Enrique 0
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteBill just posted two of them:
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
-Rumsfeld, 2/7/03
"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly…weeks rather than months."
-Cheney, 3/16/03
I love seeing these quotes. They, in fact validate my point. These are answers to questions in terms of the operational time line of the invasion, not the occupation. Nice try though.
Oh please! You are nearly as good at rewriting history as Karl Rove.
Besides, what happened to those flowers that were to be strewn before the troops?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Gawain 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteBill just posted two of them:
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
-Rumsfeld, 2/7/03
"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly…weeks rather than months."
-Cheney, 3/16/03
I love seeing these quotes. They, in fact validate my point. These are answers to questions in terms of the operational time line of the invasion, not the occupation. Nice try though.
Oh please! You are nearly as good at rewriting history as Karl Rove.
Besides, what happened to those flowers that were to be strewn before the troops?
Prove me wrong. The veterans in my unit have shown me pictures of the gifts they received from Iraqis after the invasion.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six
>days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
>I love seeing these quotes. They, in fact validate my point. These
> are answers to questions in terms of the operational time line of the
> invasion, not the occupation. Nice try though.
So it is your opinion that we are not currently engaged in a conflict in Iraq? Hmm. Lot of body bags for a non-conflict. Perhaps you could call it "a limited police action" rather than a conflict.
>And again, if it was solely about oil, then we would have kept
> Saddam in power, and lifted the sanctions, allowed him to maintain
> his brutally tight control over Iraq. We then, would have shifted our
> attention to Saudi Arabia, with larger reserves and higher production
> capabilities.
IMO, the only people more wrong than the people who think it was all about the oil are the people who think it had nothing to do with the oil.
>days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
>I love seeing these quotes. They, in fact validate my point. These
> are answers to questions in terms of the operational time line of the
> invasion, not the occupation. Nice try though.
So it is your opinion that we are not currently engaged in a conflict in Iraq? Hmm. Lot of body bags for a non-conflict. Perhaps you could call it "a limited police action" rather than a conflict.
>And again, if it was solely about oil, then we would have kept
> Saddam in power, and lifted the sanctions, allowed him to maintain
> his brutally tight control over Iraq. We then, would have shifted our
> attention to Saudi Arabia, with larger reserves and higher production
> capabilities.
IMO, the only people more wrong than the people who think it was all about the oil are the people who think it had nothing to do with the oil.
Mike111 0
Ok i pose a question, i think you mentioned before that you opposed it right from the start.
If less casulaties had been sustainmed, would you have changed your view, or would you still be against it?
If less casulaties had been sustainmed, would you have changed your view, or would you still be against it?
kallend 2,146
QuoteOk i pose a question, i think you mentioned before that you opposed it right from the start.
If less casulaties had been sustainmed, would you have changed your view, or would you still be against it?
Lots of us are on record as opposing it from the start, and almost everything we predicted has come to pass.
You ask the wrong question, you should be asking why those who supported it from the start have not now changed their minds given all we know about "bad intel" (aka lies), piss poor planning for the aftermath of the invasion, no exit strategy, increase insurgency, escalating US troop deaths, etc., etc.
Here is a fairly good place to start reading.
Also from over a year ago http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1073670#1073670 and nothing has changed since.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Mike111 0
You ask the wrong question, you should be asking why those who supported it from the start have not now changed their minds given all we know about "bad intel" (aka lies), piss poor planning for the aftermath of the invasion, no exit strategy, increase insurgency, escalating US troop deaths, etc., etc.
Quote
it all depends where you draw the line at acceptable. Some people, and some who do, view the terrible loss which is happening as acceptable given the circumstances and do not belivee we should pull out. Others say the complete opposite.
Im not gonna say what i think but it does depend which way you look at it.
Thats nto disagreeing with you, just making a neutral observation of both sides of the camp
billvon 3,111
>If less casulaties had been sustainmed, would you have changed
>your view, or would you still be against it?
By "it" I assume you mean the current wars we are fighting?
Afghanistan - no problem with that. An Afghanistan group attacked us, and their government tried to protect them. That's what our military is for - to defend the US.
Iraq - I would have waited for the few months needed for UNSCOM to complete their inspection, then made a decision based on knowledge instead of ignorance.
