Soldiers facing more attacks..

[NightTrain]

I agree with Eric - Amen, Rev!! Mighty fine.


Spillmind, let's not get into semantics here. I know I only listed 3, and I expected you to answer the hypothetical question posed. Instead you skirted around the question like you typically do instead of answering it forthrightly. I know I said 'lesser of 8 evils' instead of 3, do you think any Prez in the history of the USA has only had 3 options?? Please don't pretend you didn't understand my point. Here's your chance to shine! You don't like how things have been done, so now you're in the driver's seat. Impress me!

It wasn't Iraq in particular; it could have been any country. You seem to have a thing for our meddling in other country's affairs, so my hypothetical question was a generic country. I gave you a political situation and some choices with how you would deal with it.

The three choices were A, B or C. They were possible solutions to the problem posed, they WEREN'T stand alone statements... I thought that was pretty clear, but if it wasn't, my apologies. They were intended to get you thinking of what the advisors would be suggesting. It should be abundantly clear now, yes?

Did you like 'Squawked'? Thanks, I reserve that only for special occasions. I also enjoy using 'clucking', but squawked just felt right, somehow.

I've already lined you out on why we invaded Iraq, and you certainly didn't refute any of my points - you referred me to a couple of entertaining but informationally starved Socialist rags, but offered no facts to counter mine. Do you really want me to sit down here and re-write it all again? You couldn't argue with it before; what makes you think you can now?

but again, you evade the question as to why it's suddenly the right thing to do to free these people. BS!

WTF do you want me to say? How about, 'Sorry we're late.'

the lesser of two evils may apply in the filthy slimy political race for (p)resident, you can't tell me the coups in central america and south america, africa were all to free the people. do a little research into shell's involvement in central america. how about chevron in africa.

Well, I don't share your conviction that the America government is composed of a bunch of ruthless, bloodthirsty bastards that will cheerfully behead infants in order to make a buck. The world for you must truly be a dark and scary thing for you. I actually have faith in people & believe that most are indeed innately good. There are a shitload of murderous thugs that deserve to die slow, painful deaths, but I believe that the majority of people are decent. I believe the ratio is, for the most part, constant - no matter what nationality, race or religion.

I truly find your suspicion of Oil companies running the world entertaining, to say the least... I keep getting reminded of a cheesy grade 'B' Hollywood flick when I read your theories of How The World Works. I'm not trying to be insulting, it's the honest truth.

I've worked for huge oil companies, in fact, Friday last week was my last day at a major oil player. I worked with hundreds of those people. Guess what? They're normal, friendly, funny, kid raising people! I used to work at a freight company too. Guess what? There were more assholes at the freight company than at the oil company, per capita! How do you account for that? I wonder if it's the Freight Companies of the world that are secretly pulling the strings behind wars! I can hear it now : "It's all about the FREEIIIGHT, Man!!" and "No blood for Kenworth!"

i mean, to sit there and say: 'More mistakes have been made by doing nothing,than taking action' ...how on earth do you hope to prove a statement like this?

Remember a little fella that went by the handle 'Adolf' in the late '30s? I suggest you read up on the years leading up to WWII if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I've been up for 18 hours now. I'm going to bed.

 

[spillmind]

ahhh jim:

why would you pray for death? are you a christian? i just can't take your warmongering seriously from behind your keyboard. you are the type of person who perpetuates death and disorder. congratulations. good american my ass, not in my book!
i really gave you more credit than this post, my fault for giving you the benefit of the doubt. that'll teach me!

