4,000+ U.S. soldiers have died for this:

[kpbuckeye 3]

And we're back to square one. Forget I mentioned it. Just keep being the internet badass that you are.

 

square one was where you jumped on my shiot for no reason. I wasn't focking with you what so ever.

 

so yea, tell me more about being an internet tough guy?

[FlaHawker 24]

Umm...are you seriously drawing analogies between the Civil War and the war in Iraq?

Yes 1 single American life lost is tragic but you need some serious perspective:

 

US Wartime casualties

 

WW 1- 53,402

WW 2 - 291,557

Korea- 33,686

Vietnam- 58,193

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Yes 1 single American life lost is tragic but you need some serious perspective:

 

US Wartime casualties

 

WW 1- 53,402

WW 2 - 291,557

Korea- 33,686

Vietnam- 58,193

 

Not one of those wars is even remotely comparable. None of them was a "war of choice" in the sense that the Iraq war was, and we were not the aggressor in the any of those wars. They have nothing to do with Iraq.

[pimptastic69 0]

Not one of those wars is even remotely comparable. None of them was a "war of choice" in the sense that the Iraq war was, and we were not the aggressor in the any of those wars. They have nothing to do with Iraq.

 

So Vietnam and North Korea were direct threats to the US?

[IGotWorms 4,058]

So Vietnam and North Korea were direct threats to the US?

 

They were "direct threats" in the sense that they were fronts of a very real struggle of power with Soviet Russia. We did not start those wars, the communists did. That is the difference.

[pimptastic69 0]

They were "direct threats" in the sense that they were fronts of a very real struggle of power with Soviet Russia. We did not start those wars, the communists did. That is the difference.

 

Well then along the same line, wouldn't you agree that Saddam was a threat to the other mideast countries? He invaded Kuwait, and lobbed missiles into Saudi Arabia. He was not a good guy. Having a lunatic in power that can severely cripple our economy at the drop of a hat is not a good situation. Chances are very good that had we not invaded Iraq when we did, we would have done it at some other point over the last 5 years. This fight had been brewing for a long time. W just picked the wrong reason.

 

If you ask me, oil is absolutely worth fighting for. We would all be dead without it. We'd have 2 months from the strategic oil reserve, and then what?

[Snoopy1 0]

I think they gambled.

They didn't know for sure if the weapons were there. I don't know what they had the odds at (say 75% - 25%) and with those odds decided that the invasion based on the premise of WMDs was a good gamble because of the numerous "secondary" benefits of the invasion.

 

The problem was (and is) they're incompetent.

They had the odds wrong.

They mismanaged the entire operation from day 1.

 

still, I appreciate your response Snoopy. You say you're doubtful that they believed the WMDs were there. OK, I'm interested to hear why you think they made the decisions they made.

 

 

I think IGotWorms hit the nail right on the head.

I agree that oil was not the ONLY reason the U.S. invaded Iraq. In a braoder sense, they wanted to assert geo-political control in a very important region. They were losing their presence in Saudi Arabia (remember, that country kicked us out right after we invaded Iraq) and they needed to establish a presence somewhere else. But why is the region so important? Because of oil. So in a sense, it will always come back to that.

 

Do some google searches on PNAC and Iraq(Project for a New American Century).

 

Couple of links:

Wiki on PNAC

PNAC Revisited

 

Too much of the "evidence" used to support this during the buildup phase has turned out to be just utter BS and much of that was told to the administration prior to the invasion. Look into where they got there information---specifically "curveball"---a guy who was a friggin Iraqi cab driver who the CIA pretty much thought was a liar.

 

Washington Post on Curveball

[BLS 314]

They were "direct threats" in the sense that they were fronts of a very real struggle of power with Soviet Russia. We did not start those wars, the communists did. That is the difference.

 

 

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

 

You don't think the US started the Vietnam war?

Did Vietnam attack us?

[IGotWorms 4,058]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

 

You don't think the US started the Vietnam war?

Did Vietnam attack us?

 

Well, you could argue that with the Gulf of Tonkin and all, but I think we can agree that was largely a ruse to get the U.S. involved. However, the war as a whole started when China and the Soviet Union tried to install communism in Vietnam, prompting the supposed need for U.S. involvement to protect the Democratic south of the country. Vietnam was certainly a mistake, but the point is, the United States was not the initial aggressor in that war, as it was with the Iraq War.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

square one was where you jumped on my shiot for no reason. I wasn't focking with you what so ever.

 

so yea, tell me more about being an internet tough guy?

 

I kind of see how these threads can go on and on and on...when you guys have your little girl fights on here. I think it basically comes down to neither of you will ever let the other one have the last word. It's difficult for me to not have the last word here. It's difficult for me to not echo the sentiment of the rest of the board that you are an internet outlaw .... I want to say these things to you, but what's the point. You've heard it a million times, that's why I won't point out the fact that you are a massive d0uche, that being a tough guy on the internet is kind of pathetic. I won't say these things. Hopefully, my not having the last word here will put an end to our little disagreement.

