A Question for the Right, and any other side of the aisle....

[Potomac Yank]

If a General stood up and said that he was against a war, would you call him unpatriotic, or a traitor? ... or both?

[Vegas]

I'd call it his right to free speech.

[Potomac Yank]

I'd call it his right to free speech.

*
*

But what would you think of him?

[Vegas]

*
*

But what would you think of him?

I would think that he was wrong.

[*NZ*]

I would think that he was wrong.

that he wrong in his opinion and/or he was wrong the voice it?

[Vegas]

that he wrong in his opinion and/or he was wrong the voice it?

I would think that he was wrong in his opinion.

[Potomac Yank]

I would think that he was wrong in his opinion.

*
*

What if he's a Major General in the USMC?

[Vegas]

*
*

What if he's a Major General in the USMC?

Wouldn't change my opinion a bit.

How would you feel if more than half of the Democratic senators voted to authorize the war? That's not so hypothetical.

[Potomac Yank]

Wouldn't change my opinion a bit.

How would you feel if more than half of the Democratic senators voted to authorize the war? That's not so hypothetical.

Let's see here, we're talking about a Major General in the USMC experience, and the Vegas until now experience.

In response to the hypothetical question that you posed, Houston, we have a problem.
I'm not talking about a hypothetical USMC Major General.
I'm talking about a USMC General that Barry Goldwater would have loved to have a drink with, so would I ... and I suspect you would have also.

Now that you know that we're not dealing with a hypothetical situation, here's the scenario.

In one corner, we have Vegas, and his until now whatever war and world experience. ... I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I worded it that way, because I really don't know your back ground.

I asked the original question because it has become a common practice for right wingers to call anyone that's not with them, either UnAmerican - giving comfort to the enemy - traitor.
It is common knowledge that this trash talk usually comes from the mouths of those that never shouldered a rifle for their country.
Thus the word Chicken Hawks.

Vegas, with your experience, you say that the non-hypothetical General is wrong.
Please allow me to give you some background, and introduce the General to you.

In the other corner, we have the representative for the non prostitutional members of both sides of the aisle.
His name:
Major General Smedley D. Butler USMC.
The only double Medal of Honor winner that I know of.
The man, is a mans, man.
In 1935, he wrote a book called. "War is a RACKET."

If you want an eye opener, and want to really understand what's happening today? ... READ WHAT'S BELOW, and tell me if you wouldn't have wanted to have a drink with this man.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm

[Vegas]

Let's see here, we're talking about a Major General in the USMC experience, and the Vegas until now experience.

In response to the hypothetical question that you posed, Houston, we have a problem.
I'm not talking about a hypothetical USMC Major General.
I'm talking about a USMC General that Barry Goldwater would have loved to have a drink with, so would I ... and I suspect you would have also.

Now that you know that we're not dealing with a hypothetical situation, here's the scenario.

In one corner, we have Vegas, and his until now whatever war and world experience. ... I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I worded it that way, because I really don't know your back ground.

I asked the original question because it has become a common practice for right wingers to call anyone that's not with them, either UnAmerican - giving comfort to the enemy - traitor.
It is common knowledge that this trash talk usually comes from the mouths of those that never shouldered a rifle for their country.
Thus the word Chicken Hawks.

Vegas, with your experience, you say that the non-hypothetical General is wrong.
Please allow me to give you some background, and introduce the General to you.

In the other corner, we have the representative for the non prostitutional members of both sides of the aisle.
His name:
Major General Smedley D. Butler USMC.
The only double Medal of Honor winner that I know of.
The man, is a mans, man.
In 1935, he wrote a book called. "War is a RACKET."

If you want an eye opener, and want to really understand what's happening today? ... READ WHAT'S BELOW, and tell me if you wouldn't have wanted to have a drink with this man.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm

I already answered your question. You didn't answer mine. What do you think about all of those Democratic senators that voted in favor of this war?

[pnkpanther]

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.


sadly whole thing wotn fit it my sig file

[Potomac Yank]

I already answered your question. You didn't answer mine. What do you think about all of those Democratic senators that voted in favor of this war?

*
*

Still not knowing what your background is, or what you base your opinion on.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

You said that in your opinion, double Medal of Honor winner, Major General Smedley D. Butler USMC, and his "War is a Racket" view, ... is wrong.

Tell us, please share with us, on what background do you base your opinion that you are right as to the topic of WAR, and the experience decorated General is wrong?

I apologize for being late with a response .... had a hell of a time trying to log on.

[Vegas]

*
*

Still not knowing what your background is, or what you base your opinion on.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

You said that in your opinion, double Medal of Honor winner, Major General Smedley D. Butler USMC, and his "War is a Racket" view, ... is wrong.

Tell us, please share with us, on what background do you base your opinion that you are right as to the topic of WAR, and the experience decorated General is wrong?

I apologize for being late with a response .... had a hell of a time trying to log on.

How many times do I need to explain? I think he's wrong if he thinks the war is wrong. Period. That's it.

And yet again, I notice that you ignored my question about the majority of Democratic senators who voted to authorize the war.

[LSU]

How many times do I need to explain? I think he's wrong if he thinks the war is wrong. Period. That's it.

And yet again, I notice that you ignored my question about the majority of Democratic senators who voted to authorize the war.


I'm surprised you didn't ask about the military (war) vets that did vote for the war to begin with...that would've been my first move, regardless of right or left.

[Potomac Yank]

How many times do I need to explain? I think he's wrong if he thinks the war is wrong. Period. That's it.

And yet again, I notice that you ignored my question about the majority of Democratic senators who voted to authorize the war.

*
*

You said the General was wrong.

What do you base that on?

Any trained parrot can say Right or Wrong.
What we're trying to do here, is differentiate between man and a parrot.
Contrary to what you might think, I'm on your side.
Don't make me look bad by proving that you're really a parrot. :)

BTW, I'm glad you asked about the Dem/Sen's and the war vote.
Not to worry, ..... I'll get to that one. :)

[Potomac Yank]

I'm surprised you didn't ask about the military (war) vets that did vote for the war to begin with...that would've been my first move, regardless of right or left.

*
*

What military war vets are you talking about?
Also LSU, did you get to read the bio on General Butler, and his piece on "War is a Racket"?


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/wa...butler_usm.htm

[Vegas]

*
*

You said the General was wrong.

What do you base that on?

Any trained parrot can say Right or Wrong.
What we're trying to do here, is differentiate between man and a parrot.
Contrary to what you might think, I'm on your side.
Don't make me look bad by proving that you're really a parrot. :)

BTW, I'm glad you asked about the Dem/Sen's and the war vote.
Not to worry, ..... I'll get to that one. :)

How about the things in the original resolution:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
* Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

[Potomac Yank]

How about the things in the original resolution:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
* Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

*
*

Anyone that uses a cut and paste ... a cut and paste that isn't remotely connected with the General Butler question ... is in deep trouble.

If you don't know the answer, just say so.
It just proves that you didn't read the Bio on Major General Smedley D. Butler.

Damn I'm disappointed. :(

Would you have liked that I answered your Dem/Sen question with a cut and paste about the Kentucky Derby? .... Damn what a let down. :(

For a fleeting second, I thought that I was going to have a good ol' fashion chat with a straight forward Rightie.

I'll have your cage cleaned in the morning.

Is there an upstanding - straight shooting Righty in the house? :)

[i_hate_righties]

*
*

Anyone that uses a cut and paste ... a cut and paste that isn't remotely connected with the General Butler question ... is in deep trouble.

If you don't know the answer, just say so.
It just proves that you didn't read the Bio on Major General Smedley D. Butler.

Damn I'm disappointed. :(

Would you have liked that I answered your Dem/Sen question with a cut and paste about the Kentucky Derby? .... Damn what a let down. :(

For a fleeting second, I thought that I was going to have a good ol' fashion chat with a straight forward Rightie.

I'll have your cage cleaned in the morning.