NT: ok look: i don't need to impress you. you haven't impressed me in the slightest. ok, maybe with your unwavering support, albeit completely and disproportionate bais. um congratulations to you too, (or something)

not SORRY WE'RE LATE... damn i ahve to admit this is like banging my head against a wall! you can't come up with a good reason why we didn't invade then! when it was right after the attacks! after they were on our payroll! when his murder rate was ridiculously high! and you accuse *ME* of skirting questions?! how do you take yourself seriously? i mean, really?!

go on thinking politicians get into politics to do good. it may a thought in grad school, but nothing more once they get into the industry. show me a clean one. even one! and then let's get off this tangent.

hahahah you say: 'Please don't pretend you didn't understand my point.' but then you say some shit like you worked for an oil company. normal people. yeah, i'm sure. so you can tune out the corruption. personally, i don't give a damn if it's the frieghter company or the oil company (which TOTALLY EXPLAINS why you are so damned conditionally BAIS, and devoid of objectivity), it's still corruption if you need to buy off a politician to get him to vote in favor of your 'work'. zoooooom! another one flies right by your head. (again)

comparing saddam to hitler? dude, you have reached so far, you've lost sight of my points in my original post. in fact, you are now further reinforcing my point, possibly unwittingly.
since you cannot answer them, instead you chose to pick apart tangents, i'll assume you AGREE with my views as stated earlier. apparently our goverment is perfect. and any imperfections are fogiveable. excuse you.


can ANYONE answer my questions posed in my first posts?

1) why then wasn't Saddam depcited as the epitomy of evil immediately? (referring to why no removal in 91')

2) why is he now, now that it (coincidentally) suits our purpose?

3) why shamelessly plug the humanitarian issue, when we all know it's total and utter BULLSHIT?

i'll be waiting, but my expectations are very low at this point.

 

[jimnyc]

why would you pray for death? are you a christian? i just can't take your warmongering seriously from behind your keyboard. you are the type of person who perpetuates death and disorder. congratulations. good american my ass, not in my book!
i really gave you more credit than this post, my fault for giving you the benefit of the doubt. that'll teach me!

I am a non practicing catholic, as if it matters. I pray for the death of those responsible for 9/11, terrorists in general & those that assist them in any way. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion! It's ridding the world of evil scumbags, therefore making it a much nicer place for all of us to live.

I'm not a good American in your book? Now ask me if I really give a shit! What makes a good American anyway? Was there something in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that asks me to allow terrorists to roam the earth without any fear of retribution? Does anything relating to America ask me to not pray for the death of scumbags? You're basing your accusations that I am not a good American based on your religious beliefs! You can now bend over and stick those beliefs directly up your liberal ass.

1) why then wasn't Saddam depcited as the epitomy of evil immediately? (referring to why no removal in 91')
2) why is he now, now that it (coincidentally) suits our purpose?3) why shamelessly plug the humanitarian issue, when we all know it's total and utter BULLSHIT?

1- Saddam has been known AND labeled for his evil ways for a LONG time. We tried to work with him. We tried diplomatic resolutions. We tried force in the hopes he would back off. Then 9/11 happened. The world as we know it has changed. Time for different approaches, and in my opinion it's been long overdue.

2- See answer #1. It suits our purpose alright, and our purpose is to eradicate scumbags that spread fear throughout the world.

3- Part humanitarian, part world fear. One is being accomplished by completing the second!

 

[spillmind]

'I pray for the death of those responsible for 9/11, terrorists in general & those that assist them in any way.'

see rumsfeld's story:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld_iraq_3

and get a FREAKING CLUE.

you still haven't ANSWERED THE QUESTION. why did he suddeny become SO EVIL A DECADE LATER? evil enougu to invade...

lame.

i knew it.

 

[jimnyc]

Just because Rumsfeld doesn't believe Iraq & Saddam didn't play a part in 9/11 doesn't mean they aren't terrorists. Do you even know what a terrorist is? Saddam and his regime tried using fear tactics and the killing of innocent people to make himself more powerful. Talk about needing to get a clue. You really need some serious comprehension courses. This is at least the 3rd time you have replied as if I said something else. So, were/are there any terrorists in Iraq and have they assisted in terrorism in any way? The answers are a resounding and factual yes! I broke up my hatred for terrorists into 3 explicit categories. You linked support of your assertions to just one, then tell me to get a clue?

As to your question. Are you rephrasing it? I CLEARLY answered all 3 of the questions you asked previously. You demanded someone answer you. I did. You ignore that and call me lame.

