rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Iraq War 10 Years On
#26

Iraq War 10 Years On

They already cashed in. Halliburton's stock price went up 370% over the course of the Iraq war. The S&P 500 went up 40% over the same period.
Reply
#27

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-19-2013 05:32 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

They already cashed in. Halliburton's stock price went up 370% over the course of the Iraq war. The S&P 500 went up 40% over the same period.

Ok then when can Hillary cash hers in?
Reply
#28

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-19-2013 05:13 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Why is it nonsense?

Why is it that every chicken hawk never served?

For instance, I don't care about gay marriage because it has nothing to do with me.

Why do republicans care about gay marriage so much?

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

It's nonsense because you can make a valid argument about something that you don't necessarily have to have experience doing.

It's called...what's the word I am looking for...oh yeah, that's right.

THOUGHT.

You know the thing that you are supposed to have which the standard hamster babe you're trying to game doesn't.
Reply
#29

Iraq War 10 Years On

I would love to wing for tenderman someday.
Reply
#30

Iraq War 10 Years On

This is the SHAME OF AMERICA: http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Chickhawks disgust me. You spew your horseshit hawk views without ever having taken up arms and put yourselves in harms way. You are the bad asses at a boxing match, watching real warriors in the ring while you hoot and holler. You'd think that a pussy draft dodger like Romney would at least have seen to it that one of his brood would have done a tour as a fucking supply officer behind to the lines - to make it look good. Pussy Cheney, also a draft dodger - you'd think that his bull dyke daughter would have answered the call? Nope, that work is best left to negroes, spicks and white trash. Right Dick?

So, you didn't do shit. But none of you speak up about the travesty of the "Wounded Warrior Project" - a fucking charity to help poor bastards who've had their legs blown off - because that same shit bag US government that sent these men and women out to die - is TOO FUCKING CHEAP to care for them when they come home.

There are 2,400,000 Iraq/Afgan vets walking around this country. Many of them are physically scarred for life. Many more are psychologically scarred for life. Uncle Sam doesn't give a shit about these used "resources", which makes sense, because nobody else does either, including every chickenhawk I've ever encountered.

I say give every vet who saw combat - a check for $1,000,000 tax free. And for every vet that brought home a purple heart, a check for $5,000,000 tax free.

The total bill would be a fraction of the bailout money that the scumbags on Wall Street received for their "service" to this country.

This country's business is war. Cold war, El Salvador, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Serbia, Colombia, Iraq I, Afgan, Iraq II, Libya, not to mention the covert wars in Peru, Argentina and Chile. Syria and Iran on order. 50,000 troops sitting in Korea. Hundreds of bases around the planet with hundreds of thousands of troops.

We threw hundreds of billions at an inept foe called the Soviet Union. A foe that on a good day might actually provide winter clothing for half their army. One that couldn't launch 20% of their MiGs if their lives depended on it. We either had the most inept intelligence imaginable, or our military/political leaders lied through their collective teeth to keep the defense money flowing. Note; its the second option.......

Its insane......and then you spew about things like social security and fucking basic health care for the people that actually LIVE HERE.
Reply
#31

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-19-2013 05:04 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

Quote: (03-19-2013 01:52 PM)sylo Wrote:  

Quote: (03-19-2013 01:26 PM)Menace Wrote:  

Here is my question: where did the approximately $1 trillion cost for the war come from? What was our ROI?

This. A simple question (I do not have the answer) I have is: Almost all of the war protesters kept saying over and over "No blood for oil." Well where is all the oil we are supposed to have taken? Why is petro the most expensive it has ever been?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, the same applies for the "inside job" that was supposedly 911. All that just to get one man, AND to justify a presence in the Middle east? The only thing I see that has happened is raised costs in just about EVERYTHING.

What the hell is the point of all this?

(Slaps forehead realizing asking an actual question to a bunch of parinoid bloggers, MRAs, and MGTOWs could go any/everywhere, with the least possibility of a sincire, critically thought out response.)