Is there an upstanding - straight shooting Righty in the house? :)

They go to bed pretty early....nothing but us left wing militant types here now!:D

[Reagan Smash]

I would think that he was wrong in his opinion.

Shouldn't this be the end of discussion. He answered your question there. That's like going over to sports-boards and asking

"Do you think a player who made his career as a DH stood up against it, would you call him wrong, a traitor, ect"

"No"

"But what if he was a DH for the Yankees"

"No"

"But what if he was Tino Martinez"

Seems silly. You obviously have a problem with his viewpoint on the war, yet you try this silly entrapment to try to make him look foolish. Wouldn't it have been easier to come out and get to the point.

[Potomac Yank]

Shouldn't this be the end of discussion. He answered your question there. That's like going over to sports-boards and asking

"Do you think a player who made his career as a DH stood up against it, would you call him wrong, a traitor, ect"

"No"

"But what if he was a DH for the Yankees"

"No"

"But what if he was Tino Martinez"

Seems silly. You obviously have a problem with his viewpoint on the war, yet you try this silly entrapment to try to make him look foolish. Wouldn't it have been easier to come out and get to the point.

*
*

I don't know about you, but I don't consider something like over 3000 KIA's, as something silly.

[Reagan Smash]

*
*

I don't know about you, but I don't consider something like over 3000 KIA's, as something silly.

The phrasing of the question or series of questions was silly, although the topic is not.

[Potomac Yank]

The phrasing of the question or series of questions was silly, although the topic is not.

*
*

And you are proving it.

In his case.
He really didn't answer the question.
Either the point went over his head, or he was side stepping it?

In your case, I believe it might have gone over your head. :)
Why don't you re read it? ... better yet, why don't you read General Butler's bio?
Who knows, you might even understand what's happenning around you? :)

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/wa...butler_usm.htm

[Reagan Smash]

*
*

And you are proving it.

In his case.
He really didn't answer the question.
Either the point went over his head, or he was side stepping it?

In your case, I believe it might have gone over your head. :)
Why don't you re read it? ... better yet, why don't you read General Butler's bio?
Who knows, you might even understand what's happenning around you? :)

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/wa...butler_usm.htm

Putting smilies next to every antagonistic statement you make your statements any less confrontational. But hey, it's that kind of tact that will keep a Democrat out of the White House again:D

[IBC]

Wouldn't change my opinion a bit.

How would you feel if more than half of the Democratic senators voted to authorize the war? That's not so hypothetical.

Ahhh yes, 4 years ago. Who are the idiots that think it is working out, 4 years and hundreds of thousands of lives later?

[IBC]

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.


sadly whole thing wotn fit it my sig file

The quote that sums it all up in my book. Of course that guy was a nazi.

[Nixon's Head]

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.


sadly whole thing wotn fit it my sig fileNice sig...

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h17/deviouslikeyou2/postthisonetoo.jpg

[IBC]

Nice sig...

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h17/deviouslikeyou2/postthisonetoo.jpg

I think it should be painfully obvious that we were lead down a war, not for safety, not to save lives, not even for oil. For money. For damn money. Our boys and girls die to fatten pockets. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die, for money. The conspiracy is....

There is no conspiracy. Just fatcats getting fatter and at our expense.

[Potomac Yank]

Putting smilies next to every antagonistic statement you make your statements any less confrontational. But hey, it's that kind of tact that will keep a Democrat out of the White House again:D

*
*

I don't give a rats ass what party is in the White House.
I've proven that. ... Goldwater vote, in 1964.
It is apparent that you are of the breed that wants the continuation of the Bush Orwellian years.

As part of your signature, you left out:

I prefer to be BLIND. ... NO smilies, and right to the point .. the way you like it.

[Reagan Smash]

*
*

I don't give a rats ass what party is in the White House.
I've proven that. ... Goldwater vote, in 1964.
It is apparent that you are of the breed that wants the continuation of the Bush Orwellian years.

As part of your signature, you left out:

I prefer to be BLIND. ... NO smilies, and right to the point .. the way you like it.

Good, you voted for Goldwater 40 years ago, my opinion has changed. I voted for Gore in 2000, do I get a prize, or just more scorn from someone who doesn't think anyone else's point is valid, and resorts to personal attacks whenever they feel like.

[LSU]

*
*

What military war vets are you talking about?
Also LSU, did you get to read the bio on General Butler, and his piece on "War is a Racket"?


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/wa...butler_usm.htm



Kerry, Murtha, McCain are three that voted for the war that come to mind off the bat. There could be more.

No, I didn't read the bio, or the piece.

[LSU]

*
*

What military war vets are you talking about?
Also LSU, did you get to read the bio on General Butler, and his piece on "War is a Racket"?


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/wa...butler_usm.htm



link not valid

[Potomac Yank]

Good, you voted for Goldwater 40 years ago, my opinion has changed. I voted for Gore in 2000, do I get a prize, or just more scorn from someone who doesn't think anyone else's point is valid, and resorts to personal attacks whenever they feel like.

*
*

Who was attacking?

Weren't you the one that said?

"Seems silly. You obviously have a problem with his viewpoint on the war, yet you try this silly entrapment to try to make him look foolish. Wouldn't it have been easier to come out and get to the point."

----------------------------------------------

"The phrasing of the question or series of questions was silly, although the topic is not."

---------------------------------------------

"Putting smilies next to every antagonistic statement you make your statements any less confrontational. But hey, it's that kind of tact that will keep a Democrat out of the White House again"

*
*

Reagan, what you may call antagonistic, others may call facts.
You're the one that wanted me not to beat around the Bush, and get to the point.
I did.
I'm sorry I hurt your delicate feelings, but the name of the program is called, "You Asked for It".
It's time for you to make up your mind in many areas.

Reagan, if you think that I'm one of those pussy cat Democrat Liberals that allowed the Neo Cons to push, and bully them around, you've got another guess coming on, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader"?

Reagan, you jumped into this, without really knowing what was going down.

I don't mind anyone getting into this, but at least know what the hell your talking about.

We had a guy on here taking a position on war, and he doesn't know a damn thing about war.
He took a position against a man that earned TWO Congressional Medals of Honor.
Now I don't care if you've seen 100 John Wayne movies.
I don't care if you've read 1000 military books.
If you were lucky to never have experienced the given moment of the sight, scent, and the emotional trauma of a war. ... you have no remote idea of what it's like.
What's scary, is that you usually hear the cries for war, from those that don't intend to go to one, and have no clue of what it's about.

"War is a Racket" is recommended reading.

[IBC]

*
*

Who was attacking?

Weren't you the one that said?

"Seems silly. You obviously have a problem with his viewpoint on the war, yet you try this silly entrapment to try to make him look foolish. Wouldn't it have been easier to come out and get to the point."

----------------------------------------------

"The phrasing of the question or series of questions was silly, although the topic is not."

---------------------------------------------

"Putting smilies next to every antagonistic statement you make your statements any less confrontational. But hey, it's that kind of tact that will keep a Democrat out of the White House again"

*
*

Reagan, what you may call antagonistic, others may call facts.
You're the one that wanted me not to beat around the Bush, and get to the point.
I did.
I'm sorry I hurt your delicate feelings, but the name of the program is called, "You Asked for It".
It's time for you to make up your mind in many areas.

Reagan, if you think that I'm one of those pussy cat Democrat Liberals that allowed the Neo Cons to push, and bully them around, you've got another guess coming on, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader"?

Reagan, you jumped into this, without really knowing what was going down.

I don't mind anyone getting into this, but at least know what the hell your talking about.

We had a guy on here taking a position on war, and he doesn't know a damn thing about war.
He took a position against a man that earned TWO Congressional Medals of Honor.
Now I don't care if you've seen 100 John Wayne movies.
I don't care if you've read 1000 military books.
If you were lucky to never have experienced the given moment of the sight, scent, and the emotional trauma of a war. ... you have no remote idea of what it's like.
What's scary, is that you usually hear the cries for war, from those that don't intend to go to one, and have no clue of what it's about.

