9/11/2001 - Islamists terror attack, What really happened, before???

Someone said:
What is your opinion...
Click to expand...
That was then, this is now.

Just stay out of the way and you likely won't get hurt.

Navel gazing is so yesterday.

The solution doesn't require consideration of your feelings.

That it never has is obvious to all.
 
Prince_James said:
How have we failed? We've met every objective so far and lost only 3,000 men in 4 years?
Click to expand...

Leftists want the U.S. to fail in Iraq. Like fascist muslims, they don't want a free democracy in Iraq, and they hate GWB so bad after their failed attempt to steal the 2000 election, they're willing to sacrifice a country (Iraq) to terrorists and radical muslim groups just so they can claim how the U.S. "failed".
 
Its not the leftists that are sacrificing Iraq. Its the hubris of Americans who think they have a right to determine what the Iraqis (and the rest of the world) should live like. Perhaps the rest of teh world needs to start deciding what Americans should live like.
 
S.A.M. said:
Its not the leftists that are sacrificing Iraq. Its the hubris of Americans who think they have a right to determine what the Iraqis (and the rest of the world) should live like. Perhaps the rest of teh world needs to start deciding what Americans should live like.
Click to expand...

Yea, freedom and democracy are such "terrible" things. :rolleyes:
 
S.A.M. said:
Its not the leftists that are sacrificing Iraq. Its the hubris of Americans who think they have a right to determine what the Iraqis (and the rest of the world) should live like.
Click to expand...
Saddam gave us that right (re: Iraq) when he invaded Kuwait and then violated the terms of the armistice.
 
What is that, the 10th or 20th reason we were given for Iraq? When are they going to tell the truth? Democracy brought them an Islamic Republic, and our guy Chalabi hardly got a vote. Things are much worse in Iraq now than under Saddam, I'm sorry to say. I would not have wanted the Iraq adventure to fail, but it did. We are losing way more troops than is typical in any other occupation. The actual war was accomplished rather quickly.

MayanArch, your assertions are laughably infantile. We supported the Taliban long after Beruit.

This isn't just a case of trying and failing, the Bush administration deliberately ignored anyone telling them what could really happen. They were just following the Project for a New American Century script with no concern for truth or the well being of any Iraqi. Bush is a criminal. After he leaves office, he will be prosecutable for his many crimes.
 
How have we failed? We've met every objective so far and lost only 3,000 men in 4 years?
Click to expand...
Aside from deposing Saddam and defeating hsi army, we have failed every one of our stated objectives in this debacle.

Including the most important one - getting out quickly.

mayanarch said:
To reiterate what was said earlier............the only other major confilict to lose LESS soldiers was the Spanish-American War. The US Soldiers have conducted this war brilliantly........
Click to expand...

And if you are going to compare with other wars, instead of other occupations (this has been by far the most costly and screwed up occupation in US history, in both persons and money, etc), the comparison should be adjusted for circumstance. Even in the Vietnam War we didn't have this kind of trauma care. The soldiers killed should be at least doubled, possibly even tripled, for an accurate sense of how violent this occuaption has been. And of course it's taking us years to stalemate it, if we are allowed that outcome.

A win would have had to have happened in the first year. What we are doing now is adjusting to having lost, getting the best deal we can.
mayanarch said:
well, neither did anyone in WWII sign up to defend Bastogne, St. Maire Eglise, or any of the other pissy little towns they ended up defending.
Click to expand...
BS. That's exactly what they signed up for. And did. And did without attacking the residents and citizenry in general.
mayanarch said:
The other side is clear as to when this started. They claim it did when we helped create the state of Israel and have been gunning for a fight since then. It should have been crystal clear to us when they bombed the embassy in Beruit.
Click to expand...
You seem to have mixed up Islamic jihad and Iraq.
 
funkstar said:
To be fair, it is all too easy to blame the Clinton administration for not acting on Al Qaida, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. The amount of information and disinformation the intelligence services have to deal with is staggering, and it might only be clear what the markers were after the fact.

I also don't agree that Clinton would have been reluctant to go after Bin Laden for fear of reprisals. If the twentieth century has taught us anything, it has taught us that one does not placate the tyrant by bending to his will. And Clinton was not a timid appeaser.
Click to expand...