The Point:

1. a few trillions dollars to Halliburton and the rest of the MIC - (mil-industrial complex) = PROFIT !

2. Distract the masses while you remove their civil liberties and degrade their Constitution in the name of "SECURITY"

3. Get control of the oil - (2nd/3rd - largest reserves in the world).
- not to pump it so that oil and gas are cheaper, but to control it so that it doesn't come on to the market and weaken prices.
-control is also important to maintaining the petrodollar - dollar as reserve currency system.

4. to plant a giant base in the middle of ARAB/MUSLIM territory in order to continue the crusade to bring them online to 'our' system - capitalism, private central banks, etc.

5. Kill/maim/ destroy some brown people and their country: eugenics and population control - and keeping them down and engulfed in chaos.

Couldn't have said it any better. The war was sold to the public on a lie: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which pose a significant risk to the world". Lo and behold, no WMDs were found.

Forget everything else, just the economic cost to the American government and taxpayers have been astronomical. I would think this would unite the left and the right in the USA (saving trillion + dollars in debt).

Good thing Canada is not in this mess. Our current Prime Minister who was not in power back then actually criticized the government at the time for not joining America in the invasion.
Reply
#32

Iraq War 10 Years On

i know the link is broken but this is a CLASSIC

Top 20 LIES about the Iraq war

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_071403C.shtml 20 Lies About the WarFalsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make the case for war. More lies are being used in the aftermath.By Glen Rangwala and Raymond WhitakerIndependent.UK Sunday 13 July 2003
1) Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi's contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none.
2) Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defense Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links between them. Mr. Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq", it added. Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa'ida members were being sheltered in Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the camp, they found no chemical or biological traces.
3) Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has "separate intelligence". The Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now "under review".
4) Iraq was trying to import aluminum tubes to develop nuclear weapons The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.
5) Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it was alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be smuggled into the US and used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed out that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had the technology to produce materials with a shelf-life of 12 years, the time between the two wars. All such agents would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness years ago.
6) Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus Apart from the fact that there has been no sign of these missiles since the invasion, Britain downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in Iraq once the fighting began. It was also revealed that chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus last year, indicating that the Government did not take its own claims seriously.
7) Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox This allegation was made by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his address to the UN Security Council in February. The following month the UN said there was nothing to support it.
8) US and British claims were supported by the inspectors According to Jack Straw, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix "pointed out" that Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax. Tony Blair said Iraq's chemical, biological and "indeed the nuclear weapons programme" had been well documented by the UN. Mr. Blix's reply? "This is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction," he said last September. "If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons, I would take it to the Security Council." In May this year he added: "I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not."
9) Previous weapons inspections had failed Tony Blair told this newspaper in March that the UN had "tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully". But in 1999 a Security Council panel concluded: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated." Mr. Blair also claimed UN inspectors "found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive biological weapons programme" until his son-in-law defected. In fact the UN got the regime to admit to its biological weapons programme more than a month before the defection.
10) Iraq was obstructing the inspectors Britain's February "dodgy dossier" claimed inspectors' escorts were "trained to start long arguments" with other Iraqi officials while evidence was being hidden, and inspectors' journeys were monitored and notified ahead to remove surprise. Dr Blix said in February that the UN had conducted more than 400 inspections, all without notice, covering more than 300 sites. "We note that access to sites has so far been without problems," he said. : "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew that the inspectors were coming."
11) Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes This now-notorious claim was based on a single source, said to be a serving Iraqi military officer. This individual has not been produced since the war, but in any case Tony Blair contradicted the claim in April. He said Iraq had begun to conceal its weapons in May 2002, which meant that they could not have been used within 45 minutes.
