Why we're really in Iraq: Exhibit 1

[ChadTower]

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska.


We have a permanent, gigantic military presence withing bitchslapping distance of this guy.

It's the only real reason I can come up with that doesn't involve monstrous amounts of incompetence on the part of the entire military leaderships of multiple world leading nations.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Right. That's why he's shipping in forged ballots by the truckload. A few rigged elections and he can defeat U.S. interest in Iraq without firing a single shot.


Link

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Plus this thread should be titled: Why Chad is a shill for Bush: Exhibit 1


Don't you "disagree" with the war in Iraq? Why are you trying to justify it?

mrC

[ChadTower]

Right. That's why he's shipping in forged ballots by the truckload. A few rigged elections and he can defeat U.S. interest in Iraq without firing a single shot.

No he can't.

[Stingray]

Woo! Got in on the ground floor on this one.

-S

[Grasshopper]

Don't buy it.

The US already had bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and could easily have sent an aircraft carrier or two to the gulf at any time if Iran started sabre rattling. There was no military justification for the invasion. Indeed Saddam was helping to keep Iran in check. That's primarily why the US supported him in the eighties.

That leaves three other possibilities - oil, incompetence, or trying to look tough to the US electorate after having failed to find Bin Laden.

[ChadTower]

Well, the Iraq idiocy aside...

...that President of Iraq is starting to scare a lot of people with his statements.

[daywane]

Don't buy it.

The US already had bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and could easily have sent an aircraft carrier or two to the gulf at any time if Iran started sabre rattling. There was no military justification for the invasion. Indeed Saddam was helping to keep Iran in check. That's primarily why the US supported him in the eighties.

That leaves three other possibilities - oil, incompetence, or trying to look tough to the US electorate after having failed to find Bin Laden.

Didn't Turkey refuse to let  US war planes fly over there air space?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Right. That's why he's shipping in forged ballots by the truckload. A few rigged elections and he can defeat U.S. interest in Iraq without firing a single shot.

No he can't.  Those military bases, and our presence, are going exactly NOWHERE.

It doesn't matter how permanent they are, if Iran gets a puppet regime elected what do you think the military options are? Go assassinate an the "elected" leader of our shiny new middle eastern Democracy?

They will have gained the territory, and our bases will be useless. We could invade Iran, sure, but at the peril of losing the entire middle east in the process. My guess is Iraq would side with Iran, not us. They are Middle-eastern peoples, and proud.

Iran's biggest enemy was Saddam. We just opened up a whole new world of opportunity for Iran by getting rid of him. My guess is that Iran and Syria will play politics on a level well below radar and completely undermine this neocon fantasy of a "pro-U.S." government in Iraq, and there'll be nothing our military can do to stop it. They certainly know the region better than us and there has already been numerous signs of unprecedented cooperation between the two former enemies (Iran/Iraq).


mrC

[JackTucky]

Oh the doom!  We can't win!  Aaah!  Where are the Soviets when we need them?

I think CNN was saying the NY Times article about fake ballots is crap.

Rush played an interview of a military commander saying there was no evidence yet that it happened.

Art

[Bones]

I thought you people only went there due to your fetish for woman with lots of armpit hair.....

[Harry Potter]

You're thinking of Iran.

That 'n' can look like a 'q' sometimes.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Oh the doom!  We can't win!  Aaah! 

We lost the opportunity to "win" the moment Rumsfeld decided that 140,000 troops was enough to invade, secure and police an entire country. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. I really believe you're boy-king *could* have pulled it off, and rubbed a strategic victory in Iraq in the the face of every "Anti-Iraq War" liberal from New York to L.A. if only he and his tribe weren't a bunch of raving lunatics and complete idiots.

I don't know if all "preemptive policy" is flawed - I'm no peacenik myself - but for Bush to base the doctrine's first baby steps on a sham war with Iraq was no real genius move. Then, to cut the size of the invasion force down to nothing pretty much guaranteed chaos. That chaos, coupled with Bremmer's brilliant plan of disbanding the Iraqi army...well, that certainly provided a well-trained and motivated insurgency. Now, how to arm them?

I know! Leave every major weapons depo *completely* unprotected and let them cart off 380 tons of weapons grade high explosives.

Smells like victory to me!

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Btw, these are the idiots you think will somehow, suddenly, deliver a "victory"? That all these monumentally ignorant strategic blunders were just one-time-only events?


mrC

[M3talhead]

Right. That's why he's shipping in forged ballots by the truckload. A few rigged elections and he can defeat U.S. interest in Iraq without firing a single shot.

No he can't.  Those military bases, and our presence, are going exactly NOWHERE.

This is why the media can't get him to "come forward with a withdrawl plan". 

There is no withdrawl plan when there are no plans to withdraw.

Just a little insider information, being active duty AF, I can affirm that we are infact staying for the long haul (please dont ask me to explain how I know this).

As for the Saudi and Turkish bases, we're actually preparing to pull the bases in Incirlik an Izmir. AFSCs are already being limited to who can and cant get assigned there. In their places will be new ABs in Romania and Hungary.

Why do you ask? Cause the Turkish are political pr!cks....

[ChadTower]

Don't buy it.

The US already had bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and could easily have sent an aircraft carrier or two to the gulf at any time if Iran started sabre rattling. There was no military justification for the invasion. Indeed Saddam was helping to keep Iran in check. That's primarily why the US supported him in the eighties.

An air craft carrier is not enough to take on an entire military.  We would need a REAL presence there, one that we could never have had in Saudi Arabia or Turkey.  Saudi Arabia is clearly playing both ends against the middle and Turkey isn't much of a military staging ground when they keep revoking permission to use their airspace.

