Bush Lied!!

[ooda]

Originally Posted by Legion

Good arguing tactic. Nothing proves your siide is more intelligent and your argument more valid than name calling.

If that had been the only thing lickmy had said, I would have agreed with you.

[lickmyballssuckmy]

There are very few people who like war. And it's them that drag the rest of us into these situations. The list is as follows:

1. Religious extremists who think they go to heaven if they die in a war.
2. World bankers, like the Rothschild family, that make money off of war, usually making money off of both sides simultaneously.
3. Power hungry leaders who want to rule as much as they can.
4. The occasional special forces type guy (not all of them) who was born to fight in wars.

The rest of us want peace and money and sex but one of the above has other ideas.

Originally Posted by Sexy_Potatoe_with_an_E

well I don't like war, I'm not a warmonger, I still don't know how I feel about it, action or inaction would of led to the same kind of scrutiney...I'm still on the fence, but I think I have a better understanding of it now...

[lickmyballssuckmy]

My argument was over after number three. I just threw that in for a bonus. It felt good.

Originally Posted by Legion

Good arguing tactic. Nothing proves your side is more intelligent and your argument more valid than name calling. That also marks the end of my responses I dont debate matters with people who resort to personal attacks.

[Sexy_Potatoe_with_an_E]

I concur...politics and war as fascinating as they are, are cyclical and silly...

[ooda]

Originally Posted by lickmyballssuckmy

There are very few people who like war. And it's them that drag the rest of us into these situations. The list is as follows:

1. Religious extremists who think they go to heaven if they die in a war.
2. World bankers, like the Rothschild family, that make money off of war, usually making money off of both sides simultaneously.
3. Power hungry leaders who want to rule as much as they can.
4. The occasional special forces type guy (not all of them) who was born to fight in wars.

The rest of us want peace and money and sex but one of the above has other ideas.

I remember back in high school when I took a class in economics the teacher stated that for the sake of the economy, a war is needed every ten years or so just to use up some of the stockpiles of weapons.

Say what you like about the companies that supply the armed forces with weapons and whatnot, but they do employ quite a few people, and pump in decent money into the economy.

Grr, I'm getting cynical.

[ooda]

Originally Posted by Sexy_Potatoe_with_an_E

I concur...politics and war as fascinating as they are, are cyclical and silly...

The main thing is that if you try hard enough, you can usually make a decent argument for whichever point you want. That can easily make things seem nonsensical.

[lickmyballssuckmy]

Illegal immigration is necessary to keep that part of the economy pumping.

Wars are needed for the rest of the economy.

Big huge balls to any politician willing to run on that platform. haha...

Another point along the same lines. It would be weird to have a military where nobody had actual combat experience. So, it wouldn't surprise me if the government actually used that and your points to justify some military actions. No question that money is a major factor. You can make a reasonable argument that every war our country has been in had something to do with money. Especially from 1890-forward..

Originally Posted by ooda

I remember back in high school when I took a class in economics the teacher stated that for the sake of the economy, a war is needed every ten years or so just to use up some of the stockpiles of weapons.

Say what you like about the companies that supply the armed forces with weapons and whatnot, but they do employ quite a few people, and pump in decent money into the economy.

Grr, I'm getting cynical.

[slugymay]

Originally Posted by Legion

Im a put up or shut up type of guy. If you are for a war, you need to fight in that war, if you cant convince yourself its worth it, quit trying to convince me.

I fought in Afghanistan and then six months later I went to Iraq, both trips with the 82nd Airborne Division. Iraq is a joke. People just standing around and the missions are to maintain logitics mostly. The posture of the U.S. military towards the Iraqi people is very different from the posture towards the Afghani people. I was so disgusted with the way that the military was being used in Iraq that when my term expired I resigned my commission. I am currently a graduate student in International Relations. Most of the stuff here is so biased and based on rhetoric that people will hear what they want and disbelieve the other side no matter what. My current research project is a historical analysis identifying the shift of U.S. perception of Iraq and the underlying events which caused the shift. Her is one tidbit for you all...

In 1988 Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. In reports from that time about 1800 estimated casualties. The senate immediately passed a bill emplacing economic sanctions. Four days after, the U.S. house failed to pass the bill and instead established an agricultural and oil trading pact worth over 1 billion dollars.

Get off your horses, we didn't care about chemical weapons then and we only use this rhetoric to achieve our current goals.

[phillyphil]

Originally Posted by Legion

Our trade sanctions caused a reported half million Iraqis to die, how many deaths that we caused are being attributed to Saddam in your statistic? Oh and Saddam only has a small sphere of influence, thats just one country of many that the U.S. is murdering and directly causing the death of innocent people in.

"Our" trade sanctions caused nothing. the trade sanctions were imposed by the U.N. The U.S. encouraged the Oil for food program allowing Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil on the world market in order to feed its' population. Sadaam chose to use it to enrich himself further...

[slugymay]

Originally Posted by phillyphil

"Our" trade sanctions caused nothing. the trade sanctions were imposed by the U.N. The U.S. encouraged the Oil for food program allowing Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil on the world market in order to feed its' population. Sadaam chose to use it to enrich himself further...

Actually, those trade sanctions were requested to be withdrawn by most of the member countries of the UN, especially regional neighbors who were being crushed by the flow of refugees and the economic black hole that Iraq was (and is). The Oil for Food program was designed to legitimize the illegal smuggling of oil that was occuring throughout the region, namely through Turkey and Saudi Arabia. While Saddam did misuse much of this money the U.S. used sanctions as a method of containment and not punishment as was their original intention.