PDA

View Full Version : Military Deaths in Iraq reach 2,500


lamberts-lost-tooth
06-15-2006, 02:05 PM
military deaths in Iraq reach 2,500

*WASHINGTON - The number of U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war has reached 2,500, the Pentagon said on Thursday, more than three years into a conflict that finds U.S. and allied foreign forces locked in a struggle with a resilient insurgency. In addition, the Pentagon said 18,490 U.S. troops have been wounded in the war, which began in March 2003 with a U.S.-led invasion to topple President Saddam Hussein. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. *

First ...my prayers go out to the families of all these brave men and women who have paid the ultimate price....

I am already preparing myself for the spin that the media will put on this. So I just thought that before any of us start judging our country on the "outrageous price" we are paying to free a country from an inhuman dictator...a ruthless regime....and from oppression beyond our comprehension....Lets all take some time to reflect upon and compare what is going on.... to another dictator...regime... oppression....and a willingness to free a country.

D-Day Caualties:

In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties.

Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged.

Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces.

Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.

*This is the D-DAY INVASION...NOT THE WAR...Kudos to our efficient troops and the incredible job they are doing!

If anything over 2,500 is "too much of a price to pay" what a slap in the face to all the brave Veterans who died and fought on that day.*

The patriot's blood is the seed of Freedom's tree. ~Thomas Campbell

beSteelmyheart
06-15-2006, 05:56 PM
Just a thought, I'm definitely not an expert on either war, but something tells me that our European Allies at the time generally weren't hostile towards us back then, & probably grateful for our help instead of trying to kill their liberators.

Suitanim
06-15-2006, 06:18 PM
Just a thought, I'm definitely not an expert on either war, but something tells me that our European Allies at the time generally weren't hostile towards us back then, & probably grateful for our help instead of trying to kill their liberators.

Yeah, those Russians really turned out to be some really great friends for the next 50 years after the war, eh?

I hate when people turn their 20/20 perfect hindsight back on events that were foggy at the time and try to pontificate.

j-dawg
06-15-2006, 07:44 PM
yep, the american troops that liberated europe in 1946 were given flowers, hugs, and kisses....


i heard that was supposed to happen in iraq.

Suitanim
06-15-2006, 08:21 PM
yep, the american troops that liberated europe in 1946 were given flowers, hugs, and kisses....


i heard that was supposed to happen in iraq.

Again, here we go..."anything that isn't easy should never be undertaken".

If this defeatest attitide prevailed circa 1942, we'd all be speaking German, and, apparently, some of us would be doing so willingly...

tony hipchest
06-15-2006, 08:46 PM
warsteiner das komet jagermeister...fahrfegnuggen :sofunny:

Black@Gold Forever32
06-15-2006, 08:56 PM
warsteiner das komet jagermeister...fahrfegnuggen :sofunny:

:sofunny: LOL:sofunny: Jagermeister I know that word. Whats sad I dated a girl from Munich Germany for a year and thats the only German I know.

j-dawg
06-15-2006, 09:16 PM
Again, here we go..."anything that isn't easy should never be undertaken".

If this defeatest attitide prevailed circa 1942, we'd all be speaking German, and, apparently, some of us would be doing so willingly...


:dang:

i certainly hope you are not suggesting that i'm a defeatist.

this conflict is nothing like world war II.

why do you think so many in our country don't agree with iraq? ... are you suggesting that they're all defeatists?

you're right, i took two years of german in highschool....

ich bin ein stolzer Amerikaner.

i'll say that in any language.

BlacknGold Bleeder
06-15-2006, 11:00 PM
R.I.P. to the 2500 !! It is an ironically small number but yet the very highest price.

3 to be 4
06-15-2006, 11:12 PM
i certainly hope you not suggesting j-dawg is a defeatist either!

He is a poopypants!!!!

3 to be 4
06-15-2006, 11:14 PM
Racken Fracken Kraken Racken

- Fred Flintstone, after being told to empty the garbage by Wilma

tony hipchest
06-16-2006, 12:15 AM
Racken Fracken Kraken Racken

- Fred Flintstone, after being told to empty the garbage by Wilma

i thought that was Muttley???? or did Muttley say "racken fracken schmacken cracken"?

shimmysteelerfan
06-16-2006, 01:17 AM
my thanks go out to all our service men/women and there families. let freedom ring!!!
makes me think of my favorite quote, i dont know who originally said it but i seem to get it in almost every email.

if you can read this thank a teacher, if you can read this in english thank a soldier.

