How do you think USA is handling operation Iraqi freedom??

[Kirill K]

Also you have to be stupid (no offence) to believe what Bush has to say because they will write anything to make them look like the good guy, but you should think logicaly why did they go there, use your logic for once.

 

[Italian Guy]

Also you have to be stupid (no offence) to believe what Bush has to say because they will write anything to make them look like the good guy, but you should think logicaly why did they go there, use your logic for once.

Chill down, dude. first no offence in telling me I must be stupid ( :cen: ), second I always use my logic, so don't assume you're the only smart cookie round here.
Third, sorry man, war wasn't really on oil.
The US got oil underprice when sanctioned Iraq was ruled by Saddam. Now the perspective is to get it at market price. Whats better ?

 

[SwordFish_13]

Hi,

Disclaimer: this post contains *alot* of sarcasm.

its true but think why Bush started this war. Oil, all because of oil. There was no proof that Saddam had chemical weapons, there was no proof that he was gonna use them, and certainly if he wanted to use them he could have already done so. Bush is just making up an excuse to get oil.

I would actually say forget the oil side of things in Iraq. I go more for the idea that Bush invaded at the request of the Saudis. Iraq was the only non islamic power in the area and the saudis were still worried about Saddam. Given that the saudis have a couple of trillion dollars invested in the americain economy and a couple of trillion more in the americain banking system that gives them a lot of leeway to pressure the americain administration. Given also that bush has very close ties to the saudi royal family and has a history of givening Saudis special treatement. One example allowing members of both the saudi royal family and ben ladiens family to fly around the united states the day after 9/11. As they say food for thought.

Also you have to be stupid (no offence) to believe what Bush has to say because they will write anything to make them look like the good guy, but you should think logicaly why did they go there, use your logic for once.

naaaa Trust the Fox news :lol:

fox: iraq is hiding their bombs !!!
inspection guy: nah we didn't find any yet
fox: so the iraqi's are not cooperating
inspection guy: oh they cooperate just fine, it'll just take a few weeks to inspect all iraq
fox: so they hid the nukes so you didn't see them
inspection guy: no we inspected everything very carefully
fox: but sadaam is a dictator and was mass-murderer
inspection guy: that's true
fox: sadaam has nukes and he's going to shoot us americans with it if we don't act now we all gonne die !!!
americans: fox is a respected broadcaster, so if THEY say it it MUST be true


-dutch laws allow babies to be killed if they're seriously handicapped for life
-texan laws allow people to be killed for being on someone else's ground
-iraqi laws allow people to be killed for being on ground claimed by sadaam

:roll:

Sarcasm ends here

Peace
-=SF_13=-

 

[chewie_nz]

War In Iraq Not About Oil


“If oil was our top concern war in the Middle East would be the last thing we would want to do,” said NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett. “The reality is the best thing that we could do for our oil supply, would be to sell out Isreal and retreat from the region. It’s important to remember that terrorists aren’t after us because we import their oil. We are at war because the terrorists see us as infidels who need to die.” Plus: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/iraq/view.shtml

well as for the infidel thing, no one has come after NZ.
and i beleive oil is an Issue....but not the Only Issue. the terrorist are after america for their constant meddling in the middle east region...because of the oil... for fifty odd years.

this is purely cold war power politics coming back to the roost

 

[Snauhi]

Also you have to be stupid (no offence) to believe what Bush has to say because they will write anything to make them look like the good guy, but you should think logicaly why did they go there, use your logic for once.

Chill down, dude. first no offence in telling me I must be stupid ( :cen: ), second I always use my logic, so don't assume you're the only smart cookie round here.
Third, sorry man, war wasn't really on oil.
The US got oil underprice when sanctioned Iraq was ruled by Saddam. Now the perspective is to get it at market price. Whats better ?

Then why did USA start the war?


US generals dint think about what would happen after the "normal" war.

Now its so many rebels there so they can scare the iraqi people that are co-operating with americans.They will spread propaganda and it will work, because americans arent doing enough to stop it.

 

[Anya1982]

I've not voted in the poll because while I consider Bush has made a total mess of post-war policies in Iraq, withdrawal is not an option.
We have to stay, even if its only to correct the mess we've made

I pretty much agree with this!!!

