Success in Iraq?

[Smoove]

Oh my, I seem to be living rent-free in your skull.

I don't need pixelated reinforcement of my intelligence from people who, for the most part, show no independent thought of their own. It is just fun poking the bee-hive once in a while to see all the handicapped bees show their stuff.

I don't trust you, respect you/"your" opinions, or any other intangible you seem to think you bring to this board. So go on, thump your tail, show me how much of an e-man you think you are. It's alright, I still see you for what you are.

But thanks for the replies, even if they serve no other purpose than to inflate your e-ego.

[cdnredraider]

Originally Posted by Swedish goalie

More than a quarter of senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the military industrial complex. That is pretty corrupt.

Congress Members Profit from the Iraq War - General News
151 Congressmen Derive Financial Profit From War
Newsvine - 151 Congressmen Derive Financial Profit From the War

Seems a little strange that 7 of the top 10 senators investing in MIC companies are Democrats. But, I thought it was the GOP doing that

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by Smoove

I don't trust you, respect you/"your" opinions, or any other intangible you seem to think you bring to this board. So go on, thump your tail, show me how much of an e-man you think you are. It's alright, I still see you for what you are.

Seems to me I'm not the one who blatantly posted false information.

So you are either a liar, or stupid and gullible.

I know where my money would be placed......................

[Smoove]

Originally Posted by Thumper

Seems to me I'm not the one who blatantly posted false information.

So you are either a liar, or stupid and gullible.

I know where my money would be placed......................

I knew you were poor and likely uneducated. But that was the best you could do? How disappointing. Expected, yet still disappointing.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by Smoove

I knew you were poor and likely uneducated. But that was the best you could do? How disappointing. Expected, yet still disappointing.

Still no defense or justification for the misinformation that you posted ?

Why not......???

[azdave]

Smoove, you are now number one on my "sheep" list for the right. You add words to what I said, which shouldn't surprise me seeing some of your posts. But the really cool thing is you ask a question but you leave out half or more of the quote Good way to debate a topic. Please get behind the lead sheep and just keeping saying baah. Soon your boy will be out of the White House and then you may have to actually think.

BTW answer me this. Do YOU, not Bush, not McCain but YOU think we should attack IRAN???????? Can't wait to see this.

[RyJ Maduro]

To put things in perspective regarding the big, bad, MIC...

Does anyone remember the body armor issue? The same people who expressed their outrage that the Bush administration for sending troops into harms way with "inadequate" protection now condemn the companies who have in the last few years developed two generations of new personal body armor.

The United States military is equipped with the most hi-tech, advanced (and expensive) warfighting equipment the world has ever seen. It comes at a price. The way I see it, national defense is a good thing, and capitalism is a good thing, so why begrudge the companies who supply the war effort their right to turn a profit?

Originally Posted by biguglygoalie

you are a fine example of why privates are paid to follow and not think...

Not true for the 35F MOS, you civvie strokejob.

Originally Posted by azdave

BTW answer me this. Do YOU, not Bush, not McCain but YOU think we should attack IRAN???????? Can't wait to see this.

Do you think we should allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?

"Attack" doesn't necessarily mean a full scale ground war and occupation. Air strikes or Special Operations could achieve the desired results of preventing atomic Ayatollahs, without having to open up an entirely new front in the War on Terror.

It should be noted, also, that Iranians are, right now, killing American soldiers in Iraq. They're already fighting a proxy war against us through the Shia militias (supported by IRGC plants) and against the Israelis through Lebanese Hezbollah. Legitimizing Ahmadinejad with a Presidential visit would be grossly inappropriate.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

..........35F MOS..............

This means he gets to use a brush when scrubbing the latrines................

[sloth2946]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

To put things in perspective regarding the big, bad, MIC...

Does anyone remember the body armor issue? The same people who expressed their outrage that the Bush administration for sending troops into harms way with "inadequate" protection now condemn the companies who have in the last few years developed two generations of new personal body armor.