:cheers:

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-16-2006, 04:45 AM
yep, the american troops that liberated europe in 1946 were given flowers, hugs, and kisses....


i heard that was supposed to happen in iraq.


1) Stupid reply ..not even relevent to the facts put before you.

2) We didnt liberate "Europe"..we liberated specific countries IN Europe.

3) V-E day was May 8 1945...NOT 1946

4)and UHHH...actually the Iraqis did welcome us!...guess you missed the whole Janeane Garofalo's refusal to follow through on her promise, made to Fox's Bill O'Reilly, that if she is proven wrong and Iraqis welcome U.S. troops ... 'I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, hey, you were right, I shouldn't have doubted you.'

85% of the population in Iraq love their new freedom...Its the Insurgent minority that is causing the problems, of which not all are even Iraqi...The majority have welcomed the changes(guess you missed that whole "voting thing" that millions of Iraqis turned out for...or those videos of the Iraqis dancing in the streets and tearing down statues after the fall of Saddam....damn conservatives probably staged it all, right?) Try talking to a soldier instead of listening to media news blurps.


Other than your lack of facts..good post.:dang:

Ohio Steeler
06-16-2006, 04:51 AM
R.I.P my fellow brothers in arms

Semper Fi

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-16-2006, 05:06 AM
:dang:

i certainly hope you are not suggesting that i'm a defeatist.

this conflict is nothing like world war II.

why do you think so many in our country don't agree with iraq? ... are you suggesting that they're all defeatists?

you're right, i took two years of german in highschool....

ich bin ein stolzer Amerikaner.

i'll say that in any language.



I have no problem with people having their own opinion....In fact the Vets in this forum were willing to die so that YOU could have an opinion.
That being said...if soldiers are willing to put their lives on the line so that you can have this right...how about taking the time to look deep enough into situations to form an intelligent opinion.

I have friends who are against the war that can formulate a good arguement to back up their stance. I can respect that. I have NO RESPECT for shallow, thoughtless statements made in regards to how OTHERS sacrifice should be viewed.

And for the record..I think what you meant is that many in our country dont agree with the situation in Iraq...

In short ....my 18 months in Iraq trump your "two years of high school German":dang:

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-16-2006, 05:09 AM
i thought that was Muttley???? or did Muttley say "racken fracken schmacken cracken"?

NO...that was Yosemite Sam...or did he say "Dad Blarn Raken Schmaken Stupid Rabbit"?

Hammer67
06-16-2006, 06:28 AM
Again, here we go..."anything that isn't easy should never be undertaken".

If this defeatest attitide prevailed circa 1942, we'd all be speaking German, and, apparently, some of us would be doing so willingly...

We would have had a better chance of speaking Japanese given the circumstances at the time but point taken. :thmbup:

j-dawg
06-16-2006, 09:47 AM
I have no problem with people having their own opinion....In fact the Vets in this forum were willing to die so that YOU could have an opinion.
That being said...if soldiers are willing to put their lives on the line so that you can have this right...how about taking the time to look deep enough into situations to form an intelligent opinion.

I have friends who are against the war that can formulate a good arguement to back up their stance. I can respect that. I have NO RESPECT for shallow, thoughtless statements made in regards to how OTHERS sacrifice should be viewed.

And for the record..I think what you meant is that many in our country dont agree with the situation in Iraq...

In short ....my 18 months in Iraq trump your "two years of high school German":dang:


so i guess you have NO respect for others who have questions surrounding this conflict... for example, the weapons of mass destruction claim... a reason why so many in this country don't agree with the situation in iraq... a point you made.

i have friends and family who are or have served in iraq. i support them.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-16-2006, 10:17 AM
so i guess you have NO respect for others who have questions surrounding this conflict... for example, the weapons of mass destruction claim... a reason why so many in this country don't agree with the situation in iraq... a point you made.

i have friends and family who are or have served in iraq. i support them.



'I have friends who are against the war that can formulate a good arguement to back up their stance. I can respect that. I have NO RESPECT for shallow, thoughtless statements made in regards to how OTHERS sacrifice should be viewed'

I guess you missed that part....thought it was an obvious statement:dang:

And as a Vet...You can talk all day long about how you support the soldiers but not the war...It is an empty statement. If you dont support what I do...You dont support me. Try that empty rhetoric on your wife or girlfriend sometime, should go over well.