Clinton's response to the Somalian "black hawk down" incident shows where his mind was. For better or worse, he did not have the stomach to embark on the project that Bush did. But who does have the stomach, with our comfy way of life...
 
pjdude1219 said:
actuslly iraq did have legitimate reasons for invading kuwait
Click to expand...

Buffalo Roam said:
:eek::roflmao::wallbang:
Click to expand...

Saddam had legitimate quarrel with Kuwait. Kuwait was selling oil at a very low price which Iraq had to adjust to. The thing is, Saddam wanted to spend Iraqi oil revenue money on reconstruction after the 8 year Iraq - Iran war, and because of Kuwait's oil policies those oil revenues were very low. Kuwait's oil policy were directly impacting Iraq, in a pretty negative way. And since Kuwait, according to Saddam, is nothing but a separatist province that got its independence because of American backing, that gave Saddam even more reason to go after the renegade province. The cassus beli was there... at least according to what I've been reading so far.

I wonder if European countries under the same circumstances would not have done the same...
 
otheadp said:
Clinton's response to the Somalian "black hawk down" incident shows where his mind was. For better or worse, he did not have the stomach to embark on the project that Bush did. But who does have the stomach, with our comfy way of life...
Click to expand...

Clinton was planning to assassinate Bin Laden with cruise missiles. The problem was we would have had to kill some important members of Jordan's royal family at the same time. If it were possible, it would have been done. It's not like he was doing nothing.

Would the Republican congress have voted for invading Afghanistan? Right. They were too busy trying to take Clinton down. Letting him appear as commander of a war was the last thing they wanted to do.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Clinton was planning to assassinate Bin Laden with cruise missiles. The problem was we would have had to kill some important members of Jordan's royal family at the same time. If it were possible, it would have been done. It's not like he was doing nothing.
Click to expand...
Jordanian? Could you provide a link please? Sounds interesting... What on earth did the Jordanian monarchs had to do with Bin Laden?

Would the Republican congress have voted for invading Afghanistan? Right. They were too busy trying to take Clinton down. Letting him appear as commander of a war was the last thing they wanted to do.
Click to expand...

If you watch Youtube videos of party leaders from the 90's you would see reversed roles: Democrats REALLY wanted to invade Iraq, and Republicans were adamantly against it. What the hell happened?
 
Saddam had legitimate quarrel with Kuwait. Kuwait was selling oil at a very low price which Iraq had to adjust to.
Click to expand...
That was a combination tactic intended to bankrupt Saddam; the other part was demanding repayment of what Saddam had understood to be gifts of support against Iran as if they had been loans - calling the loans while driving down his income, in the aftermath of a war.

They were also slant drilling into Iraqi territory, to tap oil not physically in Kuwait.

And Kuwaiti money was helping finance Islamic jihad and other religiously based enemies of Saddam's pro-Western government.

otheadp said:
What on earth did the Jordanian monarchs had to do with Bin Laden?
Click to expand...
The Jordanian royal family has had a front row seat for the Palestinian events, and no great oil wealth to insulate their country. They are also in kind of an odd position with regard to the US spreading "democracy" by force of arms.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Weren't they stealing Irai oil? Can't they afford their own army? We defended the oil and American business interests, not Kuwait.
Click to expand...

thats exactly what they were doing. the built well on the border and were taking oil from iraqi fields
 
otheadp said:
Saddam had legitimate quarrel with Kuwait. Kuwait was selling oil at a very low price which Iraq had to adjust to. The thing is, Saddam wanted to spend Iraqi oil revenue money on reconstruction after the 8 year Iraq - Iran war, and because of Kuwait's oil policies those oil revenues were very low. Kuwait's oil policy were directly impacting Iraq, in a pretty negative way. And since Kuwait, according to Saddam, is nothing but a separatist province that got its independence because of American backing, that gave Saddam even more reason to go after the renegade province. The cassus beli was there... at least according to what I've been reading so far.

I wonder if European countries under the same circumstances would not have done the same...
Click to expand...

:wtf::roflmao::wallbang:

No, Saddam didn't, it is called market price, on a world market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top