4,000

polaris

lazymoon13 wrote:

no need to assume. it has increased terrorist activity.

but you seem to think bush and co sat in the war room and decided to launch a war so they can very specifically make money.

making money from war is just a side effect of war. it shouldnt be seen as the intended purpose of launching one.

why not? ... what in your thinking does not let you accept that as reasoning?

if you look at ALL the connections this administration has to defence contractors, oil companies and engineering/reconstruction firms? ... am i simply to assume it's all a coincidence?

have we forgotten the lies that went into starting this war? ... are we to assume then that they were made in order to fight terrorists?

lazymoon13

polaris wrote:

why not? ... what in your thinking does not let you accept that as reasoning?

if you look at ALL the connections this administration has to defence contractors, oil companies and engineering/reconstruction firms? ... am i simply to assume it's all a coincidence?

have we forgotten the lies that went into starting this war? ... are we to assume then that they were made in order to fight terrorists?

our problems with saddam didnt happen overnight. invading Iraq wasn't something bush did because he was broke.

the war in Iraq has a price tag of over 600 billion. a huge % goes to paying soldiers and equipment. yes, some is spread around to contractors, where else would it go?

so you think bush pulled cheney aside one day and said, "Hey lets invade Iraq was we can make money"

do you really think that conversation took place?

polaris

lazymoon13 wrote:

our problems with saddam didnt happen overnight. invading Iraq wasn't something bush did because he was broke.

the war in Iraq has a price tag of over 600 billion. a huge % goes to paying soldiers and equipment. yes, some is spread around to contractors, where else would it go?

so you think bush pulled cheney aside one day and said, "Hey lets invade Iraq was we can make money"

do you really think that conversation took place?

it's all about who drives policy decisions in the gov't ... cheney was a VP at haliburton and look at all the money that company has made in iraq - coincidence?

you have to look at the history of US foreign policy decisions from latin america to the middle east ... look at the historical pattern to see the future ...

give me one good reason why the US should be in conflict with iraq?

lazymoon13

polaris wrote:

it's all about who drives policy decisions in the gov't ... cheney was a VP at haliburton and look at all the money that company has made in iraq - coincidence?

haliburton has been around since the turn of the century. 1901 to be exact. they are experts in what they do. they are arguably the most qualified to do that type of work. I'm not fan of no bid contracts but they are very qualified for the work they do.

polaris wrote:

you have to look at the history of US foreign policy decisions from latin america to the middle east ... look at the historical pattern to see the future ...

give me one good reason why the US should be in conflict with iraq?

the US has been in conflict with saddam since the late 80s. I'm not going to justify the invasion, but this didnt come out of nowhere.


you still didnt asnwer my question.

puremagic

lazymoon13 wrote:

our problems with saddam didnt happen overnight. invading Iraq wasn't something bush did because he was broke.

the war in Iraq has a price tag of over 600 billion. a huge % goes to paying soldiers and equipment. yes, some is spread around to contractors, where else would it go?

so you think bush pulled cheney aside one day and said, "Hey lets invade Iraq was we can make money"

do you really think that conversation took place?

Did you just wake up from a six year slumber? Honestly, you can't be this far behind on the events of Iraq and American policies in the Middle East relating to Iraq as your response indicates. Its not about whether your view is conservative or liberal any viewpoint is open to discussion. I could respect your viewpoints if it appeared that you were rehashing a point to counterpoint, but no. It's like you woke up and believed you got it. No! you didn't, but stay here the discussions evoke thinking and participation on a variety of levels.

lazymoon13

puremagic wrote:

Did you just wake up from a six year slumber? Honestly, you can't be this far behind on the events of Iraq and American policies in the Middle East relating to Iraq as your response indicates. Its not about whether your view is conservative or liberal any viewpoint is open to discussion. I could respect your viewpoints if it appeared that you were rehashing a point to counterpoint, but no. It's like you woke up and believed you got it. No! you didn't, but stay here the discussions evoke thinking and participation on a variety of levels.

um did you want to discuss something about Iraq or one of my posts? I'm all ears.

puremagic

lazymoon13 wrote:

um did you want to discuss something about Iraq or one of my posts? I'm all ears.

