obama and afghanistan

Pez wrote:Does anyone else feel like they would Be personally happier if they just ignored the fact that Washington exists?

I do this regularly.

I think most of the GOV does this... until payday that is!

LTRT wrote:Dang, I was too slow...

I meant to post the snide remark of "told you" after I read Slip's analysis of you.

...must be missing something here, fill me in

sliptap wrote:

LTRT wrote:Dang, I was too slow...

I meant to post the snide remark of "told you" after I read Slip's analysis of you.

...must be missing something here, fill me in

Aye, aye, matey...

"Damn, a political analyst, war strategist, philosopher, and now an optometrist...don't know why anyone would ever question you."

LTRT wrote:

sliptap wrote:

LTRT wrote:Dang, I was too slow...

I meant to post the snide remark of "told you" after I read Slip's analysis of you.

...must be missing something here, fill me in

Aye, aye, matey...

"Damn, a political analyst, war strategist, philosopher, and now an optometrist...don't know why anyone would ever question you."

...but I'm not an optometrist.

LTRT wrote:Dang, I was too slow...

I meant to post the snide remark of "told you" after I read Slip's analysis of you.

Hey... you know what?

LTRT > < META

[img][/img]

meta4 wrote:

LTRT wrote:Dang, I was too slow...

I meant to post the snide remark of "told you" after I read Slip's analysis of you.

Hey... you know what?

LTRT > < META

Ok, that does it, I just might have to take my ball and run home.

What am I thinkin'...once a Marine, always a Marine, I will never back down.

sliptap wrote:

meta4 wrote:That's funny, I thought all but a few terrorists that planned the attacks were killed on 9/11... how many of our troops were lost fighting in Iraq, only to discover that... hmm, Al Queda and the Taliban pick up roots and move to other countries. We respond by taking the fight to them and occupying Iraq, and now Afghanistan in efforts to "root out" terrorists, their leadership, financial backers, drafted militants, etc.

First off, it isn't just "now Afghanistan." I believe we started there first, war on terror wise. Anyway, how convenient of you to forget the amount of terrorists that we have killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorists didn't just up and leave, as you seem to put it. Half of the original Taliban forces have literally been blown into a million pieces.

meta4 wrote:When does the justification for retaliation finally come to an end? As you've stated, there hasn't been a successful homeland attack since 2001. So we seem to have this aspect pretty well covered. We're no longer occupying Iraq and Afghanistan to protect ourselves, now we're doing this to create stability in the region we've torn apart by bringing them what they want... a fight. Who the F^ck are these people that deserve so much of our resources and time (and blood)? They/we are quite literally "rebuilding" their society with 'sticks and stones'... and we're still afraid of them pulling off an attack here?

...which is where I knew this argument was ultimately going. Do your research. Do you think these people enjoyed being dictated by the Taliban or Saddam Hussein? Saddam killed more of his own people than we EVER will. The Taliban ruthlessly tortured, raped, pillaged, and murdered thousands of innocent Afghan civilians. We've removed more terrorists, murderers, and vile persons than the previous governments ever could.

On top of that, we are (and have been) continuing to keep our country safe from terrorists attacks; as I said earlier: I think war is a terrible thing and don't absolutely agree with the Iraqi/Afghanistan wars. However, I do believe that we are making a positive difference in the Middle East and our country.

sliptap..which country were almost all those who attacked usa on 9/11 from? saudi arabia. but we couldnt go after them because the saudi's ar not only our occasional allies but are long time bush family friends.

was al quaida in iraq before we attacked and occupied that nation? uh...that would be a no.

the bush/cheney reason given for attacking and occupying iraq AFTER the facts of the lies about why we went there were proven changed to the mantra of "because saddam was a horrible dictator". hmmmm and isnt iran and isnt saudi arabia? oh but they were way too capable of defending themselves against us so we chose the smallest relatively weakest regime to topple. we settled for a hershey kiss because the jumbo hershey bar would have left smears of chocolate on our faces.

yes we assaulted and destroyed the infrastructure in afghanistan before we entered iraq. we did so because we needed somebody in the neighborhood we hoped we could have some control over so we could use their location for flight strategy and movement of equipment etc into iraq, protected by our troops. the goal of original strategy was the same from the start..occupy and destroy iraq.

