|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 29, 2006 16:45:48 GMT -5
The frustrating thing is that not a single democrat (in power) says terrorism isn't a problem, not one of them has said we shouldn't be doing this because they'll "never" attack us again anyway. Not one. They've maintained the ground war in Iraq will not, has not and can not fix a single fucking thing about the war on terror. They're right.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Nov 29, 2006 16:46:44 GMT -5
Let's call Iraq what it really is: Our government was so confused by the 9/11 attacks that they figured that the American people wouldn't stand for them doing nothing. Ok. So we go to Afghanistan, throw some bombs around, kill people, but in the process we keep the status quo in the process. It didn't exactly show that 'Merica is still tough so we decided to invade a country that we had already kicked the shit out of thinking it would be a piece of cake. It hasn't been and it wasn't and it never will be. For some reason, people still think that our government is organized and efficient and it's not. It never has been and it never will be. It's a Republic set up for elites. But Skvor, what about PNAC? Several of the people who made the decision to invade stated in the late '90s that we should invade Iraq. To say that this war was started simply to look tough after Afghanistan ignores the evidence that a lot of these guys had been planning to invade Iraq for years. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 29, 2006 16:49:25 GMT -5
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11
Exclusive: Rumsfeld Sought Plan For Iraq Strike Hours After 9/11 Attack
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2002
(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 29, 2006 16:52:46 GMT -5
Let's call Iraq what it really is: Our government was so confused by the 9/11 attacks that they figured that the American people wouldn't stand for them doing nothing. Ok. So we go to Afghanistan, throw some bombs around, kill people, but in the process we keep the status quo in the process. It didn't exactly show that 'Merica is still tough so we decided to invade a country that we had already kicked the shit out of thinking it would be a piece of cake. It hasn't been and it wasn't and it never will be. For some reason, people still think that our government is organized and efficient and it's not. It never has been and it never will be. It's a Republic set up for elites. But Skvor, what about PNAC? Several of the people who made the decision to invade stated in the late '90s that we should invade Iraq. To say that this war was started simply to look tough after Afghanistan ignores the evidence that a lot of these guys had been planning to invade Iraq for years. W clearly saw a chance to set up his legacy. C'mon, the guy who took it to the terrorists front yard and brought democracy to the middle east and they'd be our friends and give us oil in our easter baskets! He'd be a god among men. There were alot of reasons we invaded Iraq, a few might have even been pretty close to valid, one of them was posturing. LOOKING tough on terror has got to be right up there with actually being tough terror doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 29, 2006 16:53:23 GMT -5
It's not that simple, kMc, and quite frankly who the fuck cares if you were right. Having that argument over who's wrong or who's right is just semantical non-sense given the fact that people are being obliterated over there while everyone else is pointing fingers on who called what. Who the fuck cares, dude. skvor, I was speaking to RocDoc. I don't care if I was right. I was only replying to the small bit I could understand from RocDoc's rant. If only the guy could use proper sentence contruction... |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Nov 29, 2006 16:56:11 GMT -5
Let's call Iraq what it really is: Our government was so confused by the 9/11 attacks that they figured that the American people wouldn't stand for them doing nothing. Ok. So we go to Afghanistan, throw some bombs around, kill people, but in the process we keep the status quo in the process. It didn't exactly show that 'Merica is still tough so we decided to invade a country that we had already kicked the shit out of thinking it would be a piece of cake. It hasn't been and it wasn't and it never will be. For some reason, people still think that our government is organized and efficient and it's not. It never has been and it never will be. It's a Republic set up for elites. But Skvor, what about PNAC? Several of the people who made the decision to invade stated in the late '90s that we should invade Iraq. To say that this war was started simply to look tough after Afghanistan ignores the evidence that a lot of these guys had been planning to invade Iraq for years. I'm not refuting that. Dude, Bush took 9/11 as an oppurtunity to subvert our rights through snake oil lawyers (*cough Senators*) and invade Iraq. I really think that Bush and his team thought it was going to be really easy and thought that they would march in there as the great liberators and bring the Middle East to it's knees. I've said this a million times: Who the fuck thought that invading Iraq was a good idea? I wasn't even on the Senate subcommittee of Foreign Relations AND I STILL thought it was the worst idea. Horrible. Dumb. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 29, 2006 17:03:28 GMT -5
But Skvor, what about PNAC? Several of the people who made the decision to invade stated in the late '90s that we should invade Iraq. To say that this war was started simply to look tough after Afghanistan ignores the evidence that a lot of these guys had been planning to invade Iraq for years. I'm not refuting that. Dude, Bush took 9/11 as an oppurtunity to subvert our rights through snake oil lawyers (*cough Senators*) and invade Iraq. I really think that Bush and his team thought it was going to be really easy and thought that they would march in there as the great liberators and bring the Middle East to it's knees. I've said this a million times: Who the fuck thought that invading Iraq was a good idea? I wasn't even on the Senate subcommittee of Foreign Relations AND I STILL thought it was the worst idea. Horrible. Dumb. RocDoc thought it was a good idea. He still does. He just hates the execution of the deal. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Nov 29, 2006 17:06:07 GMT -5
Also, in the original Slate, the author needs to brush up on his history of Fascism. Mussolini and Evola were far more respected in the communities of Facist philosophy (and still are) than Hitler and the Nazis. Now I know that he was referring to the deft theft of power and individual rights, but Hitler was not the end all be all of Fascism and the fact that people gloss over the history of the movement over the most famous guy is just stupid. I know it's nit picking, but there's alot more to Fascist Europe than just Hitler.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 29, 2006 17:09:41 GMT -5
The subtexts of how this affected so many people within and without his circles of influence was fascinating...look up Margaszak's blog at this site. If it interests you. But I was blown away. Thanks for the link, Doc. I'll check it when I get a chance... |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Nov 29, 2006 17:10:23 GMT -5
You know one way you could win the war is play their game their way. Take all of the uniforms, dog tags, all identification off of the soldiers and start car bombing Terrorist sites. Start fighting the way that they fight. You would think after winning our independance from England through guerilla warfare and the problems of Vietnam with the guerilla warfare, we would just start employing it.