Hold that thought as I'm sure an opportunity will present itself, that's what viewpoint are about.

polaris

lazymoon13 wrote:

haliburton has been around since the turn of the century. 1901 to be exact. they are experts in what they do. they are arguably the most qualified to do that type of work. I'm not fan of no bid contracts but they are very qualified for the work they do.



the US has been in conflict with saddam since the late 80s. I'm not going to justify the invasion, but this didnt come out of nowhere.


you still didnt asnwer my question.

have you read the reports of cost overuns and poor service from haliburton from iraq?? ... and you are gonna ignore the corelation between no-bid contracts and cheney?

the US used to sell guns to saddam ... figure out why they are in conflict with saddam and we might get somewhere ... for the same reason why the US overthrew Iran's leader ... they wanted the oil to service their own people ...

i'm sorry for not answering your question - i honestly thought it wasn't a serious question ... but if you think it is ... i will answer:

no - bush and cheney didn't just wake up and decide to invade iraq ... it's more like bush and cheney are part of a group of neoconservatives that all believe in an imperialistic us foreign policy ... they were put in office by special interests and these special interests expect policy to support their businesses ... so, they manufactured a war to support these interests ...

again - give me one good reason why the US are in iraq now??

lazymoon13

polaris wrote:

have you read the reports of cost overuns and poor service from haliburton from iraq?? ... and you are gonna ignore the corelation between no-bid contracts and cheney?

the US used to sell guns to saddam ... figure out why they are in conflict with saddam and we might get somewhere ... for the same reason why the US overthrew Iran's leader ... they wanted the oil to service their own people ...

i'm sorry for not answering your question - i honestly thought it wasn't a serious question ... but if you think it is ... i will answer:

no - bush and cheney didn't just wake up and decide to invade iraq ... it's more like bush and cheney are part of a group of neoconservatives that all believe in an imperialistic us foreign policy ... they were put in office by special interests and these special interests expect policy to support their businesses ... so, they manufactured a war to support these interests ...

ok thats fair. and certainly might be true to some degree. but I don't see it as the whole story....its not as cut and dry for me, I tend to look at all factors. and I think there were many.

polaris wrote:

again - give me one good reason why the US are in iraq now??

to help fix the country we destroyed. to provide security, to train the Iraqi police/military. and to fight foreign elements such as el queda.

lksammkt

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

bush never got a war resolution for iraq, he just tacked it on to Afghanistan. He also made a falsified case.

If a soldier is wounded in Iraq and airlifted to germany and dies in a hospital there it's not registered as an Iraq casuality.

Whoa - I looked at this thread and thought 4000 was going to lead into what someone owed on '07 taxes!

I really haven't gotten too involve in the discussions of the Iraq War prior to this, but wanted to share a side maybe that hasn't been discuss here in this thread. I will keep this short. My brother is an officer in the US Army and is an incredible American/Leader. He was extended in Iraq from 9 months, to 12 months, and finally 15 months. 3 weeks before he was scheduled to come home - he was coming back from a convoy in Baquba and was hit by an EFP (Explosively Formed Projectile). He lost his right leg. He went in to cardiac arrest 2 times and we almost lost him. He was flown to Germany with 12 other soliders - there they amputated his right leg. 2 days later he was flown to Brooks Army Medical Center in San Antonio Texas. This hospital un like Walter Reed specializes in burn victims and amputees. I can even begin to tell you the devastation that I have seen from soldiers that have come back from this war. Soldiers with 1, 2, or no limbs, burned/chard faces, blindness, and the list goes on. It really makes you think.
My brother has been there since August - rehabbing and gettting better.

I just wanted to share this story since I am just like people here - Pearl Jam enthusiast, concerned American/individual living on this circle, friend, and sibling.
This war has many stories - this is mine.

polaris

lazymoon13 wrote:

ok thats fair. and certainly might be true to some degree. but I don't see it as the whole story....its not as cut and dry for me, I tend to look at all factors. and I think there were many.



to help fix the country we destroyed. to provide security, to train the Iraqi police/military. and to fight foreign elements such as el queda.

everything points to it ... why lie about motivations if you aren't trying to cover the true motive? ... again - all you need to do is look at the history of us foreign policy to see the pattern ...

sorry - i meant why invade iraq to begin with? ... there are no good reasons - everything put forth initially has all been proven to be lies ...

lazymoon13

polaris wrote:

everything points to it ... why lie about motivations if you aren't trying to cover the true motive? ... again - all you need to do is look at the history of us foreign policy to see the pattern ...

sorry - i meant why invade iraq to begin with? ... there are no good reasons - everything put forth initially has all been proven to be lies ...

again, there is more it then a bunch of republicans sitting around trying to think of ways to make money. I can't automatically dismiss what might be legitimate reasons for going to war...at the point in time. flawed intelligence and something as simple as wanting to finish the job his dad started are 2 examples.

polaris

lazymoon13 wrote:

again, there is more it then a bunch of republicans sitting around trying to think of ways to make money. I can't automatically dismiss what might be legitimate reasons for going to war...at the point in time. flawed intelligence and something as simple as wanting to finish the job his dad started are 2 examples.

it is widely known the intelligence was manipulated ... i am sensing that you just don't want to believe that these people would act in self-interests but if it makes you feel better - this is not a republican theme ... it is what has driven most administrations ...

oh ... and finishing a job!?? ... over a million innocent deaths to finish a job!?? ...

lazymoon13

polaris wrote:

it is widely known the intelligence was manipulated ... i am sensing that you just don't want to believe that these people would act in self-interests but if it makes you feel better - this is not a republican theme ... it is what has driven most administrations ...