[kpbuckeye 3]

I kind of see how these threads can go on and on and on...when you guys have your little girl fights on here. I think it basically comes down to neither of you will ever let the other one have the last word. It's difficult for me to not have the last word here. It's difficult for me to not echo the sentiment of the rest of the board that you are an internet outlaw .... I want to say these things to you, but what's the point. You've heard it a million times, that's why I won't point out the fact that you are a massive d0uche, that being a tough guy on the internet is kind of pathetic. I won't say these things. Hopefully, my not having the last word here will put an end to our little disagreement.

 

wow its like you took a psych 101 class and all.

summary:

 

Square one- you being the internet tuff guy

Square two- me telling you I don't give a fock

Square three- you getting on a soapbox and whining like a focking girl.

 

when all else fails, see square two internet tough guy.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

wow its like you took a psych 101 class and all.

summary:

 

Square one- you being the internet tuff guy

Square two- me telling you I don't give a fock

Square three- you getting on a soapbox and whining like a focking girl.

 

when all else fails, see square two internet tough guy.

 

I actually did take a Psych 101 class once. I didn't really get into it too much though. Like...I kind of thought alot of it was BS. I don't know...it was interesting though. I remember being surprised because the professor was a libertarian. Most other college profs are hardcore liberals, so I was a bit surprised at that. He used to bring up politics once and a while in class, and even though I agreed with him I'd be like...just teach the fvcking psych, ya know? But I think most college profs like to share their belief system a little with the class.

 

Anyways...what were we talking about?

 

Oh ya...

Let's make up, me and you!

Come over here right now and give Papa Bear a hug ya little bastard!!

[BMoney 0]

Yes 1 single American life lost is tragic but you need some serious perspective:

 

US Wartime casualties

 

WW 1- 53,402

WW 2 - 291,557

Korea- 33,686

Vietnam- 58,193

 

 

from everything that ive read online, id have sworn that this conflict was the ONLY one where we have lost lives..who knew?

 

a world without saddam and many of his buddies..and a conflict fought over there as opposed to here...im Ok with it... saddam has long been a threat to all..

 

bush wasnt alone..he went by the intelligence given to him..blame that..at least he was assertive and stood by what he believed and what info he was given...

 

kerry wouldve thought about it...flip flopped...changed his mind...by the time he acted, we'd have had 9-11 part 2...

[TD Ryan2 316]

Do some google searches on PNAC and Iraq(Project for a New American Century).

 

PNAC Revisited

 

their "think tank" analysis is purely from a military standpoint.

I'd like to see a similar "think tank" analysis from a political standpoint.

 

but the fact is we'll need a good measure of both political and military solutions for the challenges facing the US.

 

I'm not sure that I disagree with a lot of what the PNAC laid out in that link above:

- there are rogue nations that would do harm to the US if they had the capabilities (N Koread, Syria, Iran, Iraq)

- the US must have plans/strategies in place to deal with these potential threats

 

See, the people of the United States like the fact that we're a global power, the fact the we're basically #1.

But they don't like the realities of what it takes to maintain that power both politically and militarily.

If anything, that link above would suggest that the US was in Iraq for anything BUT oil.

[wiffleball 4,790]

It's about damn time

With all the sh!t we do for that damn place...both in money spent, and lives lost...it's about time we get something for it. Too bad these are considered relatively small contracts...but in the future I'm sure they'll grow, as the article suggested. Hopefully down the road...this will help combat rising ol prices

 

Absolutely. Look I think the whole war in Iraq to find WMD / fight terror was a sham. Bush's former advisers have pretty much confirmed that. Done deal. Having said that, we better get something for other than 30,000 dead and wounded soldiers and a mountain of debt.

[Pootie Tang 0]

 

Maybe it is just me, but does anyone think it is funny how fast igotworms backpedaled off of his own original (here fishy fishy) post?

 

Its all about oil. Well, not all about oil. But, oil is part of it.

[wiffleball 4,790]

 

Maybe it is just me, but does anyone think it is funny how fast igotworms backpedaled off of his own original (here fishy fishy) post?

 

Its all about oil. Well, not all about oil. But, oil is part of it.

 

I think it's funnier that you felt the need to trot out an alias for this post.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

 

Maybe it is just me, but does anyone think it is funny how fast igotworms backpedaled off of his own original (here fishy fishy) post?

 

Its all about oil. Well, not all about oil. But, oil is part of it.

 

Misread much?

 

I agree that oil was not the ONLY reason the U.S. invaded Iraq. In a braoder sense, they wanted to assert geo-political control in a very important region. They were losing their presence in Saudi Arabia (remember, that country kicked us out right after we invaded Iraq) and they needed to establish a presence somewhere else. But why is the region so important? Because of oil. So in a sense, it will always come back to that.

 

This alias is even dumber than the OP that spawned it.

[gocolts 300]

Misread much?

This alias is even dumber than the OP that spawned it.

OP????

[IGotWorms 4,058]

OP????

 

That was a poor choice of words on my part.

 

I did not mean OP as in me , but OP as in the original geek that came up with the alias.