"War is a Racket" is recommended reading.
We call those guys chickenhawks. I posted an article about them. These Chawks are a special breed though. They are the kind that while never having served, profit like mad from war. It is a scary, scary shit sandwich and we all take a bite. Some of us Americans help prepare it.

[Potomac Yank]

[/B]



link not valid

*
*

Try this one, and let me know.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm

[Potomac Yank]

Major General Smedley Butler USMC


Throughout the years various men of military service have spoken up and spoken out against the actions of the American military. Some men speak up about atrocities that have gone covered up, about discrimination, about deceptions that have been used against the American public, and about actions that have been taken that are contrary to what they view as American principles. Major General Smedley Butler is one of the most outspoken military service men who opposed the actions of the military that he served in.

Marine Smedley Darling Butler is one of the most highly decorated military men from the pre-World War II era. He served from 1898 to 1931 and saw action all over the world.


Butler (second from right) in Veracruz, Mexico - 1914

Butler became a prominent political figure and was one of America’s important leaders of the liberal movement of the 1930s. Butler advocated military isolationism and was against American involvement in World War II. His isolationist views are certainly unpopular today, and in fact are not compatible with the current geopolitical situation. His views, however, developed from 33 years of serving as what he called “a gangster for capitalism.”


Smedley Butler at his 1931 retirement ceremony

Though Butler was not a member of the American Communist Party he did give speeches at Communist Party meetings in the 1930s as well as many speeches for the League Against War and Fascism. When asked about the company he was keeping he noted, “They told me I’d find a nest of communists here. I told them ‘What the hell of it!’”


Smedley Butler preparing to speak at one of his stops in the 1930s

All told Butler gave over 1,200 speeches in over 700 cities during his speaking tour of the United States.

In 1935 Butler published War is a Racket, which got high praise at the time, as well as strong criticism. The forward by Lowell Thomas spoke of Butler’s “moral as well as physical courage” and noted that “Even his opponents concede that in his stand on public questions, General Butler has been motivated by the same fiery integrity and loyal patriotism which has distinguished his service in countless Marine campaigns.”

What Butler fought so hard to do was to take the focus off of moral and ideological arguments for war and concentrate on the geopolitical factors that actually motivated war. He tried to raise awareness of what the real motivating factors of war were as well as the consequences of war. He was one of the first Americans to really bring the economic implications of war to the forefront of the public conscience. In War is a Racket Butler “names names” and lays out in wonderfully blunt detail how the American “military machine” was used to the benefit of wealthy American industrialists. He noted how proponents of war typically call on God as a supporter of the cause and how they embellish the mission as one of liberation and the spreading of freedom, but that these people tend to shy away from discussing the economic details of military ventures.

Butler didn’t choose sides when it came to expressing his views on war. Butler could certainly be considered a liberal but he spoke out against the liberal FDR administration and also broke ties with anti-fascist groups when they called for war to defend against fascism. In 1935 he commented to a veterans meeting on the subject of the growing interest in the FDR administration to become involved in the conflicts of Europe that, “The political leaders of this country are for another conflict to cover up their blunders.”

Though most today would agree that his isolationist views would have been harmful had they been followed by the country in regard to American involvement in WWII his views on imperialism and the economic implications of war are still as relevant today as ever.

The following is an excerpt from a speech he gave in 1933:

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm



In a few selected quotes from War is a Racket he writes:

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives...

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows...

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill...

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations...

...a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends...

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it...

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed.

Butler goes on to name American companies that saw huge increases in profits during World War I. Below is a listing of pre-war vs. intra-war profits for American companies that are included in Butler’s analysis as well as some additional companies.

Company
Average profits in the last pre-war year
Average profits during the four years of war

U. S. Steel
$105,331,000
$259,653,000

Du Pont
$6,092,000
$58,076,000

Bethlehem Steel
$6,840,000
$49,427,000

Anaconda Copper
$10,649,000
$34,549,000

Utah Copper
$5,776,000
$21,622,000

American Smelting
$11,566,000
$18,602,000

Republic Iron and Steel
$4,177,000
$17,548,000

International Mercantile
$6,690,00
$14,229,000

Atlas Powder
$485,000
$2,374,000

American and British Man.
$172,000
$325,000

Canadian Car & Foundry
$1,335,000
$2,201,000

Crocker Wheeler
$206,000
$666,000

Hercules Powder
$1,271,000
$7,430,000

Niles, Bement Pond
$656,000
$6,146,000

Scovill Mfg. Co.
$655,000
$7,678,000

General Motors
$6,954,000
$21,700,000


It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few...

Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home...

Perhaps the following sounds familiar of the current Bush administration as well? Just replace “Germans” with “Iraqis.”

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."...

Butler proposed that the only way to actually prevent war is take the profits out of war. He proposed several ways to achieve this. What is important to note is that it is possible to take the profitability out of war, but it must be done at an international level. Taking the profitability out of war and out of the weapons industry is really the way that is most likely to be able to achieve some level of global peace. Of course there has never been any effort to do this in America, in fact the opposite is true, and right now the Bush administration is making war even more profitable, only ensuring its proliferation.

The General concludes by proclaiming:

TO HELL WITH WAR!

War is a Racket - Smedley D. Butler

For more on Smedley Butler, and info on the assassination plot against FDR see:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Butler.html

http://www.starbuilders.org/fft/articles/racket.html

[LSU]

*
*

Try this one, and let me know.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm



ahhh, much better. I'll read it when I get the chance.

[Reagan Smash]

*
*

Who was attacking?

Weren't you the one that said?

"Seems silly. You obviously have a problem with his viewpoint on the war, yet you try this silly entrapment to try to make him look foolish. Wouldn't it have been easier to come out and get to the point."

----------------------------------------------

"The phrasing of the question or series of questions was silly, although the topic is not."

---------------------------------------------

"Putting smilies next to every antagonistic statement you make your statements any less confrontational. But hey, it's that kind of tact that will keep a Democrat out of the White House again"

*
*

Reagan, what you may call antagonistic, others may call facts.
You're the one that wanted me not to beat around the Bush, and get to the point.
I did.
I'm sorry I hurt your delicate feelings, but the name of the program is called, "You Asked for It".
It's time for you to make up your mind in many areas.

Reagan, if you think that I'm one of those pussy cat Democrat Liberals that allowed the Neo Cons to push, and bully them around, you've got another guess coming on, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader"?

Reagan, you jumped into this, without really knowing what was going down.

I don't mind anyone getting into this, but at least know what the hell your talking about.

We had a guy on here taking a position on war, and he doesn't know a damn thing about war.
He took a position against a man that earned TWO Congressional Medals of Honor.
Now I don't care if you've seen 100 John Wayne movies.
I don't care if you've read 1000 military books.
If you were lucky to never have experienced the given moment of the sight, scent, and the emotional trauma of a war. ... you have no remote idea of what it's like.
What's scary, is that you usually hear the cries for war, from those that don't intend to go to one, and have no clue of what it's about.

"War is a Racket" is recommended reading.

What? So I'm a Neo Con, a Chickenhawk, blind, and have delicate feelings. Wow, not bad for someone was a registered Democrat until 2002, but again, I never fought any war, so I'll just keep my mouth shut, because nobody should say anything unless they fought in a war. What could I saw, where you wouldn't call me ignorant because I never fought in a war.

I have so much respect for those who have fought in wars, however, it does not give you the right to be an ass to anyone who might disagree with your opinion.

[i_hate_righties]

Putting smilies next to every antagonistic statement you make your statements any less confrontational. But hey, it's that kind of tact that will keep a Democrat out of the White House again:D

I totally agree with you,Vegas and I are polar opposites when it comes to political viewpoints, but I also notice alot of antagonistic remarks going on in this thread that are unecessary IMO...If anyone was not given an answer to their satisfaction, there is really no point in badgering them into giving an answer that makes someone happier...I dont think anyone is on here to have their viewpoints changed in any way, but to discuss, debate, and finally agree to disagree.....with that said I leave you with these wise words...