the deaths in iraq of non-americans is tabulated to close to a million. dont tell me you are so naive to think most of those, or even many of those, were terrorists who were involved in any way with 9/11. whats your source for the statement that sadam killed more of his own people than we have? for more than a few years we swept neighborhoods and removed people from their homes where there were no arms or any indication of militant activity..rounded up teen males and grown men and shipped them off to be detained..when we didnt murder right where we found them. prior to our occupation, the iraqi people lived under a much more loosely structured dictatorship than either saudi arabians or iranians had been at the same time.

and imho the bush administration damn well should have done all they did to improve our security in usa at airports etc to KEEP us safe..because they only cared about keeping us safe AFTER they chose not to do so.. ignored the pleas from numerous cia and nsa officials about an attack by planes was coming soon in the days before 9/11.

floridafun wrote:
yes we assaulted and destroyed the infrastructure in afghanistan before we entered iraq. we did so because we needed somebody in the neighborhood we hoped we could have some control over so we could use their location for flight strategy and movement of equipment etc into iraq, protected by our troops. the goal of original strategy was the same from the start..occupy and destroy iraq.

Ummm.... Afghanistan is a land lock country. Cannot be used as a forward base for Iraq, because of that little country called Iran in between. As it is to get supplies into Afghanistan we have to go over Pakistan or thru former Soviet Union countries. The countries we use to get supplies into Afganistan are not the same as the countries we need to get supplies into Iraq.

But hey don't let facts get in the way of your rant.

floridafun wrote:
the deaths in iraq of non-americans is tabulated to close to a million. dont tell me you are so naive to think most of those, or even many of those, were terrorists who were involved in any way with 9/11. whats your source for the statement that sadam killed more of his own people than we have? for more than a few years we swept neighborhoods and removed people from their homes where there were no arms or any indication of militant activity..rounded up teen males and grown men and shipped them off to be detained..when we didnt murder right where we found them. prior to our occupation, the iraqi people lived under a much more loosely structured dictatorship than either saudi arabians or iranians had been at the same time.

Just point of clarification here, as I have not heard the 'million' figure... I would assume that includes the sectarian violence as well as the collateral damage (for lack of a better term)... you are also making some pretty bold claims here (no arms or any indication of miltary activity, when we didnt murder right where we found them) without really citing any sources... I certainly have a problem with our activities in Iraq, but your claims seem pretty far over the top, and I typically agree with your viewpoints...

Pez wrote:I certainly have a problem with our activities in Iraq, but your claims seem pretty far over the top

I concur...but heres some info on some of the war crimes of Saddam Hussein (taken from an about.com article, first google search.

The worst human rights abuses of Hussein's tenure took place during the genocidal al-Anfal Campaign (1986-1989), in which Hussein's administration called for the extermination of every living thing--human or animal--in certain regions of the Kurdish north. All told, some 182,000 people--men, women, and children--were slaughtered, many through use of chemical weapons.

After Barzani cast his lot with the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein had some 8,000 members of Barzani's clan, including hundreds of women and children, abducted. It is assumed that most were slaughtered; thousands have been discovered in mass graves in southern Iraq.

Although most of Hussein's large-scale atrocities took place during the 1980s and early 1990s, his tenure was also characterized by day-to-day atrocities that attracted less notice. Wartime rhetoric regarding Hussein's "rape rooms," death by torture, decisions to slaughter the children of political enemies, and the casual machine-gunning of peaceful protesters accurately reflected the day-to-day policies of Saddam Hussein's regime. Hussein was no misunderstood despotic "madman."

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

I'd say removing him was an improvement.

Pez wrote:

floridafun wrote:
the deaths in iraq of non-americans is tabulated to close to a million. dont tell me you are so naive to think most of those, or even many of those, were terrorists who were involved in any way with 9/11. whats your source for the statement that sadam killed more of his own people than we have? for more than a few years we swept neighborhoods and removed people from their homes where there were no arms or any indication of militant activity..rounded up teen males and grown men and shipped them off to be detained..when we didnt murder right where we found them. prior to our occupation, the iraqi people lived under a much more loosely structured dictatorship than either saudi arabians or iranians had been at the same time.