I agree with this but i did vote....................dunno if opinions matter these days cus no 1 ever listens. I think USA went abou tthe worng way at the begining of the gulf. They should of given the 40 day peace fire then gone in. Instead of it being all backwards. Alot of iraq say they don't want america in their but then some say they do. All i can say is that the clear up would of been quicker and reckon it would of stopped if bush took the friendly advice he was given

Actually iraq started off about the 3 oil rigs on their coast. Saddam threatened to blow em up if he didn't get what he wanted. So in theory the war was started over oil. But those 3 oil rigs supplied oil and fuel etc to over half the world so if they got destroyed then we'd have no fuel in europe for cars etc lol.

 

[SwordFish_13]

Hi,

well you might say i am too much Scarsactic today

Then why did USA start the war?

Let's See what i can dig up,

--The Ilusive Wepons of Mass Destruction

Hmmm havint Found any yet and probably given up hope of finding Substantial WMD's

--But But But they has Some 15 years ago

Yup they did have Some Chemical Wepons ..........what's the point a Lot of Countries have WMD"S bigger than that .....................and some 50 yesrs Ago my family had a very Feriece DOG that bit a lot of People .................so what's the point here. :roll:

--Saddam Had links to Mr. Bin laden and Al-Quida

ooooo really .................last time i checked AL-Quida was linked to rebels that were Fighiting Saddam ..................In their View Saddam was a Anti- Islamic Dictator.

--he was Funding Islamic Millitants

Emmm.........Iraq was the _ONLY_ Non Islamic State in the Middle East ...................and he was a Thong in the eyes of the Negibouring Countries.

--He was a Brutal Dictator

Yes sure he was ..................well thats what dictatorship is all about ............eliminate your opposition less they have a Chance to topple you ..................and last time i checked there are no REAL Democrasies in the Middle-East..................and too many people of his profile still exist on this Planet .


Oil was one of the factors _Not the Only factor_ ...............But it was more Economics and External relations to me .

Peace
-=SF_13=-

 

[Anya1982]

Swordfish..................you put bush to shame lol

Dunno why america thought bin ladin and saddam were connected cus they weren't, its common knowledge.

Didn't most the world tell bush that saddam never had WMD?

Ok correct me but didn't saddam after he went loopy in the 1st gulf war threaten that he'd be back in 15 yrs time!!

Just a though hmmmmmmmmm :roll:

 

[DTop]

This is a poll and has been moved to the appropriate area.

 

[Kane]

The much anticipated January 30th Elections inch closer and closer.

 

[Missileer]

For how long do you think this operation "Iraqi Freedom" will take?? Years, months?? But think about why they went to Iraq??? Because of some biological weapons that was "persumed" that Saddam had, but where is the proof that they had weapons of such kind?? Everyone sort of forgot about the main reason USA attacked Iraq, but i think it was mainly to get a hold of more oil. Why? Because California is running out of it, and soon enough there wouldnt be any, so USA had to plan out to attack a country and gain its oil resources. The weakest country that had lots of oil.. who? Iraq.

What do u think about that?

I think the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska, and a few other States has more oil than most other places in the World except Siberia and Saudi Arabia. Don't get too excited about the US running low, it's just cheaper to buy from the Middle East. Light, sweet crude from West Texas is so pure, it's almost already fuel. I've seen roughnecks clean their tools with it after a day's work.

 

[Missileer]

Also you have to be stupid (no offence) to believe what Bush has to say because they will write anything to make them look like the good guy, but you should think logicaly why did they go there, use your logic for once.

Chill down, dude. first no offence in telling me I must be stupid ( :cen: ), second I always use my logic, so don't assume you're the only smart cookie round here.
Third, sorry man, war wasn't really on oil.
The US got oil underprice when sanctioned Iraq was ruled by Saddam. Now the perspective is to get it at market price. Whats better ?

Then why did USA start the war?

US generals dint think about what would happen after the "normal" war.

Now its so many rebels there so they can scare the iraqi people that are co-operating with americans.They will spread propaganda and it will work, because americans arent doing enough to stop it.