War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives

War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives

I said, war, huh
Good God, y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing
But a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Ooooh, war
It's an enemy to all mankind
The point of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die
Aaaaah, war-huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War, huh
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, it's got one friend
That's the undertaker
Ooooh, war, has shattered
Many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days
War can't give life
It can only take it away

Ooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way

Ooooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
You tell me
Say it, say it, say it, say it

War, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Stand up and shout it
Nothing

[Iron Jaw]

Of course, General Butler was referring primarily to the Banana Wars in Central America and the islands when he injected his ideas about wars as such being for corporate business. General Butler died in 1940. I wonder what his views would have been on the U.S. entry into WWII just under a year and a half after his death? Butler was the first known to have used the term, "Military Industrial Complex." Butler was a Quaker, a denomination known for peaceful intent. His profession really didn't fit his profile. Yet, he was a great Marine, a dedicated officer and a two-time Medal of Honor winner - when the going got tough, Smedley got going.

Anyway, Butler wasn't the only general who commented on this subject, at the time. General John Lejeune (for whom Camp Lejeune, NC is named) also commented on fighting wars for Dole, Del Monte and the like.

[*NZ*]

A link to the full transcript of "War is a racket"

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[*NZ*]

Great quote from Butler:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

[Potomac Yank]

Of course, General Butler was referring primarily to the Banana Wars in Central America and the islands when he injected his ideas about wars as such being for corporate business. General Butler died in 1940. I wonder what his views would have been on the U.S. entry into WWII just under a year and a half after his death? Butler was the first known to have used the term, "Military Industrial Complex." Butler was a Quaker, a denomination known for peaceful intent. His profession really didn't fit his profile. Yet, he was a great Marine, a dedicated officer and a two-time Medal of Honor winner - when the going got tough, Smedley got going.

Anyway, Butler wasn't the only general who commented on this subject, at the time. General John Lejeune (for whom Camp Lejeune, NC is named) also commented on fighting wars for Dole, Del Monte and the like.

*
*

Thanks for the info.
I didn't know that General John Lejeune was on the same page as General Butler.

When I got back from Korea, I spent a little time at Camp Lejeune.
I was due to get out in Dec. of 1953, and the outfit was being transferred to 29 Palms right after that.
The boy's and I went into J-ville (Jacksonville N.C.) on liberty, we tied one on while they tried to talk me into re-upping, and joining them at 29 Palms.

It's hard to get high on 3.2 beer, but if you drink enough of them, you can acquire the illusion.
Anyway, I got out of my Marine Corps, and continued my walk of life.
I miss my Corps buddies, I hope they're still with us, and I hope they are well.

Semper Fi

[Potomac Yank]

Great quote from Butler:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

*
*

Thanks for your input ... Mate!

Scary isn't it? :)

[Potomac Yank]

Kerry, Murtha, McCain are three that voted for the war that come to mind off the bat. There could be more.

No, I didn't read the bio, or the piece.

*
*

I'm not trying to ignore your post.
I didn't see it.
You have to similar post back to back, and the one stating he invalid link, was the one that caught my eye. ... I apologize.

About your question. ... You're absolutely right, the vets in both the house and the senate, were up against it.
First of all, they had their own personal feelings about the promoted war.
Secondly, they had their political mindset on the war.
You must also remember, that at that time and period, there was a very strong public relations (PR work) to promote the desired war.
It was at it's height, and the slogan was, "You're either With Us, or Against Us."
They played the Patriotism card to the hilt.
It was during that same period that a CIA agent was exposed because her husband told the truth about a story that was untrue.
I don't know about now, but during the Korean war, that was considered as a treasonous act.
To make a long story short, except for McCain, knowing what everyone knows now, most of whatever vets voted for the war ... they wouldn't do so now.

Again, I apologies for missing your question.

[IBC]

*
*

I'm not trying to ignore your post.
I didn't see it.
You have to similar post back to back, and the one stating he invalid link, was the one that caught my eye. ... I apologize.

About your question. ... You're absolutely right, the vets in both the house and the senate, were up against it.
First of all, they had their own personal feelings about the promoted war.
Secondly, they had their political mindset on the war.
You must also remember, that at that time and period, there was a very strong public relations (PR work) to promote the desired war.
It was at it's height, and the slogan was, "You're either With Us, or Against Us."
They played the Patriotism card to the hilt.
It was during that same period that a CIA agent was exposed because her husband told the truth about a story that was untrue.
I don't know about now, but during the Korean war, that was considered as a treasonous act.
To make a long story short, except for McCain, knowing what everyone knows now, most of whatever vets voted for the war ... they wouldn't do so now.

Again, I apologies for missing your question.

And they continue to try and play that patriotism card don't they? It doesn't work as well anymore, because I think most see through it.

[Vegas]

And they continue to try and play that patriotism card don't they? It doesn't work as well anymore, because I think most see through it.

Yes, you are correct. Those democrats play the patriotism card and we see right through it.

[IBC]

Yes, you are correct. Those democrats play the patriotism card and we see right through it.

Right. Because dems hate America.

[pnkpanther]

Yes, you are correct. Those democrats play the patriotism card and we see right through it.

i've been called out for not being a patriot by righties for not supporting the war and/or president bush. being a patriot IMO doesnt mean being a blind sheep and supporting whatever your country does

[IBC]

i've been called out for not being a patriot by righties for not supporting the war and/or president bush. being a patriot IMO doesnt mean being a blind sheep and supporting whatever your country does

Why do you hate America?

That shit just doesn't work anymore. People see right through it.

[Potomac Yank]

i've been called out for not being a patriot by righties for not supporting the war and/or president bush. being a patriot IMO doesnt mean being a blind sheep and supporting whatever your country does

*
*

To All Those Righties.
To all the ones, right up to the top, that questions the Patriotism of any American man or women, and that includes questioning the Patriotism of some members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
To any Rightie that tells you, "If you're not with us .. you're against us".

I'd say to them: OK, you talk the talk, now let's see you walk the walk.

Join the Bush Brigade, and have HIM lead you IN Iraq.

Ladies and Gentlemen - Fellow Americans.

Iraq would be EMPTY, no warriors in sight.

[Iron Jaw]

*
*

Thanks for the info.
I didn't know that General John Lejeune was on the same page as General Butler.

When I got back from Korea, I spent a little time at Camp Lejeune.
I was due to get out in Dec. of 1953, and the outfit was being transferred to 29 Palms right after that.
The boy's and I went into J-ville (Jacksonville N.C.) on liberty, we tied one on while they tried to talk me into re-upping, and joining them at 29 Palms.

It's hard to get high on 3.2 beer, but if you drink enough of them, you can acquire the illusion.
Anyway, I got out of my Marine Corps, and continued my walk of life.
I miss my Corps buddies, I hope they're still with us, and I hope they are well.

Semper Fi

You're a Korean War vet - my father's era. Dad was one of the "Frozen Chosen."

My time in the Corps was 03/74 through 03/77 - a three year tour in the enlisted ranks. My combat experience was limited to the U.S.S. Mayaguez rescue and the evacuation of Saigon in May of 1975. I also saw duty in Lebanon during their Civil War of 1976 - evacuating U.S. and foreign citizens from Beirut ant other areas (we even evacuated some Soviets - the spirit of detente was in full swing then). Most of my stateside experience was at Camp Lejeune, NC (though I went through boot and ITR on the west coast - MCRD San Diego). And I remember many a night in Jacksonville. Come to think of it, I don't remember some of the nights.:D

I did a second tour of duty in the Marine Reserves in the 1980's. After I graduated from college and began a teaching career, I joined MACS-23 in Denver and applied for a commission. I was commissioned as a reserve officer in 1982. I never went back to active duty except for training (I was on active for almost a year when I went to Quantico for OCS and Basic School). In 1991, I was in the IRR and a locator notice was sent to my home in Yuma (I became a Border Patrol Agent in 1987). But they didn't activate me.

