AROCES Posted October 21, 2008 #76 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Actually, the war is on Terrorism, and is not over. The Iraq issue is solved. On the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted October 21, 2008 #77 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism... Dubya just used the occasion to settle some old debts. What old debts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 21, 2008 #78 Share Posted October 21, 2008 What old debts? what crimes? what smelly plane? We been through this for a million times over the last year...give it a rest or read up on the old threads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzTide Posted October 21, 2008 #79 Share Posted October 21, 2008 There was a little difference there... Germany and Japan declared war on the US with backing of most of their population, the US was defending itself from an aggression and had therefore to assure that said would not happen again. Iraq was to to rid a country from a dictator and install a democratic government. That government was installed and that government is asking all foreign troops kindly to p*** off. Either we installed a government and heed its request or we say: shut up, you are occupied. If we do the latter we are responsible for their well being, as we were for Japan and Germany. Got some billions in small change? Really the current Iraq government wants no military assistance is what you’re saying. Because the current Iraq government would have the life span of a house fly if all foreign troops pulled out or stood by and watched right now. And by dealing with the insurgents we are looking out for the Iraqis well being. Examples Britain and the US are not taking their oil as everyone assumed they would. It's not British and US troops who keep blowing up power plants, water treatment plants, police stations, schools, bridges, government officials, etc. But Britain and the US are the ones who keep rebuilding them for the Iraqi people. Oh and if the British and US government took the 80 billion the Iraq government has it would pay a few months of the occupation. But it’s put the new government into a bad financial situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted October 21, 2008 #80 Share Posted October 21, 2008 what crimes? what smelly plane? We been through this for a million times over the last year...give it a rest or read up on the old threads You forgot what lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzTide Posted October 21, 2008 #81 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Iraq war vs WWII sorry not making the connection. Two totaly different senarios that really have no comparison. IMO My point was the occupation and how occupation takes time to make it successful. And they are not that different. How many times in the 70's and especially the 80's did we here the United States rebuilt Japan and Germany and now they are kicking our butts. We rebuilt there manufacturing while we allowed ours to fall into disarray. All of that was rebuilt during the occupation of their countries. Do you really think the first year or 2 was smooth in Germany and Japan? They didn't have the internet and television to recruit in 1946 like terrorist organizations do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 21, 2008 #82 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Really the current Iraq government wants no military assistance is what you’re saying. Because the current Iraq government would have the life span of a house fly if all foreign troops pulled out or stood by and watched right now. I don't agree with you on that... the government would last...it would just be the government of South Iraq. If you want to keep Iraq together you have to install another Saddam Hussein, if you don't the end result will be invariably the same, three countries with three governments ready to go at each others throat at any time and with the slightest excuse. The only thing we can control there is how much good money we want to throw after the money gone bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho_Sho Posted October 21, 2008 #83 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism... Dubya just used the occasion to settle some old debts. Whoa Whoa Whoa, no using middle names now!!! I’m still waiting for someone to say Bush planned 9/11 and knew it was going to happen so we could invade Iraq for oil. I have heard that a few times and surprised no one has said it yet. Conspiracy theories are the BEST!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 21, 2008 #84 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Whoa Whoa Whoa, no using middle names now!!! I’m still waiting for someone to say Bush planned 9/11 and knew it was going to happen so we could invade Iraq for oil. I have heard that a few times and surprised no one has said it yet. Conspiracy theories are the BEST!!!! How 'bout : He is a bad man...he tried to kill my daddy ? That was way before 9/11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzTide Posted October 21, 2008 #85 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Whoa Whoa Whoa, no using middle names now!!! I’m still waiting for someone to say Bush planned 9/11 and knew it was going to happen so we could invade Iraq for oil. I have heard that a few times and surprised no one has said it yet. Conspiracy theories are the BEST!!!! Well it couldn't be for oil because if so we're not getting any from Iraq..... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzTide Posted October 21, 2008 #86 Share Posted October 21, 2008 How 'bout : He is a bad man...he tried to kill my daddy ? That was way before 9/11 How did George W. Bush try till your father? Was your dad on the Texas death row? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho_Sho Posted October 21, 2008 #87 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Well it couldn't be for oil because if so we're not getting any from Iraq..... lol LOL When gas was up to almost $5.00 a gallon, It would have been nice to see some of this "War for oil" Business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 21, 2008 #88 Share Posted October 21, 2008 How did George W. Bush try till your father? Was your dad on the Texas death row? That was a quote from Dubya. As far as I know my father is still held in great esteem by the Texas Cattle Rancher and Hereford Association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzTide Posted October 21, 2008 #89 Share Posted October 21, 2008 LOL When gas was up to almost $5.00 a gallon, It would have been nice to see some of this "War for oil" Business. Damn straight and about everyone in the United States would have agreed at that point... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted October 21, 2008 #90 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Well it couldn't be for oil because if so we're not getting any from Iraq..... lol Have you seen the latest signing statement from Bush regarding iraqs oil? Who knows what is going on there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggs Posted October 21, 2008 #91 Share Posted October 21, 2008 LOL When gas was up to almost $5.00 a gallon, It would have been nice to see some of this "War for oil" Business. It's over $11 a gallon here in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzTide Posted October 21, 2008 #92 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I don't agree with you on that... the government would last...it would just be the government of South Iraq. If you want to keep Iraq together you have to install another Saddam Hussein, if you don't the end result will be invariably the same, three countries with three governments ready to go at each others throat at any time and with the slightest excuse. The only thing we can control there is how much good money we want to throw after the money gone bad. The current government would have no shot because as soon as our forces are gone the religious groups would start taking over this current government. So you’re following the Joe Biden suggestion. Well I can agree that northern Iraq has no business dealing with southern Iraq. But hey the Southern States felt the same in 1861. If we split them up then we'll possibly have another Korea or Vietnam. It is what it is but installing another leader like Saddam Hussein is nuts. You'd do better just bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age if that's the way you look at a situation. Why would you want to put a leader in power who is a Tyrant that murders and rapes his own people? Who attacks other country’s in his region. "And no I’m not talking about Bush as president." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterPo Posted October 21, 2008 #93 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I'm a bit late to this party but.... This is exactly what I meant by "perception"!! Thanks to the OP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzTide Posted October 21, 2008 #94 Share Posted October 21, 2008 It's over $11 a gallon here in the UK. I won't disagree that Europeans pay ALLOT more than us Americans. The problem is that the United States whole infrastructure and economy has been based on transportation which is based on cheap fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted October 21, 2008 #95 Share Posted October 21, 2008 How did George W. Bush try till your father? Was your dad on the Texas death row? Ummm I think QM was reffering to this http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/0.../bush.war.talk/ Plus Dubya had a few other reasons. Ha ha I used his middle name Besides dosn't Dubya like being called that? I hate my middle name "douglas" errrrr darn parents lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravergirl Posted October 21, 2008 #96 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I won't disagree that Europeans pay ALLOT more than us Americans. The problem is that the United States whole infrastructure and economy has been based on transportation which is based on cheap fuels. The price of fuel is what destroyed our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterPo Posted October 21, 2008 #97 Share Posted October 21, 2008 The price of fuel is what destroyed our economy. Without fuel you don't have an economy! Like it or not oil is the blood in the veins of the modern world. Someday it will be replaced. (I sure hope by something much much better not just for the sake of replacement!) But not today or tomorrow or next Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzTide Posted October 21, 2008 #98 Share Posted October 21, 2008 The price of fuel is what destroyed our economy. It just expedited what was coming anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted October 21, 2008 #99 Share Posted October 21, 2008 My point was the occupation and how occupation takes time to make it successful. And they are not that different. How many times in the 70's and especially the 80's did we here the United States rebuilt Japan and Germany and now they are kicking our butts. We rebuilt there manufacturing while we allowed ours to fall into disarray. All of that was rebuilt during the occupation of their countries. Do you really think the first year or 2 was smooth in Germany and Japan? They didn't have the internet and television to recruit in 1946 like terrorist organizations do now. One glaring difference is that Japan and Germany surrendered (unconditionaly) how could Iraq surrender under the same conditions, or why should Iraq surrender for that matter. Iraq no threat, Iraq pulled off 9/11 (nope), Taliban in Iraq, ummm nope don't see any, well not till after the U.S. invaded that is. What was Iraq guilty of exactly that required an all out invasion and a massive re-build ? Saddam bad, yes but really. Iraq was as dangerous as a 15 yr old toothless chihuahua. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted October 21, 2008 #100 Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) One glaring difference is that Japan and Germany surrendered (unconditionaly) how could Iraq surrender under the same conditions, or why should Iraq surrender for that matter. Iraq no threat, Iraq pulled off 9/11 (nope), Taliban in Iraq, ummm nope don't see any, well not till after the U.S. invaded that is. What was Iraq guilty of exactly that required an all out invasion and a massive re-build ? Saddam bad, yes but really. Iraq was as dangerous as a 15 yr old toothless chihuahua. Ask the Kurds, Iran, Kuwait and the familes of those found on mass graves if the toothless chihuahua was dangerous. Edited October 21, 2008 by AROCES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now