And by the way..nice dodge on your previous post that was devoid of any semblance of facts.

j-dawg
06-16-2006, 10:30 AM
'I have friends who are against the war that can formulate a good arguement to back up their stance. I can respect that. I have NO RESPECT for shallow, thoughtless statements made in regards to how OTHERS sacrifice should be viewed'

I guess you missed that part....thought it was an obvious statement:dang:

And as a Vet...You can talk all day long about how you support the soldiers but not the war...It is an empty statement. If you dont support what I do...You dont support me. Try that empty rhetoric on your wife or girlfriend sometime, should go over well.

And by the way..nice dodge on your previous post that was devoid of any semblance of facts.


i'm not dodging... if you want to start your argument with "stupid reply" i have no reason to expound... (of course i'm aware that there are countries that comprise the area that's referred to as europe... shessh..)

i have family and friends that are vets... and they respect my opinion.

you do not.

that's fine.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-16-2006, 10:47 AM
i'm not dodging... if you want to start your argument with "stupid reply" i have no reason to expound... (of course i'm aware that there are countries that comprise the area that's referred to as europe... shessh..)

i have family and friends that are vets... and they respect my opinion.

you do not.

that's fine.


I can respect your opinion. I even understand a portion of what you are saying.
However it's statements like .... 'yep, the american troops that liberated europe in 1946 were given flowers, hugs, and kisses....i heard that was supposed to happen in iraq....that I have no respect for.

That sir....is a stupid reply...but I will take it that you posted without thinking...(we have all done it)..and you now see that it has so few facts as to make it the proverbial "empty bag of gummi bears"

DIESELMAN
06-16-2006, 11:17 AM
The men and women serving there are the real heroes of this world. God bless every last one of them. Before its all said and done we will lose many more, God willing that those numbers stay low and God Speed that they return home as soon as possible.

For the Iraqis that aren't doing enough for their own country....A BIG **** YOU!!!!!

CAH
06-16-2006, 05:22 PM
It would help if the Media and the Democrats could find something, anything good about our troops efforts in Iraq. Don't you think it's a little demoralizing for our troops to hear and read about only doom and gloom?

"Our troops break into Iraqi homes in the middle of the night and terrorize women and children."

"Our marines are murderers." Of course Murtha said that without hearing any proof.

"I support our troops but not the war." ---Excuse me?

"We're losing the war."

"They'll never pull off an election." "They'll never get a constitition." "They'll never form a government."

"We're in a quagmire over there."

Now if those statements don't cheer up our troops, I don't know what will. :rolleyes:

Hammer67
06-17-2006, 09:41 AM
I think it is ok to question the war but at the same time, we are there so at this point, it isn't going to change so might as well jump on board until the job is done.

I just can't stand liberal talking points against the war that are so ridiculous that I can't even believe they are saying it.

For instance. "No War for OIL!!" :dang:

What a stupid ****ing statement. Don't liberals realize that we get the majority of our oil from Mexico, Canada & South America?

If we wanted oil so bad, why wouldn't we just invade Venezuela??!! Morons...

Every time I see that on a sign in a college protset I think of how that kid's parents are wasting their money.

Livinginthe past
06-17-2006, 01:13 PM
I think it is ok to question the war but at the same time, we are there so at this point, it isn't going to change so might as well jump on board until the job is done.

I just can't stand liberal talking points against the war that are so ridiculous that I can't even believe they are saying it.

For instance. "No War for OIL!!" :dang:

What a stupid ****ing statement. Don't liberals realize that we get the majority of our oil from Mexico, Canada & South America?

If we wanted oil so bad, why wouldn't we just invade Venezuela??!! Morons...

Every time I see that on a sign in a college protset I think of how that kid's parents are wasting their money.

Umm I think you will find that the invasion of Iraq had an (initially) plausible set of circumstances for an invasion - ie the non-existant WMD's.

There was also a known war-mongering bad guy running the country in the shape of Saddam Hussein, which gave the world a feel good factor of deposing a despotic leader.

These factors contributed to the decision to invade Iraq.

As Venezuela currently satisfy none of these pre-conditions for the invasion I think its safe to say that the US couldn't consider an overt act of aggression against them in order to steal oil.

I dont think using them as an example of an oil rich country that the US hasn't overtly invaded to mean that the US wouldnt see the procurement of cheap oil as a reason to invade Iraq.

NM

Hammer67
06-17-2006, 04:30 PM
Umm I think you will find that the invasion of Iraq had an (initially) plausible set of circumstances for an invasion - ie the non-existant WMD's.

