karma to you Max. Your statement simplifies the big web of lies and deceit that Bush and his backers have created all in the name of homeland security. Our men and women become military people for their own reasons, (to serve our country, to protect our freedom, to get ahead in the shi++y life that's been served to them on a dirty plate), only to go to some foreign land under the guise of 'homeland security' and 'democracy', and end up coming home maimed, wounded, emotionally scarred for life, forever changed. Sometimes you have to wonder if the ones who are killed in action are 'luckier' than the ones who have to live with the questions the rest of their lives. "WHY?"


Here's an interesting article from todays news.

For all of you who agree with the "WHY" question..make sure you read the last paragraph of the link twice....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15703641/

Here's an interesting article from todays news.

For all of you who agree with the "WHY" question..make sure you read the last paragraph of the link twice....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15703641/

My question "Why" is not why are they serving, My question is Why are we in IRAQ?  I am in no way mocking or diminishing the service of our troops. They are following orders and doing their job. My question is to the leaders of our country, (That would be Mr. G Dub) Why are we over there? WMD? Saddam's involvement with 9/11? To bring 'Democracy' to a country wrought with Civil War? To occupy a country and destroy cities that have a 50% unemployment rate? And promise to rebuild them but hmmm.. I guess we are still working on securing them... so we are a little slow at the rebuilding process.. Right....
I wonder how that soldier's mother feels about a second tour.

Why are we over there? WMD? Saddam's involvement with 9/11?


WMDs have been found, but nobody ever talks about that anymore.

And Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.  That was never claimed.  However, they have harbored terrorist groups for decades, and allowed Al-Queda to come into the country after 9/11.  Al-Zarquai went to Iraq for medical treatment after he was wounded in Afganistan.  Saddam and his regieme gave him and hundreds of other Al-Queda fighters sanctuary after they were thrown out of Afganistan.

There has never been a link to Saddam and 9/11.  However, he knowingly supported them after 9/11.  And he has been harboring and supporting terrorists for over 20 years.  Among them some of the most vile creatures to ever walk on 2 legs.  I still find it humorous that Abu Nidal died there after living as a guest in Baghdad for almost 2 years.  And he was really determined.  He not only blew up Pan Am flight 103, he commited suicide with multiple shots to the head.

Most people only have to shoot themselves once in the head to die.  ::)

WMDs have been found, but nobody ever talks about that anymore.

And Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.  That was never claimed.  However, they have harbored terrorist groups for decades, and allowed Al-Queda to come into the country after 9/11.  Al-Zarquai went to Iraq for medical treatment after he was wounded in Afganistan.  Saddam and his regieme gave him and hundreds of other Al-Queda fighters sanctuary after they were thrown out of Afganistan.

There has never been a link to Saddam and 9/11.  However, he knowingly supported them after 9/11.  And he has been harboring and supporting terrorists for over 20 years.  Among them some of the most vile creatures to ever walk on 2 legs.  I still find it humorous that Abu Nidal died there after living as a guest in Baghdad for almost 2 years.  And he was really determined.  He not only blew up Pan Am flight 103, he commited suicide with multiple shots to the head.

Most people only have to shoot themselves once in the head to die.   ::)

You can do multiple suicide head shots.  You just have to be real nimble aout it!
:P

Yeah, but Saddam was for years OUR most vile creature to ever walk on 2 legs!  We supported him in the Iran-Iraq war, when we weren't illegally selling weapons to the Iranians to illegally fund the Contras.  But then Saddam got outta line!  He invaded another country just so he could control their oil.  Now, we can't tolerate that sort of thing can we?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/brushteeth.gif

You can do multiple suicide head shots.  You just have to be real nimble aout it!
:P

Yeah, but Saddam was for years OUR most vile creature to ever walk on 2 legs!  We supported him in the Iran-Iraq war, when we weren't illegally selling weapons to the Iranians to illegally fund the Contras.  But then Saddam got outta line!  He invaded another country just so he could control their oil.  Now, we can't tolerate that sort of thing can we?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/brushteeth.gif

Yes, as Max is saying, people conveniently forget, or some may not even realize that we not only supported Bin Ladin, but we gave him weapons AND instructions, back in 1979 when Russia was invading Afghanistan.  . In Iraq, US policy, in the late 80's and 90's strengthened Saddam Hussein, suporting him through his worst atrocities, including gassing of the Kurds in 1988. People don't want to accept these facts and choose to believe that we are innocent victims and now we are  the 'good guys wearing white hats' coming to save the day.  By definition , WE are terrorists, to some other countries.

And G.W. used 9/11 to 'manufacture consent'. By linking 9.11 Saddam Hussein/ Bin Ladin and the Taliban all together back in his re election campaign.. He DID interchangeably use Saddam Hussein's name, with Bin Ladin's with the terms "homeland security" and "terrorist acts like 9/11".. There were commercials everywhere.... He sold Fear big time. He did some backpedalling later, saying that he never directly said that Saddam was linked to 9/11.