12) The "dodgy dossier" Mr. Blair told the Commons in February, when the dossier was issued: "We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports." It soon emerged that most of it was cribbed without attribution from three articles on the internet. Last month Alastair Campbell took responsibility for the plagiarism committed by his staff, but stood by the dossier's accuracy, even though it confused two Iraqi intelligence organizations, and said one moved to new headquarters in 1990, two years before it was created.
13) War would be easy Public fears of war in the US and Britain were assuaged by assurances that oppressed Iraqis would welcome the invading forces; that "demolishing Saddam Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk", in the words of Kenneth Adelman, a senior Pentagon official in two previous Republican administrations. Resistance was patchy, but stiffer than expected, mainly from irregular forces fighting in civilian clothes. "This wasn't the enemy we war-gamed against," one general complained.
14) Umm Qasr The fall of Iraq's southernmost city and only port was announced several times before Anglo-American forces gained full control - by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others, and by Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of Britain's defense staff. "Umm Qasr has been overwhelmed by the US Marines and is now in coalition hands," the Admiral announced, somewhat prematurely.
15) Basra rebellion Claims that the Shia Muslim population of Basra, Iraq's second city, had risen against their oppressors were repeated for days, long after it became clear to those there that this was little more than wishful thinking. The defeat of a supposed breakout by Iraqi armour was also announced by military spokesman in no position to know the truth.
16) The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch Private Jessica Lynch's "rescue" from a hospital in Nasiriya by American special forces was presented as the major "feel-good" story of the war. She was said to have fired back at Iraqi troops until her ammunition ran out, and was taken to hospital suffering bullet and stab wounds. It has since emerged that all her injuries were sustained in a vehicle crash, which left her incapable of firing any shot. Local medical staff had tried to return her to the Americans after Iraqi forces pulled out of the hospital, but the doctors had to turn back when US troops opened fire on them. The Special Forces encountered no resistance, but made sure the whole episode was filmed.
17) Troops would face chemical and biological weapons As US forces approached Baghdad, there was a rash of reports that they would cross a "red line", within which Republican Guard units were authorized to use chemical weapons. But Lieutenant General James Conway, the leading US marine general in Iraq, conceded afterwards that intelligence reports that chemical weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were wrong. "It was a surprise to me ... that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites," he said. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. We were simply wrong. Whether or not we're wrong at the national level, I think still very much remains to be seen."
18) Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD "I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there ... once we have the co-operation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them," Tony Blair said in April. Numerous similar assurances were issued by other leading figures, who said interrogations would provide the WMD discoveries that searches had failed to supply. But almost all Iraq's leading scientists are in custody, and claims that lingering fears of Saddam Hussein are stilling their tongues are beginning to wear thin.
19) Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis Tony Blair complained in Parliament that "people falsely claim that we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues, adding that they should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN. Britain should seek a Security Council resolution that would affirm "the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people". Instead Britain co-sponsored a Security Council resolution that gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust fund. Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, the resolution continues to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay in compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
20) WMD were found After repeated false sightings, both Tony Blair and George Bush proclaimed on 30 May that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories. "We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons," said Mr. Blair. Mr. Bush went further: "Those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons - they're wrong. We found them." It is now almost certain that the vehicles were for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis claimed - and that they were exported by Britain.
Reply
#33

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-19-2013 05:27 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

The question is when are George Bush and all his buddies finally going to get to cash in o. The Dinar????

The dinar thing is a scam. If you have any, find someone to buy them for more than you paid and be done with it.
Reply
#34

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-19-2013 05:56 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Quote: (03-19-2013 05:13 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Why is it nonsense?

Why is it that every chicken hawk never served?

For instance, I don't care about gay marriage because it has nothing to do with me.

Why do republicans care about gay marriage so much?

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

It's nonsense because you can make a valid argument about something that you don't necessarily have to have experience doing.

It's called...what's the word I am looking for...oh yeah, that's right.

THOUGHT.

You know the thing that you are supposed to have which the standard hamster babe you're trying to game doesn't.

Ha.

Quote:Quote:

you can make a valid argument about something that you don't necessarily have to have experience doing.

Exactly. I don't listen to people that have no idea what they are talking about.

