Reply With Quote
Congress spends the money jack..are you ever going get to get that through your thick head? are you teaching your offspring that the president spends money?
They did find a trillion dollars worth of mineral deposits. That could pay for a little of what Barry is spending.
Congress spends the money jack..are you ever going get to get that through your thick head? are you teaching your offspring that the president spends money?
In the same way oil revenues paid for Iraq?
Ninja, please.
"What if solving the problems of the Afghans ultimately helps us solve our problems"
USA's problems are not in Afghanistan, or caused by Aghanistan, but caused 100% by Americans. America is rotting from within, under relentless attacks by corps and capitalists and their toxic products.
America is ed. "fixing/winning" Afghanistan has nothing to do with stopping America from ing itself.
Sensei, the government said they did not want to take oil from the Iraqis. I wish they did as if it was ours but thats a whole other subject.
In the same way oil revenues paid for Iraq?
Ninja, please.
Why don't you just tell us the answer to the your own question.
jack talking about the oil industry is ing hilarious.
"the government said they did not want to take oil from the Iraqis"
The Repug govt LIED. head's super-secret/never-published National Energy Task Force with oilco execs in early 2001 discussed maps of Iraq and Iraqi oil fields, two years before the invasion-for-oil and months before 9/11. iow, head's National Energy Plan was "Invade Iraq for Oil".
The no-other-possible-option urgency in early 2003 was really because Saddam had 60 oil contracts in negotiation with the French, Russian, and Chinese, excluding all US and UK oilcos.
Secondardy objective was to enrich the MIC corps like Halliburton by outsourcing to private contractors at much higher prices than insourcing, much like the Repugs did throughout all branches of govt, allowing private contractors to suck in/overcharge excessive $Bs in taxpayer money, as part of the oligarchic plan to plunder govt into incompetency and irretrievable debt.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-29-2010 at 11:27 AM.
So you think that if we had taken the Iraqi oil that was there we would have been better off?
1) It would have confirmed the worst beliefs of Al Qaeda, making it far easier for them to recruit new terrorists.
2) It would have confirmed the worst beliefs of many other countries and people regarding us as an imperial power, a very negative thing.
#1 would have killed people.
#2 would have made it far harder for US companies to do business overseas, by attaching the negative stigma of imperialism to US businesses directly costing US jobs.
Why do you want to help terrorists and cost people their jobs?
True, to an extent. Our military and presidents have taken it far beyond "the extent".
Now we're nation building, something I have non interest in. Those people over there dont deserve it, first off. They couldnt even collaborate intra-country long enough to drop their tribal differences which make Afghanistan such a ed up country.
The only thing the word Afghanistan says to the world is "The people inside these borders dont like one another, but they really dont like YOU."
Theyre not united under their flag like nearly every other country in the world, theyre just a hod-podge conglomerate of separate little fifedoms inter-competing for the national mantle.
Nothing to like or adhore.
After 9/11, America should have:
Located OBL and killed or captured him. anyone up who gets in the way, which included the Taliban (supposedly). So what the Taliban fell from power? So long as their revival was long enough for the US to complete its mission, so be it.
We shouldnt be there trying to secure the populace, we should leave. Let them determine what to do, even if its the Taliban again. If the US should find out theyre helping terrorists again, we're coming back again to kill and conquer, then leave again.
If its a game of Whack-a-Mole they want, I'll bring the stick.
Iraq is just a flat-out ing joke. Never should have went, shouldnt have stayed, should have left yesterday.
There was never a reason to go in the first place, Sadaam's bluff or not.
When will this country learn to avoid the Middle East and Muslim, radical countries? They arent like us, theyre nothing like us. They dont want to be anything like us and frankly, I dont want to be anything like them. There will be no kumbaya, we will never be greeted as Liberators because in their warped, brain-washed, religious minds, theyd much rather live under the tyranny of a Muslim leader who butchers his own populace, then be free under the stewardship of Western infidels. Their willful ignorance is a condemning factor on whether I care about them or not. Live, die, starve, learn...I dont give a . Here's a tip, you live in the desert...move.
If that were even remotely true, then I would say yes.Here is an honest question:
What if solving the problems of the Afghans ultimately helps us solve our problems?
Since it is not, it doesnt matter.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Pakistan (maybe), Libya, Yemen, Palestine...
All lost causes. Theyre like the bad neighborhood in your nearest city. Unless you have business there, dont go there. If you do have business there, bring a gun and dont plan on staying long.
The only country I can think of that shows a willingness to evolve is Iran, but its become obvious that the Iran problem is going to solve itself. The young generation in that country just flat-out doesnt behave or believe what the old guard does. Its just a matter of time there, although, is time on our side?
I doubt that, but with two other wars going on, it doesnt matter.
Oh, also, Pearl Harbor.
While I see the point youre making with it, the similarities stop with ignoring international matters.
The Axis were an organized, recognized and established military force that marched under its respective flags with the express doctrine of "conquer".
Terrorism in its different shapes is no such thing. They dont have the balls or conviction to organize a military to lash out. No, they take shots at their enemy under no flag, so no recognized country has to take responsibility for their actions. Weird part is, you can draw a very small circle around the area that feeds these zealots. They then retreat (ie lure) to obscure -holes drawing the enemy to them so they then fight on their own terms and turn what portion of the population that wasnt onboard with them from the beginning into their most ardent supporters.
I dont blame the normal, law-abiding Afghans for hating America. I have no clue and no ability to guess how many dead children it would take from my village to swear death to the invaders. Thats what the terrorists want, and its working...flawlessly. When we inevitably give up and leave, this will be a victory for them. This entire situation was always and will always be a no-win situation. Our government only exacerbates this with this protracted stay.
I think we would all be surprised how being a little more heavy-handed with Middle East countries would change what consi utes Terrorism. If the US said, "I know <insert terrorist or terrorist group> is in your country, being hidden and abetted by your citizens. I am holding you responsible for their actions. Youve been told. The capture of <insert terrorist here> would be of great importance to you and your country, you have my promise on that."
See what happens then.
Last edited by DarkReign; 06-29-2010 at 03:38 PM.
What if scientists could actually turn sand into ice cream? Are you saying that outcome wouldn't be worth the millions that I plan on giving to these scientists to try to come up with that?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...103?print=trueWe started talking about larger issues within the media, which I felt he was in a unique position to discuss. McChrystal was a spokesperson at the Pentagon during the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, his first national exposure to the public.
“We co-opted the media on that one,” he said. “You could see it coming. There were a lot of us who didn’t think Iraq was a good idea."
Co-opted the media. I almost laughed. Even the military’s former Pentagon spokesperson realized—at the time, no less—how massively they were manipulating the press. The ex–White House spokesperson, Scott McClellan, had said the same thing: The press had been “complicit enablers” before the Iraq invasion, failing in their “watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign [to sell the war] was succeeding.”
I rattled off a few names of other journalists. I named the writer who’d just done the profile on him for The Atlantic, Robert Kaplan.
“Totally co-opted by the military,” he said.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