The USA didn't start the war, it was started 9/11/01 and I personally didn't give a rat's rear end which country got hit first.

 

[chewie_nz]

Also you have to be stupid (no offence) to believe what Bush has to say because they will write anything to make them look like the good guy, but you should think logicaly why did they go there, use your logic for once.

Chill down, dude. first no offence in telling me I must be stupid ( :cen: ), second I always use my logic, so don't assume you're the only smart cookie round here.
Third, sorry man, war wasn't really on oil.
The US got oil underprice when sanctioned Iraq was ruled by Saddam. Now the perspective is to get it at market price. Whats better ?

Then why did USA start the war?

US generals dint think about what would happen after the "normal" war.

Now its so many rebels there so they can scare the iraqi people that are co-operating with americans.They will spread propaganda and it will work, because americans arent doing enough to stop it.

The USA didn't start the war, it was started 9/11/01 and I personally didn't give a rat's rear end which country got hit first.

as far the the invasion of iraq goes...the US DID start the war. iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, which was the whole reason for the war on terror (T.W.O.T tm)

but the mess has been created now and troops need to stay till it's sorted

 

[Whispering Death]

For militay history buffs you guys sure do know how to get manipulated out of your intellectual zone by CNN don't you?

Regardless of whether invading or not was right, I can see absolutely no sound strategic reason to pull out of Iraq. In terms of attrition we'd have to lose over what Vietnam cost us in terms of soldiers killed for me to consider pulling out (aka surrender).

I'm not very pleased with how the U.S. is handling the war, however. I haven't believed this BS about 'kill one insurgent and you make 3 more' for a second. That mentality let Fallujah fester for 8 months longer than we should have let it and the cost has been high for us.

I think Bush was very smart to go to war, if I had the same intelligence as him I would have done the same thing. I think he was a complete idiot for believing his own propoganda that we would be greeted as liberators and all would be well; Hitler suffered the same error in judgement.

I am skeptical of the plan for elections, if it was me running the show I would have gone in with a MacArthur post-WW2 japan plan of strong U.S. presence and gradually giving it over to the locals over long number of years.

 

[Missileer]

I think that pretty well expresses my views, mostly. The decision was made that the U.S. not wage total war and it is evident what that cost has been. I also believe that military strategists are not as involved as they should be from the Pentagon.

 

[RnderSafe]

US generals dint think about what would happen after the "normal" war.

How do you know?

 

[Whispering Death]

US generals dint think about what would happen after the "normal" war.

How do you know?

It is known that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz with their philosophy of "light strike force" beat down people like Sanchez and Powel's philosophy of "large ground presence" with politics. At the time we'd just secured Afghanistan with minimal ground presence and Bush was buying into that line of "we are liberators" thinking so he bought Rumsfeld's line. That is why I feel it is bothersome for America that Rumsfeld is still in house while Powel and Sanchez are gone.

 

[chewie_nz]

In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

 

[Anya1982]

wtf?

Also you have to be stupid (no offence) to believe what Bush has to say because they will write anything to make them look like the good guy, but you should think logicaly why did they go there, use your logic for once.

Chill down, dude. first no offence in telling me I must be stupid ( :cen: ), second I always use my logic, so don't assume you're the only smart cookie round here.
Third, sorry man, war wasn't really on oil.
The US got oil underprice when sanctioned Iraq was ruled by Saddam. Now the perspective is to get it at market price. Whats better ?

Then why did USA start the war?

US generals dint think about what would happen after the "normal" war.

Now its so many rebels there so they can scare the iraqi people that are co-operating with americans.They will spread propaganda and it will work, because americans arent doing enough to stop it.

The USA didn't start the war, it was started 9/11/01 and I personally didn't give a rat's rear end which country got hit first.

Some much needed education...........9/11 is a diff thing to the gulf war..........2 diff people...............bush may of claimed but he was wrong

 

[RnderSafe]

Re: wtf?

Anya, you need to work on making your posts more clear. Make certain if you are using the "quote" function, you are doing it properly. As it stands now, your post is very difficult to read and respond to.