The United States military is equipped with the most hi-tech, advanced (and expensive) warfighting equipment the world has ever seen. It comes at a price. The way I see it, national defense is a good thing, and capitalism is a good thing, so why begrudge the companies who supply the war effort their right to turn a profit?
)

Are you high or can you just not understand the argument?

The troops need the best. PERIOD.

The MIC deserves to profit for their hard work. PERIOD.

The MIC does NOT have the right to over charge for what they provide. PERIOD.

The MIC does NOT have the right to lobby and push our elected officials through kickbacks and other BS to force our armed forces to fight trivial wars just so they can improve their revenue streams. PERIOD.

A quick refresher. Afghanistan, necessary. Iraq, trivial, and unnecessary. PERIOD.

Pretty straight forward argument even for a dullard like you.

[azdave]

civvie Strokejob???????????? Wow, that is just wrong. I know in civilian life that could cost you an ass whupping even if you use a smiley face.

[azdave]

Smoove can't answer right now. He is busy looking up all the right wing websites to get an answer. It's okay I can wait. I think the best thing is probably to bring up some half sentence and then add another half sentence until you get an answer that sounds good

[RyJ Maduro]

Originally Posted by sloth2946

Are you high or can you just not understand the argument?

I think you'd need to be high to understand Swede's "arguments."

The troops need the best. PERIOD.

The MIC deserves to profit for their hard work. PERIOD.

The MIC does NOT have the right to over charge for what they provide. PERIOD.

Agreed.

The MIC does NOT have the right to lobby and push our elected officials through kickbacks and other BS to force our armed forces to fight trivial wars just so they can improve their revenue streams. PERIOD.

Agreed, which is why I would never support a Boeing sponsored war against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

A quick refresher. Afghanistan, necessary. Iraq, trivial, and unnecessary. PERIOD.

Opinion. PERIOD.

Pretty straight forward argument even for a dullard like you.

Very immature. PERIOD.

[sloth2946]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Opinion. PERIOD.


Very immature. PERIOD.

I'll go with your last thing first...you had to look up the definition of dullard didn't you?

And it is not opinion, it is fact.

Just in case you need a refresher course, you can answer this question and I'll use smaller words this time to give dictionary.com a rest: Was al-qaeda(hint: the group who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 precipitating the war on terror) a presence in Iraq prior to 2003?

If the answer is no(for those playing at home this is the answer), then it was a war of choice and a bad one at that. The 'war on terror' was to fight against terrorist threats to the United States and Saddam Hussein and his merry band of men did not pose a threat, as indicated by numerous intelligence assessments before and after 2003.

[biguglygoalie]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Not true for the 35F MOS, you civvie strokejob.

oh so you do get to think for yourself it probably goes as far as you choosing comet or formula 409 when cleaning the latrines?
you are such the spoof, kinda like a frank burns and gomer pyle love child...

[RyJ Maduro]

Originally Posted by sloth2946

I'll go with your last thing first...you had to look up the definition of dullard didn't you?

And it is not opinion, it is fact.

Just in case you need a refresher course, you can answer this question and I'll use smaller words this time to give dictionary.com a rest: Was al-qaeda(hint: the group who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 precipitating the war on terror) a presence in Iraq prior to 2003?

If the answer is no(for those playing at home this is the answer), then it was a war of choice and a bad one at that. The 'war on terror' was to fight against terrorist threats to the United States and Saddam Hussein and his merry band of men did not pose a threat, as indicated by numerous intelligence assessments before and after 2003.

Sloth, you can cut the condescending BS, it does your argument no justice.

Whether or not opening up the Iraq front was a good move strategically is debatable. I can understand and respect arguments that OIF was a mistake. However, that's now water under the bridge, and all the hand-wringing in the world won't change the present situation for the better. It doesn't matter if al-Qaeda was in Iraq in 2003, it matters that they're there now, (and getting beaten pretty handily) and it matters that the Iranians are exerting significant influence in the region.