There was also a known war-mongering bad guy running the country in the shape of Saddam Hussein, which gave the world a feel good factor of deposing a despotic leader.

These factors contributed to the decision to invade Iraq.

As Venezuela currently satisfy none of these pre-conditions for the invasion I think its safe to say that the US couldn't consider an overt act of aggression against them in order to steal oil.

I dont think using them as an example of an oil rich country that the US hasn't overtly invaded to mean that the US wouldnt see the procurement of cheap oil as a reason to invade Iraq.

NM

No shit? Saddam who??!! I didnt' know that! :rolleyes: :sofunny:

If you read my post, I was referring to the people who claim we went to war with Iraq simply for the oil...hence the "NO WAR FOR OIL!" signs that are prevalent at college campus protests. That was the context i was speaking in. Using that logic, my statements are completely valid. Trust me...I have been in conversations where someone has put forth the idea that this is the sole reason we went there yet they couldn't explain the economics of oil, the futures market and refining. Go figure...

tony hipchest
06-17-2006, 04:39 PM
Don't you think it's a little demoralizing for our troops to hear and read about only doom and gloom?

much more than actually living in, and witnessing the "doom and gloom".

painting the war as a rosy and glorious situation that is gonna benefit all americans in the end is just as bad as the "doom and gloom" you speak of.

Livinginthe past
06-17-2006, 05:08 PM
No shit? Saddam who??!! I didnt' know that! :rolleyes: :sofunny:

If you read my post, I was referring to the people who claim we went to war with Iraq simply for the oil...hence the "NO WAR FOR OIL!" signs that are prevalent at college campus protests. That was the context i was speaking in. Using that logic, my statements are completely valid. Trust me...I have been in conversations where someone has put forth the idea that this is the sole reason we went there yet they couldn't explain the economics of oil, the futures market and refining. Go figure...

I happen to think it was and still is the main motivation for the US to be occupying Iraq.

NM

j-dawg
06-17-2006, 05:17 PM
I happen to think it was and still is the main motivation for the US to be occupying Iraq.

NM


In the "war on terror" why was it more important to invade Iraq rather than funneling all of our resources into pursuing al-Queda in Afghanistan? Could it be that from the point of view of this economic market, driven by oil, establishing oil supplies, as well as a justification for construction contracts, was more important than fighting terrorists? To deny the validity of this question is both harmful and obtuse.

beSteelmyheart
06-17-2006, 05:18 PM
Yeah, those Russians really turned out to be some really great friends for the next 50 years after the war, eh?

I hate when people turn their 20/20 perfect hindsight back on events that were foggy at the time and try to pontificate.
Ah yes, all pontificating aside, I certainly stand corrected. :rolleyes:

Hammer67
06-17-2006, 06:30 PM
I happen to think it was and still is the main motivation for the US to be occupying Iraq.

NM

That defies logic. Especially since 75% of the oil that the US actually imports comes from North & South America.

OPEC just doesn't have the clout it did in the 70's. Why would the US do that? I am in the camp that the stablalization of the Middle East by spreading Democracy was the main motive. It may end up not working but it is a different strategy then has been tried. I just don't buy the oil argument as I haven't heard an intelligent reasoning behind it that can be proved.

Hammer67
06-17-2006, 06:33 PM
In the "war on terror" why was it more important to invade Iraq rather than funneling all of our resources into pursuing al-Queda in Afghanistan? Could it be that from the point of view of this economic market, driven by oil, establishing oil supplies, as well as a justification for construction contracts, was more important than fighting terrorists? To deny the validity of this question is both harmful and obtuse.

It is a valid question...but it would be obtuse to ignore the facts of how much oil is actually imported from OPEC countries. Besides, we forget that oil prices (and gas) are determined by the market in our country...so, basically...if you have a bunch of scared investors, the price of crude oil barrels shoots up. The war has had a negative effect on prices becasue of this. Refining is where the hard cost of gas is determined. There isn't a lack of crude oil. Again...questions can be asked but i have yet to see an intelligent answer that would show the benefits of such a move....

CAH
06-17-2006, 07:07 PM
much more than actually living in, and witnessing the "doom and gloom".

painting the war as a rosy and glorious situation that is gonna benefit all americans in the end is just as bad as the "doom and gloom" you speak of.
How about just reporting it as it truly is? The leftist media never reported anything good that happened. Our troops didn't like that at all.

tony hipchest
06-17-2006, 10:06 PM
How about just reporting it as it truly is? The leftist media never reported anything good that happened. Our troops didn't like that at all. i dont know if youve been over there for the last 10 years to truly know how it "really is" but this is a capitalist media reporting for a capitalist society, and just like ann coulter, they will report on what is most profitable. this isnt about what people feel is right or wrong, good or bad, its about dollars and cents.