Just point of clarification here, as I have not heard the 'million' figure... I would assume that includes the sectarian violence as well as the collateral damage (for lack of a better term)... you are also making some pretty bold claims here (no arms or any indication of miltary activity, when we didnt murder right where we found them) without really citing any sources... I certainly have a problem with our activities in Iraq, but your claims seem pretty far over the top, and I typically agree with your viewpoints...

Looks like a cut and paste she got off one of her moonbat websites. All you have to do is point out a definite falsehood and the whole thing becomes a false statement.

Pez wrote:

floridafun wrote:
the deaths in iraq of non-americans is tabulated to close to a million. dont tell me you are so naive to think most of those, or even many of those, were terrorists who were involved in any way with 9/11. whats your source for the statement that sadam killed more of his own people than we have? for more than a few years we swept neighborhoods and removed people from their homes where there were no arms or any indication of militant activity..rounded up teen males and grown men and shipped them off to be detained..when we didnt murder right where we found them. prior to our occupation, the iraqi people lived under a much more loosely structured dictatorship than either saudi arabians or iranians had been at the same time.

Just point of clarification here, as I have not heard the 'million' figure... I would assume that includes the sectarian violence as well as the collateral damage (for lack of a better term)... you are also making some pretty bold claims here (no arms or any indication of miltary activity, when we didnt murder right where we found them) without really citing any sources... I certainly have a problem with our activities in Iraq, but your claims seem pretty far over the top, and I typically agree with your viewpoints...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obNHRhBa7Bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m_f3WPvzU4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRBPmCJN_Y0&feature=related

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ journal of inside iraq aug 2003-oct 2007

i got the body count of iraqi murdered wrong..i think that was a number i have recently seen which included those who survived with injuries. impeach obama over it. amusing how most here would question that considering what is so often posted as fact ;-) dont mean you pez or meta

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

just found where i got that million figure

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/evils_of_the_iraqi_invasion.htm

and this is interesting..

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f66_1223515331

floridafun wrote:just found where i got that million figure

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/evils_of_the_iraqi_invasion.htm

Wow, you got it from jesus-is-savior.com. So I guess you like websites that promote themselves as Christian when they are on your side of the argument.

whats wrong with the site..they arent your idea of true christians because they arent in agreement with you?

floridafun wrote:whats wrong with the site..they arent your idea of true christians because they arent in agreement with you?

It's not my place to say whether or not they are true Christians. That has nothing to do with it. You are the one who decided to use it as a source. Just seemed a little hypocritical to me. You say that Christianity is full of lies but when you find a site that supports your argument you take it as fact.

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:whats wrong with the site..they arent your idea of true christians because they arent in agreement with you?

It's not my place to say whether or not they are true Christians. That has nothing to do with it. You are the one who decided to use it as a source. Just seemed a little hypocritical to me. You say that Christianity is full of lies but when you find a site that supports your argument you take it as fact.

Maybe she should read the communist manifesto.....

Kroman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:whats wrong with the site..they arent your idea of true christians because they arent in agreement with you?

It's not my place to say whether or not they are true Christians. That has nothing to do with it. You are the one who decided to use it as a source. Just seemed a little hypocritical to me. You say that Christianity is full of lies but when you find a site that supports your argument you take it as fact.

Maybe she should read the communist manifesto.....

Isn't that a must read for all Moonbats?

You buncha fuc*in' whiners... this is sad.

... and don't you dare let your right hand know what your left hand is doing.

meta4 wrote:You buncha fuc*in' whiners... this is sad.

... and don't you dare let your right hand know what your left hand is doing.

Oops, my bad...for a minute there, I thought Bman was back.

Hey, there you go LTRT, adding more worthwhile content to the thread. Same goes for Markwes, Kroman...

If you can't stay on topic, at least make it look like you're trying to stay out of the weeds.

says the one who has made getting off topic a science...

meta4 wrote:Hey, there you go LTRT, adding more worthwhile content to the thread. Same goes for Markwes, Kroman...

If you can't stay on topic, at least make it look like you're trying to stay out of the weeds.

Sure but the next time you decide to give a shout out, be sure to include all players, not just those who are right.

FWIW, you might wanna go thru the entire forum and add your comment wherever deemed appropiate.