I already said it was probably true. but unlike you, I believe there are other factors involved.

polaris wrote:

oh ... and finishing a job!?? ... over a million innocent deaths to finish a job!?? ...

dont start this. the estimates that have the most research to back it up are no where near the million range. its just a nice round number that people like to use to push their anti-war/anti-bush agenda..

try and look at things without party names attached to them. its a much better idea to have an open mind when discussing these issues.

polaris

lazymoon13 wrote:

I already said it was probably true. but unlike you, I believe there are other factors involved.



dont start this. the estimates that have the most research to back it up are no where near the million range. its just a nice round number that people like to use to push their anti-war/anti-bush agenda..

try and look at things without party names attached to them. its a much better idea to have an open mind when discussing these issues.

let me know when you come up with the other factors aside from what i've already mentioned ...

as for the open-minded/ignorant comments - i find the people that say that about others on an anonymous message board are usually the ones that need to look at themselves in the mirror ... yeah - i don't like bush nor the republican party but i don't like the democratic party either ... but apparently my disdain for bush means that i can't be objective ... :rolleyes:

lazymoon13

polaris wrote:

let me know when you come up with the other factors aside from what i've already mentioned ...

as for the open-minded/ignorant comments - i find the people that say that about others on an anonymous message board are usually the ones that need to look at themselves in the mirror ... yeah - i don't like bush nor the republican party but i don't like the democratic party either ... but apparently my disdain for bush means that i can't be objective ... :rolleyes:

I already mentioned other factors but you automatically dismiss them because they dont fit your agenda.

of course you can be objective, you're very good it. but in doing that you close your mind to the possibility of something else. truth be told, you have no idea what went on behind closed doors regarding Iraq. you have no idea for the real reasons why bush launched the war.

knowing that, you should be open to the fact that you may be wrong about the reasons you hold so tightly.

polaris

lazymoon13 wrote:

I already mentioned other factors but you automatically dismiss them because they dont fit your agenda.

of course you can be objective, you're very good it. but in doing that you close your mind to the possibility of something else. truth be told, you have no idea what went on behind closed doors regarding Iraq. you have no idea for the real reasons why bush launched the war.

knowing that, you should be open to the fact that you may be wrong about the reasons you hold so tightly.

i believe i rebutted everything you put forth

uhh - i would say you calling me ignorant and carrying an agenda is proof that you are the one holding onto your belief ... i am simply stating my belief - right or wrong ... and i've backed them up with reasonable assertions ... feel free to counter them ...

for sure - the concept of open-mindedness has to be rooted in accepting the possibility that one's opinion is wrong ... but again - feel free to counter any of the points stated above ... instead of just regurgitating a standard talking point that has no foundation ...

lazymoon13

polaris wrote:

i believe i rebutted everything you put forth

uhh - i would say you calling me ignorant and carrying an agenda is proof that you are the one holding onto your belief ... i am simply stating my belief - right or wrong ... and i've backed them up with reasonable assertions ... feel free to counter them ...

for sure - the concept of open-mindedness has to be rooted in accepting the possibility that one's opinion is wrong ... but again - feel free to counter any of the points stated above ... instead of just regurgitating a standard talking point that has no foundation ...

you haven't rebutted any points that I brought up. all you do is follow them up with yours. saying "look at american policy in the past" thats not proof of anything buddy.

and I didnt call you ignorant. but ignoring other opinions because they dont fit your agenda, is well ignorant. and you do have agenda. anti-establishment, anti-american, anti-bush. whatever you want to call it, its your agenda.

my agenda is more to look at all sides of the arguments and try and determine what happened. I'm humble enough to realize, none of us really know what the exact reasons for going to war were. what I do know however, is it

polaris

lazymoon13 wrote:

you haven't rebutted any points that I brought up. all you do is follow them up with yours. saying "look at american policy in the past" thats not proof of anything buddy.

and I didnt call you ignorant. but ignoring other opinions because they dont fit your agenda, is well ignorant. and you do have agenda. anti-establishment, anti-american, anti-bush. whatever you want to call it, its your agenda.

my agenda is more to look at all sides of the arguments and try and determine what happened. I'm humble enough to realize, none of us really know what the exact reasons for going to war were. what I do know however, is it

soo ... the motivation behind US foreign policy in the past has NOTHING to do with what's going on now? ...

yeah - you're humble enough to call people ignorant and close-minded but not really ... :rolleyes:

lazymoon13

polaris wrote:

soo ... the motivation behind US foreign policy in the past has NOTHING to do with what's going on now? ...

yeah - you're humble enough to call people ignorant and close-minded but not really ... :rolleyes:

did I say nothing? no I did not. its evidence sure. but you seem to use it as an air tight case for proving a point of today. you're going to have to try a little harder.