And yes, a person can get pretty toasted on 3.2. I was a veteran of the 3.2 ranks. Growing up in Colorado, we had a 3.2 law for those 18-21 and 6% or hard drinks were available for those over 21.

Always, Semper Fi

[ryr8828]

Why do you hate America?

That shit just doesn't work anymore. People see right through it.

I don't know. When a resident who has feasted off of the rights and fruits of our way of life bashes our country at every turn, I think it's a valid question.

You are the one who posted earlier that the US was the reason Mexico was in such a mess, so I would believe it applies to you.

I challenge you to say one good thing about the United States.

[Potomac Yank]

You're a Korean War vet - my father's era. Dad was one of the "Frozen Chosen."

My time in the Corps was 03/74 through 03/77 - a three year tour in the enlisted ranks. My combat experience was limited to the U.S.S. Mayaguez rescue and the evacuation of Saigon in May of 1975. I also saw duty in Lebanon during their Civil War of 1976 - evacuating U.S. and foreign citizens from Beirut ant other areas (we even evacuated some Soviets - the spirit of detente was in full swing then). Most of my stateside experience was at Camp Lejeune, NC (though I went through boot and ITR on the west coast - MCRD San Diego). And I remember many a night in Jacksonville. Come to think of it, I don't remember some of the nights.:D

I did a second tour of duty in the Marine Reserves in the 1980's. After I graduated from college and began a teaching career, I joined MACS-23 in Denver and applied for a commission. I was commissioned as a reserve officer in 1982. I never went back to active duty except for training (I was on active for almost a year when I went to Quantico for OCS and Basic School). In 1991, I was in the IRR and a locator notice was sent to my home in Yuma (I became a Border Patrol Agent in 1987). But they didn't activate me.

And yes, a person can get pretty toasted on 3.2. I was a veteran of the 3.2 ranks. Growing up in Colorado, we had a 3.2 law for those 18-21 and 6% or hard drinks were available for those over 21.

Always, Semper Fi

*
*

Your Dad was in the "Frozen Chosen?"
I tip my helmut off to him.
What outfit was he in?
The "Frozen Chosen," and the follow up, "Retreat Hell! .. we're only attacking in a different direction," was about a year before I got to Korea.
I got there about April something 1952 till April something 1953.

During that period, it was almost like a flash back to the trench warfare of the First World War,the only thing missing was gas, but the bugles and the hordes of Chinese made up for that.
Hey, you had your share also, evacuation near Saigon in 1975, and in the heat of a Civil war in Lebanon ... isn't like going to a Sunday picnic.

Always good to meet up with a member of the Crotch.
Oops .. Let me clarify that to those that might not be familiar with that term.
I don't know if they still do, but during my time in the Corps, Marines use to refer to the Corps, as the Crotch. ... Don't ask me why. :)

Amigo,
Always Semper Fi

[IBC]

I don't know. When a resident who has feasted off of the rights and fruits of our way of life bashes our country at every turn, I think it's a valid question.

You are the one who posted earlier that the US was the reason Mexico was in such a mess, so I would believe it applies to you.

I challenge you to say one good thing about the United States.

First, I don't believe that is exactly what I said. I said we played a part in what has happened in Mexico, and the only way to truly solve that problem is not with fences and security. We have to make it more attractive to stay in Mexico, and less attractive to come here.

Second, I believe dissent is the strongest form of patriotism. We have a responsibility in a democracy, as citizens of our great country to work to better it. I love my country, I love our people. I feel like we have made some disastrous decisions in the past 50 years that are ruining it. We are the most productive and wealthy country in the world. The determination of our people when they want something is amazing. I just wish we wanted something more than what we are doing. If pointing out the shortcomings of this great nation bothers you, don't read what I have to say.

I love my country, I love our people. I love our way of life in many ways, and despise it in others. I would like to see us produce less trash, use less resources, help other countries more, kill less, truly live in a global world instead of taking advantage of it. I don't take advantage of things I don't like. My work is dedicated to nonviolence and working with kids. I know you Rush Limbaugh wannabes shun that. He attacks teachers like its his job... Wait, pandering is his job. I show what I believe in every day of the week, in every action I can afford to. I believe myself a patriot, and I don't like having it questioned because I don't support our war, or our foreign policy. Excuse me if I value the life of another citizen of the world equally to ours, but I value the lives of Iraqis, Mexicans and everyone else.

If the definition of patriotism is blind belief in country, count me out.

[LSU]

First, I don't believe that is exactly what I said. I said we played a part in what has happened in Mexico, and the only way to truly solve that problem is not with fences and security. We have to make it more attractive to stay in Mexico, and less attractive to come here.



Isn't that Mexico's job?

As for less attractive to come here...how so?

[Vegas]

Isn't that Mexico's job?

As for less attractive to come here...how so?

That is absolutely Mexico's job. Mexico is rich in resources and has a nation full of people willing to work. They also have political corruption and an economic policy where the president wants to help boost people over the border fence so they can work and send money back home.

[IBC]

Isn't that Mexico's job?

As for less attractive to come here...how so?

Yes, Mexico's and ours if we want to solve the problem. We have capital, they have labor. If you think spending a shitload to put up a fence and guard the borders when it is almost sure not to work, than ok. I think for once we should be forward thinking and try to enact policies that allow Mexico to invest in capital, and stop taking advantage of us. It is bad policy to invest in intervention when you can invest in prevention. I am not exactly sure how to do it. I think it can be done and is better planning than a fence guards or beerguts across America.

[Vegas]

Yes, Mexico's and ours if we want to solve the problem. We have capital, they have labor. If you think spending a shitload to put up a fence and guard the borders when it is almost sure not to work, than ok. I think for once we should be forward thinking and try to enact policies that allow Mexico to invest in capital, and stop taking advantage of us. It is bad policy to invest in intervention when you can invest in prevention. I am not exactly sure how to do it. I think it can be done and is better planning than a fence guards or beerguts across America.

Yes we have capital, but the rules that Mexico has to prevent foreign investment are the biggest impediment to progress in Mexico. It's not our rule.

[IBC]

That is absolutely Mexico's job. Mexico is rich in resources and has a nation full of people willing to work. They also have political corruption and an economic policy where the president wants to help boost people over the border fence so they can work and send money back home.

You are right about alot of that. Are you proposing a fence?

However, are you saying that Mexico is raping the US?

[IBC]

Yes we have capital, but the rules that Mexico has to prevent foreign investment are the biggest impediment to progress in Mexico. It's not our rule.
Sure, but the foreign investment that has been made hasn't helped much. ie NAFTA. The plants that ended up down there aren't any more attractive than the plants here.

Edit: alot less attractive

[Vegas]

Sure, but the foreign investment that has been made hasn't helped much. ie NAFTA. The plants that ended up down there aren't any more attractive than the plants here.

Edit: alot less attractive

That is absolutely not true. The foreign investment has made huge differences. The problem is that there are too many restrictions (again Mexico's restrictions) that limit where and how the investments may be made.

[Potomac Yank]

That is absolutely Mexico's job. Mexico is rich in resources and has a nation full of people willing to work. They also have political corruption and an economic policy where the president wants to help boost people over the border fence so they can work and send money back home.

*
*

Vegas quote:

"That is absolutely Mexico's job."

Your point fits better in IRAQ.

-------------------------

IBC, ... They are playing the old fashion Patriot card.

[ryr8828]

First, I don't believe that is exactly what I said. I said we played a part in what has happened in Mexico, and the only way to truly solve that problem is not with fences and security. We have to make it more attractive to stay in Mexico, and less attractive to come here.

Second, I believe dissent is the strongest form of patriotism. We have a responsibility in a democracy, as citizens of our great country to work to better it. I love my country, I love our people. I feel like we have made some disastrous decisions in the past 50 years that are ruining it. We are the most productive and wealthy country in the world. The determination of our people when they want something is amazing. I just wish we wanted something more than what we are doing. If pointing out the shortcomings of this great nation bothers you, don't read what I have to say.

