not sure how they do it up there in "little America" Mary, but in the real US we only impeach Presidents when they break the law.

    Being a stupid, dumb-ass, greedy Texan (notice I did not use American because the two have different agendas) is not against the law unfortunately.

  • Justice-One

    Yup, this country would be MUCH better off if we put it in the hands of left leaning ex-JW's!!! Can you say to hell in a handbag?

  • Mysterious

    When someone says Fox News is the most accurate it makes me want to gag. =P

  • james_woods

    So which news org is the most accurate, Mysterious? Reuters, or maybe the BBC?

    When I hear terrorists called by the euphamism "freedom fighters" that makes me gag...

  • Jourles
    When I hear terrorists called by the euphamism "freedom fighters" that makes me gag...

    Gag away, because isn't that what they are? Let's put it this way... Let's say North Korea invaded the USA and essentially wiped out our military. They are now in charge. The reason for the invasion? Oh, because we have many nuclear weapons, stockpiles of our own WMD's, chemical and otherwise, etc. The NK's felt that they needed to save the world from our military threats. Sound familiar?

    But in some states such as Montana and Texas, there are pockets of resistance. These Americans hate being under the control of the NK's. It's just not right for them to be in our country! These Americans call themselves Freedom Fighters or Rebels. They want to cause as much pain and suffering to the NK army as possible.

    Over on the BBC and Reuters, the columnists are calling these American rebels "terrorists" because they are targeting NK troops and other fellow Americans who are helping the NK's establish a Democratic Republic in the USA like they have back home. Sound even more familiar?

    So in the above fictitious scenario, who is wrong and who is right? And what really is the main difference between it and what is happening now in Iraq?

  • james_woods

    Well, Jourles - when I see people crazy enough to cut the throat of an airline attendant, and then fly that airplane into the World Trade Center at 600 mph, specifically to kill innocent citizens who have done nothing wrong except show up for work that morning, I call them terrorists.

    They cannot be factually called "freedom fighters" because their religion's intolerance hates the concept of freedom.

    Your type of apologist leanings puts you plainly on the side of the terrorists of this world, and against western democracy. Seems a shame, doesn't it, that you have to live here in our barbarian society, rather than being with your fundamentalist Islamic spiritual comrades.

Share this