Being a chicken hawk is...what's the word I am looking for...oh yeah, that's right.

A COWARD.

Or a p*ssy. Or a b*tch. Or a Male Cheerleader.

But I know you love male cheeleaders too.

Me?

I like female cheerleaders.

And that is were we differ.

And that is ok.
Reply
#35

Iraq War 10 Years On

It's fine with me if people who have never served in the military express pro-war sentiments. It's anyone prerogative to have an opinion. However, I have to say that I am very wary of people who are so gung-ho about sending other people to kill and die in their stead.

The perfect example:

[Image: 220px-46_Dick_Cheney_3x4.jpg]

Quote:Quote:

When Cheney became eligible for the draft, during the Vietnam War, he applied for and received five draft deferments. In 1989, The Washington Post writer George C. Wilson interviewed Cheney as the next Secretary of Defense; when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service".
Reply
#36

Iraq War 10 Years On

@ Farmageddon and tenderman,
100k off the Iraq Body Count Project.

I'm skeptical when those who haven't been in the field with boots on the ground say that they have good reasons for getting involved in wars. In my opinion, you don't truly understand it unless you've been there, on the sharp end of the stick, spent time in the Infantry or other combat units. To make a comparison to game, who understands it better? The kid just out of high school who has read every pickup book and blog, watched every RSD video or the older guy who has done thousands of approaches and closed countless times?

For example, in our recent history, non-veteran, non-combat experienced leadership has been responsible for getting the US involved in long, drawn out military expeditions, high in American casualties.
Woodrow Wilson: non-vet, leftist academic, US participation in WW1 "make the world safe for democracy"
Lyndon Johnson: fraudulent silver star, non-combatant, escalated US involvement in Vietnam
GW Bush Jr: evaded Vietnam draft via National Guard, non-combatant, OIF drawing manpower and resources away from OEF

we can compare that to

George Bush Sr: WW2 aviator, combat experienced, Panama and GW1 were brief, with minimal casualties.

"And of the number of civilians killed, how many were killed by US troops as opposed to those killed by other Iraqis or al Qaeda interlopers."
These conditions wouldn't have existed if we hadn't invaded.

"And don't say, "Well, al Qaeda wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for us." Horse dung."
Saddam Hussein and other Arab dictators were secular rulers. They have been noted for clamping down on Islamists in their own nations.

"Frankly, this alternative should scare the shit out of anyone, given where we are now."
Scare us? Why? Saddam could never invade the US.
Reply
#37

Iraq War 10 Years On

You guys are failing to remember that a state of war existed between the United States and Iraq not from 2003, but from 1992 onwards. 3/4ths of the country was a no fly zone patrolled 24 hours a day 7 days a week from 1992-2003 by coalition forces. Saddam forfeited the sovereignty of Iraq by invading a member nation of the United Nations. Not to mention the Iran-Iraq war that killed upward of one million people. What happened in 2003 was an extension of the first Persian Gulf war, not even a resumption of hostilities because Iraq was always hostile to coalition forces and fired upon them on a daily basis. When Saddam surrendered at the end of the first Gulf War his government signed an agreement stating they would abide by conditions laid out by the international community or risk hostilities being resumed, one of these conditions was to fully account for his chemical and biological weapons programs. He never provided that documentation therefore under the conditions of the cease-fire agreement the United States reserved the right to resume hostilities at any time. Not to mention removing Saddam Hussein from power was the official policy of the US government since 1998 when Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act".

There are several ways under international law that sovereignty can be revoked such as committing genocide, Saddam was guilty of this, using chemical or biological weapons on civilians, Saddam was guilty of this, invading and occupying neighboring states, Saddam was guilty of this, supporting international terrorism, Saddam was guilty of this (He used to send 25,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Under any metric, including moral and ethical considerations and even international law, removing Saddam Hussein from power was the best course of action. It was essential to move the country into a post Saddam era so that Iraqis could begin to federalize the differences between them.

