Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

reply to post by blupblup


indeed i can see that , i think that if i ever met theese guys for a beer and BBQ over a game of hold em -the cards would never get delt thats for sure

thank sir

reply to post by woodwardjnr


lol lol lol lol No you are wrong! Don't know your left from your right! You have mixed it up! Ron Paul is well duh! Bush is right wing, Communists are Far left! ..... You work it out! Wrong ay? now you just looked really wrong!

To be frank, we need the oil more than you do. Someone has got to secure those pipelines cuz Russia ain't giving no love.

Not that I agree with these conditions as a premise for war, but that's what it is....

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

lol lol lol lol No you are wrong! Don't know your left from your right! You have mixed it up! Ron Paul is well duh! Bush is right wing, Communists are Far left! ..... You work it out! Wrong you just looked really stupid!

Ron Paul is now a lefty in your opinion (despite being a member of the Rep party)? and George bush your right wing Hero? Geez dude I dont even live in the US but seem to know more about the politics than you do.
What the hell have communists got to do with anything?
You probably one of those who thinks Obama is a commie, yet Obama has continued both wars in the same vein as Bush. You my friend are showing your lack of knowledge in every post you type.

Maybe you wanna lay off the personal insults too, it does nothing to strengthen your argument.

reply to post by Nephi1337


money and drugs mate just have a look at how the drug trade has exploded over there since the Taliban have been mov ed from the area. Even with the most extreme security of your coasts there is still high grade heroin hitting the streets and garrantee there is a bloody good chance it is coming from afgan.

reply to post by phatpackage


I was just trying to point out that there are as many on the right who are against the wars as there are on the left. as I said its not a left/right issue. It's a common misconception that those on the left are against war. The British Labour Party was meant to be on the left, yet Tony Bliar was just as enthusiastic about the wars as any neo con. It also took the support of Labour party leaders(lefties) for Winston Churchill to get the support to stand up against Hitler. Without their support we would have gone down a line of appeasement with Hitler. The results of which dont bare thinking about.

reply to post by phatpackage


Left and right who cares at the end of the day they work for the same people and it is always the wrong person it should always be the American public from what i have seen Ron Paul is probably the only one where he has the publics concerns at the heart of anything he does.

Unlike bush and Obama both have failed at giving you the better deal it's hard to choose who may just be the right to run your country for the better but going off past history the 2 parties who have always been there are just as useless as each other.

Greed rules your country and it goes all the way to the top basically you the public need to decide with your votes and you keep blowing it all same as us in Australia look at the knobs we have running our country would love to get there myself but independants will never get the top job there is always a schedule and worklist to carry out.

I believe yours and our troops should be bought home as the Taliban are just going to build strength and take what lives have been lost to try and liberate are you telling me if you were looking down on the world after your death and saw your life was wasted trying to help people live a free life and find it succeeded in nothing at the end of the day?

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by phatpackage

 

I was just trying to point out that there are as many on the right who are against the wars as there are on the left. as I said its not a left/right issue. It's a common misconception that those on the left are against war. The British Labour Party was meant to be on the left, yet Tony Bliar was just as enthusiastic about the wars as any neo con. It also took the support of Labour party leaders(lefties) for Winston Churchill to get the support to stand up against Hitler. Without their support we would have gone down a line of appeasement with Hitler. The results of which dont bare thinking about.

OK no worries will edit my last post as you came back civilly

reply to post by vkturbo

Greed rules your country and it goes all the way to the top basically you the public need to decide with your votes and you keep blowing it all same as us in Australia look at the knobs we have running our country would love to get there myself but independants will never get the top job

I could tell you were an Aussie as in VKturbo, Holden Commodore 1984-86, but I am Aussie too not American!

reply to post by Nephi1337


Were these 66,000 civilians killed by NATO forces or a mixture of both NATO and the violent clashes between different terrorist fractions in the country who were seeking to create a civil war? If you click through a few of your links you will eventually get to the raw data showing that of these 66,000 civilians killed, 20,000 were IED (so terrorists) and 32,000 murdered (by whoever, probably mostly terrorists). Form your data it’s really only possible to say that 2000 Iraqis have died as a result of indirect fire most of which is probably the result of NATO bombings. Not once does this article directly link any of these deaths to the direct action of American forces, if you look over the data from wikileaks then it’s possible to estimate 10,000 at the most for the period 2004 to 2010.

You have just picked out one nice paragraph and tried to blame America for all 100,000 deaths when that is not really true, most of the 66,000 deaths are as a result of the de facto state of civil war Iraq was at for a large part of the time that data was collected. You are also forgetting that these terrorists are living in Iraqi communities and using them effectively as human shields, then going out and attacking NATO forces as a result when NATO fights back there is inevitably collateral damage but if the terrorists weren’t hiding amongst the general population in the first place that wouldn’t happen. Basically you have ignored very other contributing factor for these deaths and just blamed the great Satan because it suits you. If you bothered to do some research you would realise that allot of deaths in Iraq are the result of terrorist activity, if the terrorists had left in 2004, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

You cannot say all of these deaths are the fault of America, from 2004 onwards. Most of these deaths are the fault of terrorists; you just like to pick out the numbers that suit you.