Please, put more effort into reading my posts. Quite frankly, I'm getting embarrassed for you. Admit you have literacy issues and I'll stop picking on you.

 

[eric]

Hey Nillmind,

I think your doing too many BONG HITS "DUDE" !

When I was a kid like you, idealistic, broke, and bitter towards society, I had the same rightous know it all attitude you have. Keep in mind that intelligence and ideals need to be tempered by life experience.

And life experience tells you that not all matters are as black and white as they may seem. There is not allways a win - win solution.
Sometimes you must pick the lesser of two evils.

You want answers why we invaded Iraq, but the only valid answer to you is "FOR THE MONEY", "FOR THE OIL". Maybe this has SOME truth to it, but so what. If dick makes a couple more millions rebuilding the oil industry, who cares? Iraq benefits financially, we have a reliable source of oil, and less dependence on Asshole Arabia.

Did some innocent people die in the process, sure, but it was minimal compared to the butcher who was there, and at least these people have a future to look forward to. Tell me in good faith they will not be better off. Look at Germany and Japan.

Finally I'll tell you I used to fight the system, like you, but have learned that sometimes it is necessary to play along instead, cut a few deals, make some real money, then you are in a position where people actually listen to your opinions. Now you have leverage to affect real change.

 

[Creek]

That's right Jim...he insults himself with his childish accusations at us.I was gona offer spillmind a free publication of our weekly news letter..but not now.

I suppose he blames us for the L.A. riots too,and the ozone...and a half dozen other trumped up ideas he feels we are guilty of.

He must be on felony probation..or something...cause he sure is ticked at the majority.

He also uses his premises,and world opinion as facts in the cases he presents to us...It's almost to the point..he'd be upset with our favorite color also....I hope we can get through to this guy...He just needs a little guidance..and a friend...and he sure is going a hell of a way about it....

Creek

 

[jimnyc]

My favorite color is black!

So spilly, you have a problem with that?

 

[5stringJeff]

Allow me (I was sick yesterday or I would have been on here sooner:

1. Why didn't we get Saddam in '91. The politics of the day were much different, and everyone seems to have forgotten this. The US-led coalition was built around the rallying cry of the liberation of Kuwait. It was never an option for some of these countries to go to war against Saddam, who, in their minds, was a legitimate leader. There was no way that GHW Bush could have convinced Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. to drive to Baghdad, even if he had wanted to. While Saddam was depicted as evil (as well he should have) it was not plitically possible to oust him in '91.

2. He has been, this is the first time we have a) had a willing CinC, and b) a link between Saddam and another organization that poses a direct threat to the US (al-Qaeda).

3. Humanitarian issues were "plugged" as the *only* pretense for troop deployment into Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. None of those three countries could have done anything to America if they had wanted to. Iraq, on the other hand, was pursuing nukes and harboring members of a terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. So think of the humanitarian piece as an added bonus, if you will - as callous as that may sound.

Jeff

Originally posted by spillmind
:can ANYONE answer my questions posed in my first posts?

1) why then wasn't Saddam depcited as the epitomy of evil immediately? (referring to why no removal in 91')

2) why is he now, now that it (coincidentally) suits our purpose?

3) why shamelessly plug the humanitarian issue, when we all know it's total and utter BULLSHIT?

i'll be waiting, but my expectations are very low at this point.

 

[spillmind]

i won't have time to reply tonight.

but first: 'Admit you have literacy issues and I'll stop picking on you.' sure, single me out since i don't share your nuke 'em views. and keep rallying around those even more challenged than i. why do you think that is?

btw, i'll take an IQ side by side with you any day.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
i won't have time to reply tonight.

but first: 'Admit you have literacy issues and I'll stop picking on you.' sure, single me out since i don't share your nuke 'em views. and keep rallying around those even more challenged than i. why do you think that is?

btw, i'll take an IQ side by side with you any day.

You haven't been singled out. Read other posts and you'll see I've found a few nitwits like you!