Yeah, but Saddam was for years OUR most vile creature to ever walk on 2 legs!  We supported him in the Iran-Iraq war, when we weren't illegally selling weapons to the Iranians to illegally fund the Contras.  But then Saddam got outta line!  He invaded another country just so he could control their oil.  Now, we can't tolerate that sort of thing can we?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/brushteeth.gif


He invaded not one, but two countries.  Don't forget the 875,000 people that died in the Iran-Iraq war.  And the estimated 500,000 Kurds that were killed over a 20 year period (300,000 in 1988 alone).  Of course, the UN has a history of ignoring genocide.

There is an old saying: Politics makes for strange bedfellows.  The Molotov-VonRibbentrop particion of Poland is just an example of that.  Yet the "Intelectual Leftists" had no problem with that.  Even when shown the fact of Soviet atrocities in Poland, they refused to believe them.  Yet there was the Soviet Union, our "bosom buddy" wuring WWII, because most people accepted the fact that we were facing a much worse enemy in Hitler.  Even when evidence came out proving the slaughter of children by Soviet forces, it was swept under the rug.

That is politics.  In politics, you frequently give aid to both sides.  And we were not the only ones, don't forget.  The US was really a very minor arms provider in the Iran-Iraq war.  The company that made the vast majority of the money there was the Soviet Union.  While we sold a few million dollars of equipment, they sold tens of billions of dollars worth to both sides.

And in a war like the Iran-Iraq war, most people hoped that the war would eventually end with no major change in power.  If either Iran or Iraq had truely dominated, then things would be an even bigger mess there then they are now.  Myself, I think the fact that the war ended in a stalemate was the best resolution possible.

Of course, it would have been best if Sadam had stayed at home in the first place.

He invaded not one, but two countries.  Don't forget the 875,000 people that died in the Iran-Iraq war.  And the estimated 500,000 Kurds that were killed over a 20 year period (300,000 in 1988 alone).  Of course, the UN has a history of ignoring genocide.

There is an old saying: Politics makes for strange bedfellows.  The Molotov-VonRibbentrop particion of Poland is just an example of that.  Yet the "Intelectual Leftists" had no problem with that.  Even when shown the fact of Soviet atrocities in Poland, they refused to believe them.  Yet there was the Soviet Union, our "bosom buddy" wuring WWII, because most people accepted the fact that we were facing a much worse enemy in Hitler.  Even when evidence came out proving the slaughter of children by Soviet forces, it was swept under the rug.

That is politics.  In politics, you frequently give aid to both sides.  And we were not the only ones, don't forget.  The US was really a very minor arms provider in the Iran-Iraq war.  The company that made the vast majority of the money there was the Soviet Union.  While we sold a few million dollars of equipment, they sold tens of billions of dollars worth to both sides.

You got that right!  At least we ain't as bad as the Soviet Union (but give the Bushies credit for at least trying).
:-\\

And in a war like the Iran-Iraq war, most people hoped that the war would eventually end with no major change in power.  If either Iran or Iraq had truely dominated, then things would be an even bigger mess there then they are now.  Myself, I think the fact that the war ended in a stalemate was the best resolution possible.

Of course, it would have been best if Sadam had stayed at home in the first place.

I agree again.  All kinds of trouble...big and small...would have never come about if folks would just stay on their side of the fence and mind their own dang business!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/pfiade.gif

I agree again.  All kinds of trouble...big and small...would have never come about if folks would just stay on their side of the fence and mind their own dang business!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/pfiade.gif


That is one of the strangest things about history.  A lot of people we remember as villians would be heroes if they had made different decisions.

If Hitler had actually stopped before he entered Poland and not done the Holocost, he would be remembered as a great leader.  He brought a desperate nation out of chaos and poverty, and regained their "traditional lands".  If he had stopped there, he would still be talked about as a great man.  Instead, he decided he wanted to rule most of the world, and slaughtered millions of people for petty reasons of race and religion.

The same with Stalin.  If he had simply followed the policies started with Lenin, the Soviet Union would likely have not become the "Evil Empire".  And the same with Napolean, who was insturmental with stopping a lot of the bloody excess of the French Revolution.  If he had contented himself with staying in Paris, he would never have had to live the last of his life in exile.

That is one of the strangest things about history.  A lot of people we remember as villians would be heroes if they had made different decisions.

If Hitler had actually stopped before he entered Poland and not done the Holocost, he would be remembered as a great leader.  He brought a desperate nation out of chaos and poverty, and regained their "traditional lands".  If he had stopped there, he would still be talked about as a great man.  Instead, he decided he wanted to rule most of the world, and slaughtered millions of people for petty reasons of race and religion.

The same with Stalin.  If he had simply followed the policies started with Lenin, the Soviet Union would likely have not become the "Evil Empire".  And the same with Napolean, who was insturmental with stopping a lot of the bloody excess of the French Revolution.  If he had contented himself with staying in Paris, he would never have had to live the last of his life in exile.

Sometimes it seems those who seek power the most are qualifed to hold it the least!  If Hitler and Stalin had been nice guys, they would have spared humanity unparalleled suffering.  But then they wouldn't have been Hitler and Stalin either.  It's a paradox.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif