Things you won't hear in the U.S.

Yep. How bout this one.

"The Spirit of this Country is Totally Adverse to a Large Military Force".

- Thomas Jefferson
 
Cerise said:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." JFK
Click to expand...

cerise is quoting a democrat.

i'm buying a lottery ticket.
 
paul_valaru said:
Get out of THEIR country and go back to yours and stay there unless invited!
Click to expand...

We were invited. Saddam said; "If I don't follow these conditions of surrender, you may partake in further military operation".

We did. As per our Congress & the UN Security Council & teh surrender decree signed by Hussein.
 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/11/14/nbc-catches-abc-highlight-safer-better-life-iraq

NBC Catches Up With ABC to Highlight Safer, Better Life in Iraq
By Brent Baker | November 14, 2007 - 22:45 ET

Three weeks after ABC's World News aired the first of three stories then and since about significant declines in violence and improving living conditions in Iraq, NBC Nightly News caught up Wednesday night as anchor Brian Williams acknowledged: “We are all hearing more and more these days about a significant drop in violence and deaths in Iraq, even though 2007 some time ago became the bloodiest year of the war, yet for U.S. forces these new stats show a different trend.”

From Iraq, reporter Tom Aspell illustrated how life has improved:

A few months ago, Ali Hamid could not have sold balloons here on Jadriyah Street. He might have been kidnaped or killed. A few blocks away, Azar Habud might have been shot for giving Western-style haircuts in his barbershop. And nearby, Mohammed Hassan's ice cream shop is still busy, even though it was bombed twice in April, killing nine customers. Back then, explosions were a horrifying part of everyday life. Now, the U.S. military says rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq have dropped sharply in the last few months from 1,000 in June to fewer than 400 in October. And so have civilian deaths.
Click to expand...
<more>
Click to expand...
 
chcr said:
Agreed. Your conclusions are not, however, supported by this argument.

In other words, what you're really saying is all the bad shit is happening anyway. Yet we should continue to throw obscene amounts of money at Iraq? I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense at all and eventually (sooner probably rather than later) that kind of approach will destroy the country.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that if the well dries up and we end up with little or no oil from the Middle East it will drive up costs here in America to sky high levels; but maybe that is what we need. Maybe then the envirowackos would wake up to their folly and stop preventing drilling here; or maybe the government appeasers would stop listening to them.

It will be interesting to see what will happen when this new find in Brasil starts producing.
 
spike said:
I thought we were talking about Iraq. Not Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the old saw about how most of the attackers were Saudi born. Well, so was Bin Laden. He went to afghanistan. Ya think maybe those guys on 9/11 went there too? Hah! That's too simple.

The ties to Al Qaiida and Saddam have long been proven. I guess you thought GWB was kidding when he said you are either with us or you are with the terrorists. Saddam made his choice.

After 12 years and seventeen U.N. resolutions GWB did what no one before him had had the guts to do -- actually go in and enforce them.

How many resolutions do you believe we should have waited for? There were seventeen already and he had ignored them all.

Which resolution was going to be the magic bullet that he would finally abide by? The eighteenth; twenty-first; fifty-fifth; eighty-ninth?

spike said:
You think Iraqis are going to come fight us?
Click to expand...

Nah. They would smply sneak in in the dead of night and nuke a city, that's all. Why are you so dead set that it has to be Iraqis, anyway? Do they HAVE to be Iraqis for the threat to be real?

spike said:
Again, we were talking about being in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we wouldn't want to talk about the other very real threats out there would we? Let's get Iraq straightened out first and then move on to the next threat.

spike said:
Yes, I have no reason to believe a bunch of Iraqis are going to cause carnage in the US
Click to expand...

But Pakistani, Iranian, Syrian, Egyptian, Palistinian radicals with a Pakistani nuke are okay with you? Lody, Lody, please, praise Jesus don't let it be those eeeeeeeeevil Iraqis!
 
paul_valaru said:
So you have the god given right to do what you want on foreign soil to have your version liberty brought worldwide?

Because that is what militant extremist think too, just replace liberty with whatever they believe in.
Click to expand...

So what is your version of liberty?
 
chcr said:
Yes, but a democrat that got us into a meaningless war with lies and misdirection so...
Click to expand...

Um ... he merely escalated a war that was already being prosecuted. Eisenhower started the mess. Note the part about 1954-1975. Kennedy wasn't elected until 1960. You really need to brush up on your history. :nerd:

http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/history/index.html

The Second Indochina War, 1954-1975, grew out of the long conflict between France and Vietnam. In July 1954, after one hundred years of colonial rule, a defeated France was forced to leave Vietnam. Nationalist forces under the direction of General Vo Nguyen Giap trounced the allied French troops at the remote mountain outpost of Dien Bien Phu in the northwest corner of Vietnam.

...

South Vietnam Under Ngo Dinh Diem
Using SEATO for political cover, the Eisenhower administration helped create a new nation from dust in southern Vietnam. In 1955, with the help of massive amounts of American military, political, and economic aid, the Government of the Republic of Vietnam (GVN or South Vietnam) was born. The following year, Ngo Dinh Diem, a staunchly anti-Communist figure from the South, won a dubious election that made him president of the GVN. Almost immediately, Diem claimed that his newly created government was under attack from Communists in the north. Diem argued that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV or North Vietnam) wanted to take South Vietnam by force. In late 1957, with American military aid, Diem began to counterattack. He used the help of the American Central Intelligence Agency to identify those who sought to bring his government down and arrested thousands. Diem passed a repressive series of acts known as Law 10/59 that made it legal to hold someone in jail if s/he was a suspected Communist without bringing formal charges.

...

December 1961 White Paper
In 1961, President Kennedy sent a team to Vietnam to report on conditions in the South and to assess future American aid requirements. The report, now known as the "December 1961 White Paper," argued for an increase in military, technical, and economic aid, and the introduction of large-scale American "advisers" to help stabilize the Diem regime and crush the NLF. As Kennedy weighed the merits of these recommendations, some of his other advisers urged the president to withdraw from Vietnam altogether, claiming that it was a "dead-end alley."

In typical Kennedy fashion, the president chose a middle route. Instead of a large-scale military buildup as the White Paper had called for or a negotiated settlement that some of his advisers had long advocated, Kennedy sought a limited accord with Diem. The United States would increase the level of its military involvement in South Vietnam through more machinery and advisers, but would not intervene whole-scale with troops. This arrangement was doomed from the start, and soon reports from Vietnam came in to Washington attesting to further NLF victories. To counteract the NLF's success in the countryside, Washington and Saigon launched an ambitious and deadly military effort in the rural areas. Called the Strategic Hamlet Program, the new counterinsurgency plan rounded up villagers and placed them in "safe hamlets" constructed by the GVN. The idea was to isolate the NLF from villagers, its base of support. This culturally-insensitive plan produced limited results and further alienated the peasants from the Saigon regime.
Click to expand...
 
jimpeel said:
Ah, yes, the old saw about how most of the attackers were Saudi born. Well, so was Bin Laden. He went to afghanistan. Ya ytthing maybe those guys on 9/11 went there too? Hah! That's too simple.
Click to expand...

So what does that have to do with Iraq?

The ties to Al Qaiida and Saddam have long been proven.
Click to expand...

What? You mean that they didn't like each other?

Not even the diehard warhawks try and make that connection but you're going to try and justify the Iraq debacle with 9/11 attacks. Laughable.

I guess you thought GWB was kidding when he said you are either with us or you are with the terrorists. Saddam made his choice.
Click to expand...

There's a hell of a lot of countries and people that aren't with him. Justified too.

After 12 years and seventeen U.N. resolutions GWB did what no one before him had had the guts to do -- actually go in and enforce them.
Click to expand...

Israel has more resolutions against them. Do you want us to spend a trillion taxpayer dollars invading them?

How many resolutions do you believe we should have waited for? There were seventeen already and he had ignored them all.

Whish resolution was going to be the magic bullet that he would finally abide by? The eighteenth; twenty-first; fifty-fifth; eighty-ninth?
Click to expand...

I would wait until he was a threat.


Nah. They would smply sneak in in the dead of night and nuke a city, that's all. Why are you so dead set that it has to be Iraqis, anyway? Do they HAVE to be Iraqis for the threat to be real?
Click to expand...

We were talking about the Iraq war remember? Iraqis are not a credible threat to us. Why not concentrate on the countries that had something to do with the attack on us?

Yeah, we wouldn't want to talk about the other veruy real threats out there would we? Let's get Iraq straightened out first and then move on to the next threat.
Click to expand...

I'd love to talk about the real threats, which Iraq isn't.

But Pakistani, Iranian, Syrian, Egyptian, Palistinian radoicals with a Pakistani nuke are okay with you? Lody, Lody, please, praise Jesus don't let it be those eeeeeeeeevil Iraqis!
Click to expand...

You keep trying to justify the Iraq war by bringing up other countries. Could you go take that logic class that was mentioned before and come back?
 
Gonz said:
Is it possible to FORCE liberty on anyone?
Click to expand...

No, but those who gather here seem to believe that the Arabic people not only do not deserve liberty but that they do not want it either. They believe that the Iraqi people are happier with the foot of a strongman on their necks; and that they cannot function as human beings without being led by a brutal dictator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top