I love my country, I love our people. I love our way of life in many ways, and despise it in others. I would like to see us produce less trash, use less resources, help other countries more, kill less, truly live in a global world instead of taking advantage of it. I don't take advantage of things I don't like. My work is dedicated to nonviolence and working with kids. I know you Rush Limbaugh wannabes shun that. He attacks teachers like its his job... Wait, pandering is his job. I show what I believe in every day of the week, in every action I can afford to. I believe myself a patriot, and I don't like having it questioned because I don't support our war, or our foreign policy. Excuse me if I value the life of another citizen of the world equally to ours, but I value the lives of Iraqis, Mexicans and everyone else.

If the definition of patriotism is blind belief in country, count me out.

Isn't that contrary to your stand against us going to and still being in Iraq? The US military removed a hated dictator who murdered his citizens right and left.
Now they're trying to prevent a civil war and a takeover by AlQaeda.

I'm still waiting on all that oil I keep hearing about from the left.

[IBC]

Isn't that contrary to your stand against us going to and still being in Iraq? The US military removed a hated dictator who murdered his citizens right and left.
Now they're trying to prevent a civil war and a takeover by AlQaeda.

I'm still waiting on all that oil I keep hearing about from the left.

I don't see how us directly or indirectly causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as progress in any way. Sorry.

Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prewar. There was no civil war in Iraq prewar. There was a brutal dictator. A beaten and insignificant brutal dictator. A dictator that was NO threat to us. It is worse now in Iraq than before the war by far. Everyone who has done an informed analysis says so. Saying its like a Indiana market and photoshopping pictures is not a decent analysis. We caused it! Colin Powell was right, we broke it and we bought it. Stupid mistake and it will cost us, our kids, and our kids kids.

Also, you won't see any of the profits made in Iraq. Its not about oil though, its about money. oil is a small part IMO. People are getting rich beyond their wildest dreams off this war. It sickens me. If you believe in it so much buy some stock. There looking for a few good stockholders.

Now, we took out Saddam, lets go home? Why not?

[Potomac Yank]

I'm still waiting on all that oil I keep hearing about from the left.

*
*

I don't quite understand the above statement.
For the sake of discussion, would you elaborate please.
Thank you.
Joe

[ryr8828]

*
*

I don't quite understand the above statement.
For the sake of discussion, would you elaborate please.
Thank you.
Joe

I've read a million times that Bush went to Iraq for the oil, to make all his oil buddies richer than they are.

[Potomac Yank]

I've read a million times that Bush went to Iraq for the oil, to make all his oil buddies richer than they are.

*
*

Yes, that's quite right, what about it?

[Vegas]

*
*

Yes, that's quite right, what about it?

So how come we aren't awash in Iraqi oil?

[ryr8828]

What Vegas said.

I'm all for them shipping us oil to repay part of our costs for freeing their country.
They're taking bids instead, including the French of all people.

[Potomac Yank]

What Vegas said.

I'm all for them shipping us oil to repay part of our costs for freeing their country.
They're taking bids instead, including the French of all people.

*
*

Do you really feel that we have freed that country?

Do you really feel that we went there to free them?

Who's getting most of the business contracts in the Middle East?

Haliburton has strong connections with what Vice President?

Did the Neo Con think tank "The Project for the New American Century" have interest in Iraq prior to 9/11?

Are you familiar with the names of some of the members of that think tank?

Would it surprise you that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and many others in the administration, were members of "The Project for the New American Century?" .. I can get you the list if you want?

Do you know that the second largest deposit of oil, is underneath Iraq?

The Texas Oil Boy's AKA the Bush family bedfellows, know about that oil.

Don't you think that the Texas Oil Boy's wouldn't like to have a sayso on how that oil is doled out?

They may not own the Iraqi oil, but they'll have a piece of the action, by having us there.

Think about it.
Do you really believe that we were dragged in there, to free the people?

[MTVike]

*
*

Do you really feel that we have freed that country?

Do you really feel that we went there to free them?

Who's getting most of the business contracts in the Middle East?

Haliburton has strong connections with what Vice President?

Did the Neo Con think tank "The Project for the New American Century" have interest in Iraq prior to 9/11?

Are you familiar with the names of some of the members of that think tank?

Would it surprise you that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and many others in the administration, were members of "The Project for the New American Century?" .. I can get you the list if you want?

Do you know that the second largest deposit of oil, is underneath Iraq?

The Texas Oil Boy's AKA the Bush family bedfellows, know about that oil.

Don't you think that the Texas Oil Boy's wouldn't like to have a sayso on how that oil is doled out?

They may not own the Iraqi oil, but they'll have a piece of the action, by having us there.

Think about it.
Do you really believe that we were dragged in there, to free the people?

I think stabilizing the region somehow is important startegically for the U.S. and its allies, in large part because of the oil.

But to say it's about greed within the administration and other petroleum business cronies is going too far.

How much more money does a multi-millionaire need?

[LSU]

I think stabilizing the region somehow is important startegically for the U.S. and its allies, in large part because of the oil.

But to say it's about greed within the administration and other petroleum business cronies is going too far.

How much more money does a multi-millionaire need?



So, you view the region as stablilized now? As opposed to 2002?

And as for suggesting they won't want more money because the already have enough...who do you know that thinks they have enough money, or rather...doesn't want more?

[MTVike]

So, you view the region as stablilized now? As opposed to 2002?

And as for suggesting they won't want more money because the already have enough...who do you know that thinks they have enough money, or rather...doesn't want more?

I don't believe the administration thought they would be up to their eyes in Vietnam War ('scuse, conflict) era shit with this "war". Presumed it would be over in short order. Militarily it was. Until the guerrila insurgency. How soon we forget.

The region has held major importance to the U.S. since the latter half of the 20th century at least. If we were so interested in human rights, why wouldn't we be intervening militarily to stop the geocide reported in Africa?

Fat cats, fat cats. You can only spend so much money. I don't believe in the "blood money" theory.

[Iron Jaw]

*
*

Your Dad was in the "Frozen Chosen?"
I tip my helmut off to him.
What outfit was he in?
The "Frozen Chosen," and the follow up, "Retreat Hell! .. we're only attacking in a different direction," was about a year before I got to Korea.
I got there about April something 1952 till April something 1953.


Amigo,
Always Semper Fi

Dad was in Company A, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines. His Company Commander at the time was Captain Robert Barrow, who became Commandant of the Marine Corps in 1979.

[LSU]

I don't believe the administration thought they would be up to their eyes in Vietnam War ('scuse, conflict) era shit with this "war". Presumed it would be over in short order. Militarily it was. Until the guerrila insurgency. How soon we forget.

The region has held major importance to the U.S. since the latter half of the 20th century at least. If we were so interested in human rights, why wouldn't we be intervening militarily to stop the geocide reported in Africa?

Fat cats, fat cats. You can only spend so much money. I don't believe in the "blood money" theory.



I don't believe the admin "thought" this would happen either. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have thought that...a glance at the region's history might lend itself to showing the natives don't think much of the outsiders.

As for your second paragraph, I agree. Good question.

As for the third, I'm not completely convinced it's all dollar signs in their eyes, either. But it certainly doesn't hurt to make a little coin if you can...but fat cats are usually fat cats because they always take too much for themselves, and are always looking for more.

[Iron Jaw]

I don't believe the administration thought they would be up to their eyes in Vietnam War ('scuse, conflict) era shit with this "war". Presumed it would be over in short order. Militarily it was. Until the guerrila insurgency. How soon we forget.

The region has held major importance to the U.S. since the latter half of the 20th century at least. If we were so interested in human rights, why wouldn't we be intervening militarily to stop the geocide reported in Africa?

Fat cats, fat cats. You can only spend so much money. I don't believe in the "blood money" theory.