Quote:Quote:

@ Farmageddon and tenderman,
100k off the Iraq Body Count Project.

Yes, 100,000 people killed by the parties of God and the enemies of a democratic Iraq, remnants of the former B'aathist state and Al Qaeda, Saalafist, and Wahhabi barbarians. Remember all those times 100 or 200 or 400 people were killed by suicide bombers? You're not trying to blame the United States for that, are you?

And if you want to do the numbers game, remember, we took your advice and didn't invade from 1992-2003 and lost a hell of a lot more people than we did after invading. During that time UNICEF estimates that between 4,000-6,000 people died every month of easily preventable maladies and lack of basic medical attention due to the sanctions regime. A regime that could have been lifted immediately if Saddam abides by the cease fire agreement. So, let's do the math, I'll use the low estimate, 48,000 people per year dead times eleven years equals 528,000 people dead.

Remember, there are very real consequences to inaction as well.
Reply
#38

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-19-2013 05:20 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

Quote: (03-19-2013 03:00 PM)TexasMade Wrote:  

Been deployed twice. Help me get out of debt twice. Got me the GI Bill and job experience. Got me to Thailand. I know Ali is pretty happy also haha.

Not that you could have paid off your debt - twice, pay for your education (work/loan/scholarship), and work/do a business and make money and eventually go to Thailand without participating in a near pointless was based on lies ...........

but then again for many people it beats having to think on you own doesn't it ??

You already know. Soldiers are instruments for politicans. We sign up and know we are pawns. Sad fact of life.

That being said, I know I would rather go to N. Korea over Iran. I have 12 more years of this shit. I think I need to reclass to Civil Affairs to go party in Africa before all of that goes down haha.

The cycle of disrespect can start with just an appetizer.
Reply
#39

Iraq War 10 Years On

And I never understood the idea that the United States invaded to "steal" the oil. Let's do that pesky little math thing again. Iraq only exports 30 billion dollars a year in oil and that is at 100% capacity. The United States, by even conservative estimates, has spent well over a trillion dollars trying to stabilize Iraq after nearly 40 years of atrocious dictatorship. It would take us another 40 years simply to recoup our investment, and that's if we shipped all the oil to ourselves. But we don't, because we didn't steal their oil, several Asian and European petroleum companies won contracts to the oil fields and some of them were American, but nothing is being stolen from Iraq.
Reply
#40

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-19-2013 10:38 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

And I never understood the idea that the United States invaded to "steal" the oil. Let's do that pesky little math thing again. Iraq only exports 30 billion dollars a year in oil and that is at 100% capacity. The United States, by even conservative estimates, has spent well over a trillion dollars trying to stabilize Iraq after nearly 40 years of atrocious dictatorship. It would take us another 40 years simply to recoup our investment, and that's if we shipped all the oil to ourselves. But we don't, because we didn't steal their oil, several Asian and European petroleum companies won contracts to the oil fields and some of them were American, but nothing is being stolen from Iraq.

Its not about stealing the oil, but controlling it.

The idea is too not allow a nation to sell too much so that oil and gas prices get too low. - Low prices means that the companies make less.

Furthermore, low prices means that developing nations have cheao energy with which to develop. - keep prices high means that developing nations have a harder time doing so - and competing less against the big boys.

Its about CONTROL - plus maintenance of the petrodollar system
Reply
#41

Iraq War 10 Years On

4,000-6,000 people died every month of easily preventable maladies and lack of basic medical attention due to the sanctions regime. A regime that could have been lifted immediately if Saddam abides by the cease fire agreement.

Remember, there are very real consequences to inaction as well.
[/quote]

Do you even listen to yourself while spouting illogical nonsense ??

1. People die from preventable disease due to sanctions.

Who imposed the sanction ??? (USA Gov't)

2. Sanctions based on the notion that Saddam was not complying with WMD inspections and is hiding stuff - so say USA Gov't.