I agree the war has caused thousand of innocent people to die. HOWEVER, your home grown terrorist are more to blame then the american soldiers. You people are over there committing suicide in the name of ALLAH blowing up "INNOCENT" people. What the hell make sure your finger points in every direction

reply to post by phatpackage


lmao didn't even notice that hard to tell with the way people speak thats for sure sorry mate what a laugh all good anyway

reply to post by phatpackage

Are you a chicken hawk or have you ever been in the military? I'm not a lefty or a righty cause they both are only self serving with no desire to follow the Constitution or the best interests of the people. I am a Viet Nam vet...Feb67 to Oct.68. I think I'm entitled to have an opinion about war and it's causes and consequences. War is mostly about
TPTB making money, it's just that simple. We went to war in Viet Nam to stop the domino effect....the spreading of communisn throughout SE Asia. What in reality happened?? We weakened South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, but RMK and BRJ and all other defense contractors made a lot of money.
The story hasn't changed that much in Iraq or Afghanistan...the military industrial complex making unfounded excuses to invade sovereign countries while making lots of money. We aren't in these wars to promote freedom and liberty....we're there to instigate conflict and we are very good at it !

Oh really...this thread is just horrendously full of dis-info and naiveté.

The attack/invasion on Iraq was a long term policy. It was a hangover from the first assault on the country. I'm in Scotland - a relative backwater and I KNEW we were going to attack the country in June 2002 because I was told then - well before it hit the media. Remember Blair said he hadn't made any firm decision until the February - stating he had known NOTHING of the plan until September 2002. It eventually came out that he pledged his support in April 2002. That man is a sociopath – if not a psychopath.

I was told by a chap who asked me to sign a pledge card to participate in civil disobedience in the event of the invasion the following March (due to a weather window) on June 15th 2002. This I did. The same chap was a primary organiser of the anti-invasion protest of February 2003 - the biggest the world has ever seen. The date was selected because Tony Blair would be in Glasgow that day for the Scottish Labour Party conference.

I then watched the media's absolute complicity in creating the justification for this invasion. It was infuriating beyond words.

In 1992 I worked in a barber shop in Glasgow. One of my co-workers was an Iraqi. He was a barber part time - the rest of the time he was studying nuclear physics at a university in Glasgow - paid for by Saddam's government and provided by ours.

Re the Shia / Sunni conflict - that is an age old tactic of war that was deliberately fomented by US/UK military and govt. Divide and conquer is as old as the hills. Nobody remember the two British soldiers dressed as Muslims with the bomb making equipment in the back of the car? Does nobody remember the British taking a tank to the police station to 'rescue' them?

British 'Undercover Soldiers' Drive Booby Trapped Car

It was about control of the oil supply - not the purchase of it. It was about protecting the dollar - not US citizens. It was an illegal invasion. Those responsible should be in prison. (That especially includes our Mr. Tony 'the repenting' Blair).

reply to post by christina-66


You do realize that oil is wanted by every country in the world. If america and europe didnt go after it exactly who do you think would? o maybe russia? china? Im not saying what happened or is happening is right, but I would rather it be in our hands then russia or chinas hands. Remeber he who controls oil controls the wider masses of lands. Our earth is loosing its natural resources, if i had it my way I would make everyone stop the thrashing of earth but I cant and neither can you or anyother person. Our earths resources are being faught for.

reply to post by prexparte


I'm not into control freaks - that was Iraq's oil.

reply to post by christina-66


I agree it is iraqs oil, but you have to know it was going to be taken by a country or countrys. resources are running out larger countrys are greedy.

I have been apposed to this war from day 1. It was not iraq who attacked us, hell we dont truely know who it was, we was tolia, the highjackers were from saudia arab, yet we attack iraq in defense of 9-11? makes no sense other then it is about the oil.

Originally posted by prexparte
reply to post by christina-66

 

I agree it is iraqs oil, but you have to know it was going to be taken by a country or countrys. resources are running out larger countrys are greedy.

What?? That makes no sense unless you are a believer in empire. This is a trading world remember? Do we have to follow the philosophy of 'might is right' or can we stand up and say this is plain wrong and I will not be a part of it?

The American dollar is the de facto world currency ONLY because of OPEC. The whole world currently needs the dollar to purchase oil and consequently the Unites States has been enjoying a free ride ever since the OPEC agreements. The country simply prints paper (IOU's) and every country hangs on to them because every country - as you stated - needs oil. If OPEC was to change its policy all those little IOU's would go flying back to the states demanding 'real' money please - and as we ALL know - America has NO REAL MONEY.

The US looks likes its going to have the shortest (yet deadliest) empire in history. It has military bases in 135 out of a total of 192 countries in the world. Keeps the unemployment stats down tho'.