We probably won't be side by side anytime soon, but I know what my IQ is already. I score 135-145 on just about every test I've ever taken. I could care less what your IQ is though, it still doesn't lend a hand to your reading comprehension skills!

 

[eric]

Awe !

He feels picked on by us ! You know maybe if he would drop the morally superior, demanding, demeaning tone in his posts he would get a little more respect.

Not all of us agree on everything, look, jim actually likes the RANGERS,"HA HA", but we respect each others opinions, and the opinions of others, so long as they are presented in a respectful manor.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by eric
Awe !

He feels picked on by us ! You know maybe if he would drop the morally superior, demanding, demeaning tone in his posts he would get a little more respect.

Not all of us agree on everything, look, jim actually likes the RANGERS,"HA HA", but we respect each others opinions, and the opinions of others, so long as they are presented in a respectful manor.

Yeah... what he said!



Jeff

 

[spillmind]

curious. i scored a 138 last time i took it. not bad, i must say...

sleepy now... i leave you with another picture, since you liked the other so much you went through the trouble of posting it.

 

[jimnyc]

I like the redhead, can I have her number please?

 

[janeeng]

Ah! isn't that just such a cute picture!

Hey spill, just curious, where was that pic taken? I like the beach.

 

[NightTrain]

Sorry I haven't been on, I've been out drinking beer and running around on gas guzzling 4-wheelers trying to kill cute furry animals with a large caliber hunting rifle.

Have I pissed off any liberals so far? Yes? Great! Now we can proceed.

you can't come up with a good reason why we didn't invade then!

Back in '91? Uh, I already explained to you why we didn't go all the way to Baghdad - IT WASN'T THE FRIGGIN GOAL! Saddam invaded Kuwait, the UNSC issued an ultimatum to withdraw, he didn't, we kicked his sorry ass back across the border.

Why can't you understand something this simple? Yeah, he was a bloodthirsty bastard, everyone knew it. But the coalition's goal in '91 was to liberate Kuwait. Is this clear enough??

when it was right after the attacks! after they were on our payroll!

Were they really? Let's see your backup on this. I think you're full of shit.

hahahah you say: 'Please don't pretend you didn't understand my point.' but then you say some shit like you worked for an oil company. normal people. yeah, i'm sure. so you can tune out the corruption. personally, i don't give a damn if it's the frieghter company or the oil company (which TOTALLY EXPLAINS why you are so damned conditionally BAIS, and devoid of objectivity), it's still corruption if you need to buy off a politician to get him to vote in favor of your 'work'. zoooooom! another one flies right by your head. (again)

I have personal experience working in the oil industry. Your paranoia with oil companies is astounding. I found the people working in that industry to be ordinary people. Not the black hearted villians you would have everyone believe.

You ignorantly attack a huge group of people when you obviously don't know anyone personally. Your loathsome views are disturbing - but that's the liberal way, isn't it? The evil rich white men running the show are doing everything they can to screw you & everyone else, right? Smoke another doobie & dream up more injustices, pal, the next conspiracy should be another side splitter. I can't wait to read it.


I see you failed to respond to the hypothetical question I posed to you. What's the matter? Don't want to make the same choices that have been made in the past? Did you give thought to it? Come on! Roll up another fatty & let's hear how you'd handle the situation.

comparing saddam to hitler? dude, you have reached so far, you've lost sight of my points in my original post. in fact, you are now further reinforcing my point, possibly unwittingly.

Actually, Speedy, why don't you read that again. Ask yourself what exactly I was responding to, with the handy quotes provided. I trust you'll understand after a little thought is applied.

 

[janeeng]

Glad to see you back NT! sounds like you were having some fun!

You get em NT!

 

[spillmind]

wow NT, the only thing 'astounding' is your utter determination to argue for the sake of arguing, even though sometimes you must know you are wrong. ride your horse backwards to prove you are different to yourself. maybe it's just a need for attention...?

either way, you came at me with the goal thing AGAIN, which still totally misses the point.