From 1965-1969, the Vietnam War involved heavy fighting against well trained (supplied primarily by the Soviet Union) troops from North Vietnam as well as the insurgent force, Viet Nam Cong San, known to U.S. Forces as the Vietcong. The North Vietnamese Army (and leadership) was remnants of the Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh Hoi - or Vietminh from their insurgent days against the French, and earlier against the Japanese who invaded all of Indochina during WWII. The majority of the 58,000+ American lives were lost from 1965-69. For the Vietnamese people, the war had been going on since before WWII when the original French Indochinese government was in power.

North Vietnam forces, combined with the Vietcong, claim their losses during the war exceeded 2,000,000 people. South Vietnam, known as the ARVN, is said to have lost nearly a million people during the war.

The fighting for the American forces during the Vietnam War was considerably heavier than the fighting has been in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In Iraq they are facing primarily insurgents, armed by outsiders but nothing like the support and supply the NVA and VC received from the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War. The U.S. has not faced a full Army like the NVA in Iraq that was willing to fight. Likewise, the U.S. has not engaged in full-swing carpet bombings (taking out any and all in the way) like Vietnam, nor full scale military assaults on cities such as Hue and Danang.

Free elections were held in Iraq and people from all sides of the aisle voted. During the free-movement period in Vietnam (1955-60) after the French were forced out and the U.S. entered the fray, free-elections were promised and expected to take place in 1960. With the U.S. and allies fearing an election win by communist leader Ho Chi Minh - likewise, the Soviet Union was unsure of a guaranteed win for the communist leader, both sides bilked at allowing free elections for Vietnam. The gradual military buildup, and creation of a new nation in South Vietnam was on. Leadership in South Vietnam was a problem. Beginning with the likes of former French puppett Bao Dai - and then the House of Ngo Dinh - Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo Dinh Ngu were both killed in a coup in early November, 1963. The coup, though carried out by South Vietnamese participants, was actually organized with the help (and assumed direction) of President Kennedy and his Ambassador, Henry Cabot Lodge.

South Vietnam's government was riddled with coups and countercoups and little stability. It wasn't until Ngyuen Van Thieu and Ngyuen Cao Ky emerged in the late 60's that the SV leadership began to show some stability.

Iraq, with it's elected government, has not faced the coups and countercoups at the top, though localities have faced direct insurgent assassinations.

The entire nation of Iraq was invaded. Vietnam was not, nor was it under U.S. occupation - North Vietnam was bombed but not invaded by forces (Nixon threatened to invade North Vietnam in the Fall of 1969, but was advised not to do so). There is no North Iraq or South Iraq, though religious divisions do divide the nation. Allied forces are located in all parts of Iraq. There is no full Army in a nation to the north that has attempted to launch an invasion (as North Vietnam tried, unsuccessfully during the 1968 Tet Offensive). Though surrounding countries have been affected by the Iraq War, there are currently no wars going on in the surrounding nations of Iran, Syria or Turkey. During the Vietnam War, Cambodia was going through it's own war (between the government forces of Lon Noll and the rebel forces of Pol Pot) while Laos was in chaos as a major supply depot for the Vietcong. While Iran and Syria are quite likely supplying the insurgents to some extent, our forces have not moved into Iraq or Syria as they did in Cambodia and Laos.

The U.S. also has friendly ties with countries that border Iraq, such as Jordan, Turkey and Kuwait.

The comparison of Vietnam to Iraq can be made with the insurgency forces. And that is where the comparison ends, except with the division of American people stateside - though during the Vietnam years, the division was considerably more explosive, with full-blown riots and protests a regular occurance. Also, there was a military draft during the Vietnam era. There is currently no military draft.

I personally believe that Iraq can be stabilized. In Vietnam, it would have taken 100 years or more to stabilize the nation in the manner which we were fighting the war (no invasion of the north).

Similarities in some areas, but some considerable differences as well.

[Potomac Yank]

From 1965-1969, the Vietnam War involved heavy fighting against well trained (supplied primarily by the Soviet Union) troops from North Vietnam as well as the insurgent force, Viet Nam Cong San, known to U.S. Forces as the Vietcong. The North Vietnamese Army (and leadership) was remnants of the Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh Hoi - or Vietminh from their insurgent days against the French, and earlier against the Japanese who invaded all of Indochina during WWII. The majority of the 58,000+ American lives were lost from 1965-69. For the Vietnamese people, the war had been going on since before WWII when the original French Indochinese government was in power.

North Vietnam forces, combined with the Vietcong, claim their losses during the war exceeded 2,000,000 people. South Vietnam, known as the ARVN, is said to have lost nearly a million people during the war.

The fighting for the American forces during the Vietnam War was considerably heavier than the fighting has been in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In Iraq they are facing primarily insurgents, armed by outsiders but nothing like the support and supply the NVA and VC received from the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War. The U.S. has not faced a full Army like the NVA in Iraq that was willing to fight. Likewise, the U.S. has not engaged in full-swing carpet bombings (taking out any and all in the way) like Vietnam, nor full scale military assaults on cities such as Hue and Danang.

Free elections were held in Iraq and people from all sides of the aisle voted. During the free-movement period in Vietnam (1955-60) after the French were forced out and the U.S. entered the fray, free-elections were promised and expected to take place in 1960. With the U.S. and allies fearing an election win by communist leader Ho Chi Minh - likewise, the Soviet Union was unsure of a guaranteed win for the communist leader, both sides bilked at allowing free elections for Vietnam. The gradual military buildup, and creation of a new nation in South Vietnam was on. Leadership in South Vietnam was a problem. Beginning with the likes of former French puppett Bao Dai - and then the House of Ngo Dinh - Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo Dinh Ngu were both killed in a coup in early November, 1963. The coup, though carried out by South Vietnamese participants, was actually organized with the help (and assumed direction) of President Kennedy and his Ambassador, Henry Cabot Lodge.

South Vietnam's government was riddled with coups and countercoups and little stability. It wasn't until Ngyuen Van Thieu and Ngyuen Cao Ky emerged in the late 60's that the SV leadership began to show some stability.

Iraq, with it's elected government, has not faced the coups and countercoups at the top, though localities have faced direct insurgent assassinations.

The entire nation of Iraq was invaded. Vietnam was not, nor was it under U.S. occupation - North Vietnam was bombed but not invaded by forces (Nixon threatened to invade North Vietnam in the Fall of 1969, but was advised not to do so). There is no North Iraq or South Iraq, though religious divisions do divide the nation. Allied forces are located in all parts of Iraq. There is no full Army in a nation to the north that has attempted to launch an invasion (as North Vietnam tried, unsuccessfully during the 1968 Tet Offensive). Though surrounding countries have been affected by the Iraq War, there are currently no wars going on in the surrounding nations of Iran, Syria or Turkey. During the Vietnam War, Cambodia was going through it's own war (between the government forces of Lon Noll and the rebel forces of Pol Pot) while Laos was in chaos as a major supply depot for the Vietcong. While Iran and Syria are quite likely supplying the insurgents to some extent, our forces have not moved into Iraq or Syria as they did in Cambodia and Laos.

The U.S. also has friendly ties with countries that border Iraq, such as Jordan, Turkey and Kuwait.

The comparison of Vietnam to Iraq can be made with the insurgency forces. And that is where the comparison ends, except with the division of American people stateside - though during the Vietnam years, the division was considerably more explosive, with full-blown riots and protests a regular occurance. Also, there was a military draft during the Vietnam era. There is currently no military draft.

I personally believe that Iraq can be stabilized. In Vietnam, it would have taken 100 years or more to stabilize the nation in the manner which we were fighting the war (no invasion of the north).

Similarities in some areas, but some considerable differences as well.