3. Turns out there were no WMDs and he was in fact not hiding anything because you cant hide what you dont have - the US intelligence and the politicians knew this but wanted to invade for other reasons so they lied.

SO..... who was responsible for the deaths due to sanctions based on lies ........????? come on - the logic is not that hard to follow ....

ah yes .... USA Gov't.

and you make a conclusion that is based on no facts....:
"here are very real consequences to inaction as well."

...alrighty then...
Reply
#42

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-19-2013 07:01 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Ha.

Quote:Quote:

you can make a valid argument about something that you don't necessarily have to have experience doing.

Exactly. I don't listen to people that have no idea what they are talking about.

Being a chicken hawk is...what's the word I am looking for...oh yeah, that's right.

A COWARD.

Or a p*ssy. Or a b*tch. Or a Male Cheerleader.

But I know you love male cheeleaders too.

Me?

I like female cheerleaders.

And that is were we differ.

And that is ok.

So by your logic, the following guys are chickenhawks.

Abraham Lincoln.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower

All those guys supported wars, and none of them ever fired a shot or went in harms way.

Like I said, it's THOUGHT.

As opposed to THOUGHTLESSNESS.

And I hate to break it to you, but it has nothing to do with cheerleading.

Meanwhile, I think the cheerleader's megaphone is on the top of your head.

It rather constricting in that corner, isn't it? Hope you're not claustrophobic.
Reply
#43

Iraq War 10 Years On

Abraham Lincoln.
While Pres Lincoln did not participate in combat, he did volunteer as a company commander of militia forces that conducted operations. While they did not make contact, he put his money where his mouth was and served in direct combat forces.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Non-Vet FDR allowed the Communists to rule Poland, and allowed the repatriation of tens of thousands of anti-Communist soldiers to the USSR.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Remained stateside during WW1. I haven't read up on Eisenhower's performance but I suspect this REMF's battlefield performance is lacking.

Like I said, those who haven't been in the trenches typically don't know what they are talking about in war, or what they're doing before or after they've sent men out to the battle.
Reply
#44

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-19-2013 11:30 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Quote: (03-19-2013 07:01 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Ha.

Quote:Quote:

you can make a valid argument about something that you don't necessarily have to have experience doing.

Exactly. I don't listen to people that have no idea what they are talking about.

Being a chicken hawk is...what's the word I am looking for...oh yeah, that's right.

A COWARD.

Or a p*ssy. Or a b*tch. Or a Male Cheerleader.

But I know you love male cheeleaders too.

Me?

I like female cheerleaders.

And that is were we differ.

And that is ok.

So by your logic, the following guys are chickenhawks.

Abraham Lincoln.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower

All those guys supported wars, and none of them ever fired a shot or went in harms way.

Like I said, it's THOUGHT.

As opposed to THOUGHTLESSNESS.

And I hate to break it to you, but it has nothing to do with cheerleading.

Meanwhile, I think the cheerleader's megaphone is on the top of your head.

It rather constricting in that corner, isn't it? Hope you're not claustrophobic.

Tenderman, you talk a pretty good "game", but then all chicken hawks do, right?

Do you also "talk" about swooping girls, but when it comes down to the moment, you are too cowardly to have sex with a female?

Quote: (03-20-2013 12:22 AM)hazara Wrote:  

Abraham Lincoln.
While Pres Lincoln did not participate in combat, he did volunteer as a company commander of militia forces that conducted operations. While they did not make contact, he put his money where his mouth was and served in direct combat forces.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Non-Vet FDR allowed the Communists to rule Poland, and allowed the repatriation of tens of thousands of anti-Communist soldiers to the USSR.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Remained stateside during WW1. I haven't read up on Eisenhower's performance but I suspect this REMF's battlefield performance is lacking.

Like I said, those who haven't been in the trenches typically don't know what they are talking about in war, or what they're doing before or after they've sent men out to the battle.

And, Tenderman gets b*tch slapped.

But then again, Tenderman has probably gotten b*tchslapped on a daily basis since kindergarden.