Just saying.........although I don't want to be there and I honestly could just care less about a bunch of violent-superstitious-hackwitted people who spend too much time praying to the fucking cookie monster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 29, 2006 17:11:36 GMT -5
Let's call Iraq what it really is: Our government was so confused by the 9/11 attacks that they figured that the American people wouldn't stand for them doing nothing. Ok. So we go to Afghanistan, throw some bombs around, kill people, but in the process we keep the status quo in the process. It didn't exactly show that 'Merica is still tough so we decided to invade a country that we had already kicked the shit out of thinking it would be a piece of cake. It hasn't been and it wasn't and it never will be. For some reason, people still think that our government is organized and efficient and it's not. It never has been and it never will be. It's a Republic set up for elites. From what I can tell . . . this is pretty spot -on. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 29, 2006 17:13:35 GMT -5
Let's call Iraq what it really is: Our government was so confused by the 9/11 attacks that they figured that the American people wouldn't stand for them doing nothing. Ok. So we go to Afghanistan, throw some bombs around, kill people, but in the process we keep the status quo in the process. It didn't exactly show that 'Merica is still tough so we decided to invade a country that we had already kicked the shit out of thinking it would be a piece of cake. It hasn't been and it wasn't and it never will be. For some reason, people still think that our government is organized and efficient and it's not. It never has been and it never will be. It's a Republic set up for elites. But Skvor, what about PNAC? Several of the people who made the decision to invade stated in the late '90s that we should invade Iraq. To say that this war was started simply to look tough after Afghanistan ignores the evidence that a lot of these guys had been planning to invade Iraq for years. This, too, is pretty spot -on. Let's face it, 9-11 was just the ticket needed to do something about it. Dubya was ready to let er rip (our military, that is) especially considering the unfinished business and what happened w/his Dad in the Gulf War. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 29, 2006 17:14:34 GMT -5
And beside the point. The Slate article was not about the nature of the war in Iraq, but about the parallel in the complicity of the war supporters and the people in Nazi Germany, and the techniques used by the Nazis that mirror our own. Yes, I know how skvor rarely misses the chance to out-indie anyone here. I get it, skvor. You're above the fray. But the article was not solely about Iraq, per se.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Nov 29, 2006 17:17:10 GMT -5
But Skvor, what about PNAC? Several of the people who made the decision to invade stated in the late '90s that we should invade Iraq. To say that this war was started simply to look tough after Afghanistan ignores the evidence that a lot of these guys had been planning to invade Iraq for years. I'm not refuting that. Dude, Bush took 9/11 as an oppurtunity to subvert our rights through snake oil lawyers (*cough Senators*) and invade Iraq. I really think that Bush and his team thought it was going to be really easy and thought that they would march in there as the great liberators and bring the Middle East to it's knees. I've said this a million times: Who the fuck thought that invading Iraq was a good idea? I wasn't even on the Senate subcommittee of Foreign Relations AND I STILL thought it was the worst idea. Horrible. Dumb. This sounds about right. They wanted to invade Iraq, and 9/11 provided them with the popular support to be able to do so. And I have no doubt that they thought it was going to be easy. They didn't do their homework as far as studying history and allowing the military strategists to do their job. It was a horribly planned operation, mainly due to arrogance and a lack of understaning of the culture and history of the region. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Nov 29, 2006 17:18:50 GMT -5
And beside the point. The Slate article was not about the nature of the war in Iraq, but about the parallel in the complicity of the war supporters and the people in Nazi Germany, and the techniques used by the Nazis that mirror our own. Yes, I know how skvor rarely misses the chance to out-indie anyone here. I get it, skvor. You're above the fray. But the article was not solely about Iraq, per se. What the fuck, dude? I am not above the fray and fuck what ever insecure complex you have douchebag. |
|