OK PEOPLE:

WHY IS SADDAM MORE OF A EVIL VILLIAN/THREAT TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ AND THE U.S. NOW THAN HE WAS IN 91'?

now. given that his most heinous crimes we comitted mid to late 80's, the humanitarian issue would be a legitamite case had we pursued him immediately thereafter. since we did not, and now we scream bloody murder, it seems like our views shift when it suits our needs.... are you people getting that yet? (finally?)
now unless you were screaming to remove saddam SINCE (not right after 9-11) his heinous crimes, shut the piehole, or start joining (or at least supporting) the human rights advocates on all fronts around the world. a little consistency, anyone? nuff said.

the hypocrisy is festering and stinking to high hell around here.

as far as payroll goes, do you remember any sort of aid going to iraq from USA in the 80's? ANY whatsoever? and i'm not talking about other countries! let's focus on the US for the sake of the arguement. if you can recollect, i and i think you do, this is considered ON PAYROLL, and i am NOT full of shit like you wish i was. next.

as far as oil company people- do you really think someone like *me* is going to demonize employees of a large conglomerate? even after you came at me with that stupid ass opening line? (for some kind of attention?) now *that* is astounding.

'You ignorantly attack a huge group of people when you obviously don't know anyone personally. Your loathsome views are disturbing - but that's the liberal way, isn't it? The evil rich white men running the show are doing everything they can to screw you & everyone else, right? Smoke another doobie & dream up more injustices, pal, the next conspiracy should be another side splitter. I can't wait to read it.'

no no NO! not me. this shit is so off, it's not even on the map. keep those rose colored glasses on. i picture you looking a like elton john with them on.

if you seem to think american oil companies are a godsend to this planet, you are sadly mistaken. personally, i think your personal bais is once again fogging your windshield of your H2. if this is not immediately apparent and you avoid alternative energy solutions like the plague, you are lost in the past. i for one, am not looking back.

how i would handle the situation? i'm a lot more with it than georgie peorgie, but then again all that guy does is memorize speeches and worry about what's for dinner. his admin, including saddam's buddy rumsfeld and ever-so-slimy cheney are lobbied to make these choices. if i, the common man even came close to being elected, i would be assisinated. there is too much money involved to allow that to happen. my take on the situation is hypothetical, involving a energy solution and mediation without the enormous, embarassing loss of life. believe or not, it can be done. then again, i am not worried about being re-elected. not like he will be anyway.

the right thing would be to pull out of iraq. we have already done enough damage and made our (bloody) point. now i am wondering when you think halliburton will leave? how about NEVER. tell me again how this has nothing to do with oil.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44003-2003Sep21.html

i admit you people are determined, but for what? what is your goal? to rid the world of terror? or put a dent in it in iraq? then how do you explain afghanistan? it's like you people are still living back in march! and admit iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 like rummy did, and please answer these questions.

from pessimists (saddam is going to kill us all if we don't kill him first) to optimists (iraq will become a westernized democracy if we stay there) ...you people are amazing. i may be leaning to the left, but at least i ain't wishy washy! i'm still waiting for the organizational schematics on creek's militia. now *that* should be a side-splitter- as NT puts it.

 

[NightTrain]

Actually, Spilly, I do this to educate some of the sheep that listened to a '60s retread teacher to formulate their opinions rather than real world experience & common sense. I do enjoy the debates too, obviously. But for attention? That's pretty funny.. thanks for the chuckle!

WHY IS SADDAM MORE OF A EVIL VILLIAN/THREAT TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ AND THE U.S. NOW THAN HE WAS IN 91'?

A thousand pardons... I thought you read my responses to that the first 3 times I explained it to you. Pay attention now!

Since '91, several things have happened that proved to the world that Saddam was more of a threat than originally thought.

A) Saddam attempted to have a former U.S. President assassinated.

B) The Czechs caught one of Saddam's toadies meeting with Mohammed Atta (remember that great guy?) & promptly expelled him.