That is what happens to chicken hawks that talk big but can't back it up.

Right Tenderman?

(Side note: Tenderman, I like your "older guy Game" posts. I just don't like you infatuation and lust for weak men and male cheerleaders. Nothing personal. Fair enough?)
Reply
#45

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-19-2013 11:16 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

Quote: (03-19-2013 10:38 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

And I never understood the idea that the United States invaded to "steal" the oil. Let's do that pesky little math thing again. Iraq only exports 30 billion dollars a year in oil and that is at 100% capacity. The United States, by even conservative estimates, has spent well over a trillion dollars trying to stabilize Iraq after nearly 40 years of atrocious dictatorship. It would take us another 40 years simply to recoup our investment, and that's if we shipped all the oil to ourselves. But we don't, because we didn't steal their oil, several Asian and European petroleum companies won contracts to the oil fields and some of them were American, but nothing is being stolen from Iraq.

Its not about stealing the oil, but controlling it.

The idea is too not allow a nation to sell too much so that oil and gas prices get too low. - Low prices means that the companies make less.

Furthermore, low prices means that developing nations have cheao energy with which to develop. - keep prices high means that developing nations have a harder time doing so - and competing less against the big boys.

Its about CONTROL - plus maintenance of the petrodollar system

This is absolutely false. Oil is an international commodity, priced on a global market. There is no way to "control" the oil market. And the last thing that any US administration wants is high energy prices. People will absolutely vote someone out of office if the gas bill gets too high.

A lot of oil politics is just saber rattling for show. Truth is, oil exporters need oil importers and vice versa. Look at Venezuela. Chavez was the biggest critic of the United States and yet, that is where almost all of Venezuela's oil went. Why? Because the US has the refinery capacity to deal with the heavy sour crude that Venezuela pumps. If you don't have a market in which to sell it, oil is just black sludge.
Reply
#46

Iraq War 10 Years On

Comparing Lincoln, FDR and Ike to people like Cheney and Romney, does not warrant a thoughtful response.

You are intellectually dishonest, a particularly distasteful trait in an educated individual.

If your knowledge of American military history is remiss, perhaps you might consider joining your local community college for a couple of courses in American history.

My god, Lincoln, who famously struggled with the moral questions of sending young men into battle to die. FDR, who resisted entry into the second world war until the homeland was invaded, and then IKE, a distinguished career officer who actually learned something from his tenure and passed along perhaps the most ominous warning in US history; the unchecked growth of military industrial complex.

Two republicans and a democrat. Three examples of real leadership in difficult times. Chicken-hawks? Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term.

Well done Tenderman.

By the way, I support mandatory military service for all citizens. We all serve, or nobody serves. You being the hawk you are, perhaps its not too late to stop by your local recruiting office for a tour of duty with your local National Guard unit. I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?
Reply
#47

Iraq War 10 Years On

Did anyone see the CNN segment about some world leaders wanting to bring former President Bush to justice for warm crimes? I know at least the South African Prime Minister wants to see this happen.

A man is only as faithful as his options-Chris Rock
Reply
#48

Iraq War 10 Years On

Quote: (03-20-2013 09:15 AM)LostGringo Wrote:  

I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?

Please don't. He'd be shot in the back by his own troops before they ever got boots on ground.
Reply
#49

Iraq War 10 Years On

This war was a bad choice.Actually it precipitated the crisis of 2008 or to be more accurate it brought it faster.Totally wrong decision from all aspects.The neocons proved completely failed in every level.However at the time it was difficult to oppose them.They acted in full arrogance manipulating evidence etc they did what they want in a display of power.
However US had some aces in sleeve and managed to counterbalance relatively for the heavy losses the Iraq war caused.After the defeat however the Germans saw the whole situation in a different light as a chance.
Reply
#50

Iraq War 10 Years On

I was there twice, not worth one Soldier's life.

Though I'm down with military adventurism. With the caveot that all those who beg and plead for it are the first on the beaches.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)