If we had lost fewer people I would still be against the Iraq war. We think a lot about US losses, but often overlook the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis that were killed (and are still dying.) There has to be a very good reason to kill that many people, and "Saddam is a really bad sorta guy" is not sufficient to excuse acting like him.
>your view, or would you still be against it?
By "it" I assume you mean the current wars we are fighting?
Afghanistan - no problem with that. An Afghanistan group attacked us, and their government tried to protect them. That's what our military is for - to defend the US.
Iraq - I would have waited for the few months needed for UNSCOM to complete their inspection, then made a decision based on knowledge instead of ignorance.
If we had lost fewer people I would still be against the Iraq war. We think a lot about US losses, but often overlook the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis that were killed (and are still dying.) There has to be a very good reason to kill that many people, and "Saddam is a really bad sorta guy" is not sufficient to excuse acting like him.
Enrique 0
I agree.
In addition, I strongly believe that any person with more feelings and love towards others than patriotism would NOT support military action if the life of their loved ones were on the line...
Just my opinion.
In addition, I strongly believe that any person with more feelings and love towards others than patriotism would NOT support military action if the life of their loved ones were on the line...
Just my opinion.
Jimbo 0
QuoteIn addition, I strongly believe that any person with more feelings and love towards others than patriotism would NOT support military action if the life of their loved ones were on the line...
In which cases would you support violence as a tool to obtain a goal?
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Enrique 0
QuoteIn which cases would you support violence as a tool to obtain a goal?
Legitimate self defense... to repel an attack, not seek vengeance or financial or political gain at the expense of the lives of others, destruction, and pollution.
QuoteQuoteIn which cases would you support violence as a tool to obtain a goal?
Legitimate self defense... to repel an attack, not seek vengeance or financial or political gain at the expense of the lives of others, destruction, and pollution.
Don't run for public office then.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
Gawain 0
Quote>"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six
>days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
>I love seeing these quotes. They, in fact validate my point. These
> are answers to questions in terms of the operational time line of the
> invasion, not the occupation. Nice try though.
So it is your opinion that we are not currently engaged in a conflict in Iraq? Hmm. Lot of body bags for a non-conflict. Perhaps you could call it "a limited police action" rather than a conflict.
Where the hell did I say we weren't in a conflict? In the context of what he was saying, he was talking about the invasion. By invasion, I mean the initial thrust into Iraq, up to the point where Hussein no longer had any CCC or active government he could oversee.
Quote>And again, if it was solely about oil, then we would have kept
> Saddam in power, and lifted the sanctions, allowed him to maintain
> his brutally tight control over Iraq. We then, would have shifted our
> attention to Saudi Arabia, with larger reserves and higher production
> capabilities.
IMO, the only people more wrong than the people who think it was all about the oil are the people who think it had nothing to do with the oil.
I've never said it had nothing to do with oil either. But those that say that's all it's been about are about as wrong as one can be.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
billvon 3,111
>Where the hell did I say we weren't in a conflict?
When you claimed that Rumsfeld "validated your point" by saying the conflict would probably not last six months, when you had just said the opposite.
>By invasion, I mean the initial thrust into Iraq, up to the point
>where Hussein no longer had any CCC or active government he
>could oversee.
So it _is_ a conflict, but it's a different part of the conflict, so it's not really the same one?
I think you would crucify a democrat for playing such semantic games.
When you claimed that Rumsfeld "validated your point" by saying the conflict would probably not last six months, when you had just said the opposite.
>By invasion, I mean the initial thrust into Iraq, up to the point
>where Hussein no longer had any CCC or active government he
>could oversee.
So it _is_ a conflict, but it's a different part of the conflict, so it's not really the same one?
I think you would crucify a democrat for playing such semantic games.
You wanna call him John Kerry?
Sorry, you already wasted your vote.
Sorry, you already wasted your vote.
Then, maybe, it's simply a matter of time. Bear in mind that oil reserves won't last for long. That is why scientists and environmentalists are looking for alternate fuel sources.
Whatever the real reason behind the war it seems almost impossible to convince a US soldier that there is an alternate (i.e., hidden) interest being pursued. It is always safe to alude to "self defense".
But ... what do I know.