C) Since there was a proven Al Qaeda / Saddam connection, we couldn't afford to take the chance of Saddam giving one of his newfound friends a weapon that was capable of wiping out millions of Americans or our Allies.

D) The new-n-improved foriegn policy states that we will make no distinction between terrorists and the States that harbor them. Saddam clearly had terrorist links & you can't dispute that.

E) After 9/11, it was painfully made clear to us that we couldn't afford to sit back and wait for terrorist plots to mature - being proactive rather than reactive is the new watchword. To not actively eliminate threats before they arrive on our shores would be completely asinine.

There ya go! Hope you read that a couple of times, Spill... I'm gettin tired of spelling it out for you.

That being said... there were a great many of us back in '91 that thought it was silly NOT to drive all the way to Baghdad since we were already there, but I just wasn't running the show. It was hoped that after the stunning ass kicking his military suffered in Desert Storm that there would be a coup - that didn't occur. Shit happens.

now. given that his most heinous crimes we comitted mid to late 80's,

I'm not sure about that. He used WMDs AFTER Desert Storm against the Kurds; that's why the No Fly Zone was implemented, remember? He was given permission to use Helicopters in the truce, and promptly used them to deliver chemical weapons. The No Fly Zones prevented more mass murder of his own citizens. I suspect that the mass graves that have been unearthed were since '91.

as far as payroll goes, do you remember any sort of aid going to iraq from USA in the 80's? ANY whatsoever? and i'm not talking about other countries! let's focus on the US for the sake of the arguement. if you can recollect, i and i think you do, this is considered ON PAYROLL, and i am NOT full of shit like you wish i was. next.

Next? lmao! Attaboy!

What aid you're referring to was given during the Iran / Iraq war. Iran was winning the war. Khomeni was no better than Saddam & no one in their right mind wanted either one of those two maniacs doubling their power & influence.

So, what we gave Saddam is termed 'perishable' aid. IE : intelligence that has a limited life span, such as pictures of the battle front, troop locations, convoys, etc. The reason this was done was to balance out the war & it worked. It finally ground to a halt with neither side making massive gains.

Pretty slick, eh? You've been fumbling with that idea & really didn't know what aid the USA provided Saddam with, I've been waiting for you to do your own research but obviously you didn't care enough about your argument to check out the facts before you threw out 'they were on our payroll!!!'. Pretty weak, Spilly, pretty weak. Weapons? Payroll? Nope. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

no no NO! not me. this shit is so off, it's not even on the map. keep those rose colored glasses on. i picture you looking a like elton john with them on.

Hahaha! You funny guy! I'll post a pic for you just so you don't think I look like Elton Fucking John! roflmao I never said, Spilly, that I think the Oil companies are a godsend. I corrected your rabid accusations that somehow there's nothing but Evil running the oil companies (who, of course, run the world!) and that's really laughable. I've personally met VPs and the President of a major oil company, and not even ONE of them came off as Mr. Burns from the Simpsons like you obviously think.

BTW - I wish I had an H2. I don't. What vehicles I do own are roughly 10 years old & paid for. But nothing as awesome as an H2.

Nice link! Sounds like things are coming around... why exactly did you post that? Because everything except oil will be available for foreign investors / owners? Do you really think anyone is going to go in with suitcases of cash unless there's an excellent chance there will be a profit to be made and hence, jobs for Iraqis? I realize that you're saddened to see another Socialist economy bite the dust, but for those people it's for the best - the world's strongest economies aren't Socialist, grasshopper!

I suspect you're thinking that the OIIILL is going to be under US control, don't you? Read that article again, please. That will be under Iraqi control as soon as they have a legit government & then they can decide what they want to do with it. Not sure if you're aware of this, but 95% of Iraq's GDP is oil exports. Seem like a smart thing to do now? I certainly do. Probably would be a wise thing to keep their oil reserves under Iraqi ownership, at least for now. I think it would be a serious mistake to allow anyone in on the oil reserves they're parked on, indefinitely. But ultimately it's going to be their decision.

You're Welcome.