*
*

The only question I can't shake, is the Iraq stability question.
Without trying to compare Iraq to Nam, I can't shake from my mind that Iraq, and the middle east, since the time of Christ and before, have had religious problems.
It matters not, if it's one religion against another, or splinter factions from the same religion.
All wars are ugly, but religious problems, are a deep hatred.
Right now, we're in the middle of a Sunnis and Shias problem. .. among other things. ... Also, they're use to it .. centuries of trial and error.
To us, it's like walking a tight rope across the Grand Canyon and for balance support, a little bottle of Nitro in each hand. ..... Talk about stability.

I J, I wish I had your confidence as to the Iraqi stability.
By the time it comes about, we would be bled to death, in more ways than one.

The sad part is, after our recent world popularity, Who would come to our aid?

Semper Fi

[IBC]

I think stabilizing the region somehow is important startegically for the U.S. and its allies, in large part because of the oil.

But to say it's about greed within the administration and other petroleum business cronies is going too far.

How much more money does a multi-millionaire need?
That is not what this is about IMO. More about the Military Industrial Complex. That is where the real money is. The conspiracy is, there is no conspiracy. It is public record, you can look at who has made money and a shitload of it.

[IBC]

I don't believe the admin "thought" this would happen either. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have thought that...a glance at the region's history might lend itself to showing the natives don't think much of the outsiders.

As for your second paragraph, I agree. Good question.

As for the third, I'm not completely convinced it's all dollar signs in their eyes, either. But it certainly doesn't hurt to make a little coin if you can...but fat cats are usually fat cats because they always take too much for themselves, and are always looking for more.
A glance at anyone history would tell that nobody wants occupiers.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I think stabilizing the region somehow is important startegically for the U.S. and its allies, in large part because of the oil.

But to say it's about greed within the administration and other petroleum business cronies is going too far.

How much more money does a multi-millionaire need?

we've done anything but stabilize that region.

[*NZ*]

I personally believe that Iraq can be stabilized. In Vietnam, it would have taken 100 years or more to stabilize the nation in the manner which we were fighting the war (no invasion of the north).

Similarities in some areas, but some considerable differences as well.

Please do tell how you think Iraq can be stabilised? Do you think terrorists are just going to stop flooding into Iraq because a few of them are killed? If so you're dreaming. If anything, by killing more terrorists you are speeding up the rate of which people decide to become terrorists

[IBC]

Please do tell how you think Iraq can be stabilised? Do you think terrorists are just going to stop flooding into Iraq because a few of them are killed? If so you're dreaming. If anything, by killing more terrorists you are speeding up the rate of which people decide to become terrorists

Our own state department says there are more terrorists now than before the war on terror began. Heckuva job Dubya.

[ryr8828]

Please do tell how you think Iraq can be stabilised? Do you think terrorists are just going to stop flooding into Iraq because a few of them are killed? If so you're dreaming. If anything, by killing more terrorists you are speeding up the rate of which people decide to become terrorists

How do you feel we should deal with the terrorists?

[Reagan Smash]

How do you feel we should deal with the terrorists?

Make them watch American Idol

[Potomac Yank]

How do you feel we should deal with the terrorists?

*
*

Glad to see that you finally recognize who the terrorist is.

First thing we do .... is impeach him.

[swordfish]

I say we all convert to Islam so they don't kill us. We can let them come over and change our laws to theirs and then we can just give them all our stuff. I see no reason to even try and fight.

[LSU]

I say we all convert to Islam so they don't kill us. We can let them come over and change our laws to theirs and then we can just give them all our stuff. I see no reason to even try and fight.



Sounds like a much easier transition than us converting them to Democracy so that we don't kill them.

[Potomac Yank]

I say we all convert to Islam so they don't kill us. We can let them come over and change our laws to theirs and then we can just give them all our stuff. I see no reason to even try and fight.

*
*

General Bush, of the Bush Brigade, is doing a smashing job in that dept.

BTW, The Bush Brigade is yet to be seen in Iraq.

Not only that, there's no sign of enlistments by the Chicken Hawks that cry out for war.

[Reagan Smash]

I say we all convert to Islam so they don't kill us. We can let them come over and change our laws to theirs and then we can just give them all our stuff. I see no reason to even try and fight.

You forgot to stomp out the state of Israel

[IBC]

I say we all convert to Islam so they don't kill us. We can let them come over and change our laws to theirs and then we can just give them all our stuff. I see no reason to even try and fight.
Do you understand that there wasn't a terrorist problem in Iraq pre-9/11? Do you realize that the war in Iraq has berthed thousands more? Where in the hell do you get your logic?

[ryr8828]

*
*

General Bush, of the Bush Brigade, is doing a smashing job in that dept.

BTW, The Bush Brigade is yet to be seen in Iraq.

Not only that, there's no sign of enlistments by the Chicken Hawks that cry out for war.

You keep repeating this, does it serve a purpose?

[ryr8828]

Do you understand that there wasn't a terrorist problem in Iraq pre-9/11? Do you realize that the war in Iraq has berthed thousands more? Where in the hell do you get your logic?

There wasn't a terrorist problem in Iraq, outside of Saddam and his henchmen.
How naive are you?

You seem to think that if we leave the terrorists alone that they will just go away. I disagree.
Read their doctrine.
Where in the hell do you get your logic?

[Potomac Yank]

You keep repeating this, does it serve a purpose?

*
*

It sure does, but only when the supporters of the war, and the one that started it, put there money where their mouth is, AND GET THEIR ASS OVER TO IRAQ.

[IBC]

There wasn't a terrorist problem in Iraq, outside of Saddam and his henchmen.
How naive are you?

You seem to think that if we leave the terrorists alone that they will just go away. I disagree.
Read their doctrine.
Where in the hell do you get your logic?

There was not terrorists in Iraq prior to 9/11. Don't twist logic and say that because Saddam and his "henchmen" (booga-booga) were bad they were in any way a threat to us, or had anything to do with 9/11. I don't propose doing nothing. I propose getting the hell out of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda, Nothing to do with Iraq or Al Qaeda. Not a danger to us as a country or a rogue state. Now a danger to us as a rogue state. Do you dispute any of that?

You tell me why it was right to attack Iraq.

[hannitykillspuppies]

There wasn't a terrorist problem in Iraq, outside of Saddam and his henchmen.
How naive are you?

You seem to think that if we leave the terrorists alone that they will just go away. I disagree.
Read their doctrine.
Where in the hell do you get your logic?


what threat did saddam and iraq pose to the U.S.?

[Potomac Yank]

There wasn't a terrorist problem in Iraq, outside of Saddam and his henchmen.
How naive are you?

You seem to think that if we leave the terrorists alone that they will just go away. I disagree.
Read their doctrine.
Where in the hell do you get your logic?

*
*

The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.
We attack Peru.

[Vegas]

*
*

The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.
We attack Peru.

So when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, I assume you were against the war in Europe?? Oh no, that's right.....the Japanese were allies of the Germans. Pretty much like the situation in the middle east.

[IBC]

So when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, I assume you were against the war in Europe?? Oh no, that's right.....the Japanese were allies of the Germans. Pretty much like the situation in the middle east.

Except Saddam and Osama were enemies.

[Vegas]

Except Saddam and Osama were enemies.

But their hatred of us and their desire to export more terrorism was a common bond between them.

[LSU]

But their hatred of us and their desire to export more terrorism was a common bond between them.


Iran and Iraq were fierce enemies, too...enemies that kept each other at bay so that we wouldn't have to...they didn't quite reach the "united" stage...

[IBC]

But their hatred of us and their desire to export more terrorism was a common bond between them.

So we should attack whoever hates us? That list keeps getting longer.

[Potomac Yank]

[QUOTE=vegas;5095]So when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, I assume you were against the war in Europe?? Oh no, that's right.....the Japanese were allies of the Germans. QUOTE]

*
*

"So when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, I assume you were against the war in Europe??"
Uh HUH

"Oh no, that's right.....the Japanese were allies of the Germans."
Uh HUH

"Oh no, that's right.....the Japanese were allies of the Germans."

*
*

Aw right ..... Who's the wise guy?

What Pinko/Red in here forgot to clean the Parrots birdcage?