The type of installations now built in Iraq completely dwarf anything we had in the Middle East 5 years ago.

[RayB]

Read this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/12/172147/990
Claims it's about the oil. I have to wonder though, how does "saving the us economy" through a war on Iraq really work, considering the cost of the war itself? But I'm no economist... does this article's claim make any sense?

And then read this: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/PNAC

[danny_galaga]

I thought you people only went there due to your fetish for woman with lots of armpit hair.....

thats france...

[danny_galaga]

Oh the doom!

[Jess--]

I have to wonder though, how does "saving the us economy" through a war on Iraq really work, considering the cost of the war itself?

It saves the US economy in the Loooooong term.... spend some cash invading & occupying the country (if you check history occupations of countries never work... the country never accepts that it has "Lost the war" so the keep killing the occupying forces)

then in years to come the US has easy access to Oil at next to no cost

after all how else is Iraq going to repay the US for all this help "rebuilding Iraq!"

Shame the US will be setting the price that Iraq can charge the US for the Oil aswell as setting the price that Iraq is charged for Rebuilding

Do you think that Iraq will ever be able to repay the cost of the americans for rebuilding Iraq after the coalition (including america) bombed it?

[AllisterFiend]

I really believe you're boy-king *could* have pulled it off, and rubbed a strategic victory in Iraq in the the face of every "Anti-Iraq War" liberal from New York to L.A.

 , I've been watching this group long enough to know that no matter what Bush does you would find something wrong with what he did.

Doom and Gloom, Liberals are constant whiners with no solutions except to second guess everything, it is the reason I left the democratic party (not the party I grew up with anymore).

I see millions of people from Iraq voting and smiling as they leave the voting booths, their destiny will be in their hands soon enough.

P.S. the truckload of ballots story has been discredited, the New York Times at it's best once again. (maybe they should have had a forged memo or something stating that their was a truckload of fake ballots.) 

Later,
Allister Fiend


P.S.S everyone, enough with the oil conspiracy please, you only loose all credibility when you bring that up.

[danny_galaga]

I really believe you're boy-king *could* have pulled it off, and rubbed a strategic victory in Iraq in the the face of every "Anti-Iraq War" liberal from New York to L.A.

 , I've been watching this group long enough to know that no matter what Bush does you would find something wrong with what he did.

Doom and Gloom, Liberals are constant whiners with no solutions except to second guess everything, it is the reason I left the democratic party (not the party I grew up with anymore).

I see millions of people from Iraq voting and smiling as they leave the voting booths, their destiny will be in their hands soon enough.

P.S. the truckload of ballots story has been discredited, the New York Times at it's best once again. (maybe they should have had a forged memo or something stating that their was a truckload of fake ballots.)

[ChadTower]

There is no oil in Vietnam or Korea and we went to "liberate" them.

[brophog]

Liberate ---my bottom---. We were just trying to keep the commies from 'liberating' them.

Speaking of which, this thread needs liberated from all of you.

[ChadTower]

That's the point, though... "liberate" them before someone else "liberates" them.

Either way, we went in with force to "liberate" them and there was no oil there.  So the whole "it wouldn't happen without the oil" can be immediately refuted with evidence.

The main difference between now and then is that then we didn't go in with enough force to do the job.  Had we gone in and truly "liberated" either of those countries the same thing would have happened on a smaller scale in either place.

[danny_galaga]

There is no oil in Vietnam or Korea and we went to "liberate" them.

you are mixing my example up. the point i was making was that no amount of meddling steered the war in the direction the US wanted. i wasnt implying that the US took over from the french in vietnam for oil. its not always about oil. vietnam as about saving them from 'themselves'. iraq is about oil. in the end all the machinations and assasinations amount to so much poo punch (",)

[ChadTower]

So where is all the oil we've taken?

[danny_galaga]

So where is all the oil we've taken secured?

where do you think?

[ChadTower]

I didn't get my share.  How do I register a complaint?

[danny_galaga]

I didn't get my share.

[ChadTower]

I am as important as anyone else here.

[danny_galaga]

'here' is not big business...

[ChadTower]

Yes it is, you just don't know it.

[danny_galaga]

Yes it is, you just don't know it.

godammit. another conspiracy. just when my paranoia was subsiding...

edit; cool, look what i found while double checking my spelling of 'paranoia':

http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/

[ChadTower]

Paranoia Magazine is watching you.

[RayB]

PNAC isn't about oil. It's about balance of power.

[danny_galaga]

PNAC isn't about oil. It's about balance of power.

ROFL!!!

you americans. such corny names for things...

[markrvp]

PNAC isn't about oil. It's about balance of power.

ROFL!!!

you americans. such corny names for things...

RayB is Canadian. 

[c64rulez]

You're really in Iraq because your average muslim is a fanatic.
Because to them, Life is of no value, and pride is greater than life.
They have leaders that blinds their eyes and enrolls mechanisms of political brainwashing beyond your imagination.

Democracy is out of their vocabulary, freedom of speech does not exist, and most of them still live by a code of the ancient world.

I know you'll say "hey, it's not my problem", and you may be right, but we all know the role of US of A on our globe.

I think the question should be "Why you're not out of there already?".

I'm not following closely the situation over there, but I guess it's a thing for the UN and not the USA.

And if its not them, you can always have Iran, Syria, Bin Laden's gang to name a few.

Maybe its hard for me to be objective, but I think some of you might still agree.

[ChadTower]

How could anything be a thing for the UN?  Every time the UN has to do something it sends over US troops.

The only difference between us doing it and the UN doing it is that our troops would be under someone else's command.

Hell no.