3 to be 4
06-17-2006, 10:22 PM
In the "war on terror" why was it more important to invade Iraq rather than funneling all of our resources into pursuing al-Queda in Afghanistan? Could it be that from the point of view of this economic market, driven by oil, establishing oil supplies, as well as a justification for construction contracts, was more important than fighting terrorists? To deny the validity of this question is both harmful and obtuse.

"What did you call Me"

"Do you get my drift, or am I being obtuse?"

- the warden in "The Shawshank Redemption"

CAH
06-17-2006, 10:41 PM
i dont know if youve been over there for the last 10 years to truly know how it "really is" but this is a capitalist media reporting for a capitalist society, and just like ann coulter, they will report on what is most profitable. this isnt about what people feel is right or wrong, good or bad, its about dollars and cents.
Not true. I've heard interviews with some of the troops and they are looking for and getting alternate broadcasts that aren't from the left.

Hawk Believer
06-17-2006, 10:42 PM
That defies logic. Especially since 75% of the oil that the US actually imports comes from North & South America.

OPEC just doesn't have the clout it did in the 70's. Why would the US do that? I am in the camp that the stablalization of the Middle East by spreading Democracy was the main motive. It may end up not working but it is a different strategy then has been tried. I just don't buy the oil argument as I haven't heard an intelligent reasoning behind it that can be proved.


What goes on in the Middle East has a profound influence on the global oil market. So even though our oil was mined in our hemisphere, the Middle East had more influence than any other region on the cost of that oil. If Saudi Arabia stops oil production, the cost of Alaska oil goes way up.

I definately think oil is the main reason we are so vested in the region. What I don't get is why the adminstration is being so apologetic or evasive about it. I think if they would be more up front about it they would have had more people in their camp. The US is totally reliant upon oil to maintain our economy. We don't control this resource. China and India are modernizing and create a massive amount demand for oil. Oil production is limited and many people arguably predict that the next century will bring a capped level of production that will not meet demand. So we have a major strategic interest in the oil producing nations of the world.

Of course we are there for oil. There are plenty of countries and regions that we could help stabilize and foster democracy in. But the Middle East is one of the biggest priorities because of the oil. Why are people ashamed to say that?

I think Bush was hamstrung into making false arguments about Iraq being a terrorist threat to our security and weak arguments about WMDs because to argue the benefits of protecting our oil supply would play into his characterization as an oil industry boot licker.

I don't agree with how we got into this war and how its been prosecuted. But I at least can take comfort that someone in the adminstration had a theory that Iraq was the most available country in the Middle East (besides Israel) for us to install a government that we would have more control over and demonstrate the benefits of a free market democracy to its neighbors. Because we will need more friends in the Middle East if we don't figure out another energy source quickly. That seems a lot more reasonable than pretending Saddam was a military threat to our security.

CAH
06-17-2006, 10:49 PM
Hawk, you'd better check it out but we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East. Most comes from North & South America.

If we went over there for the oil, why didn't we just take it when Saddam fell?

tony hipchest
06-17-2006, 10:52 PM
Not true. I've heard interviews with some of the troops and they are looking for and getting alternate broadcasts that aren't from the left.

"some of the troops"??????

o.k. did you conduct the interviews? if not who did and what agenda were they pushing? was it random sampling and if so, were all "interviews" broadcasted or reported? or just those that support the view you back?

listen, its obvious that the american public is split down the middle. to say that all the troops are far right is pretty hard to believe. its not just the republicans who join the service and fight the wars. in fact, it would be found that it is mostly the poor (predominantly democrat) who join the service and fight the wars.

tony hipchest
06-17-2006, 10:54 PM
Hawk, you'd better check it out but we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East. Most comes from North & South America.

If we went over there for the oil, why didn't we just take it when Saddam fell? because carpe deim and manifest destiny is dead in america. now we have to be concerned about what the rest of the world thinks of us.

3 to be 4
06-17-2006, 10:57 PM
because carpe deim and manifest destiny is dead in america. now we have to be concerned about what the rest of the world thinks of us.


i had Carpe Diem at the Dolphin Restaurant last week and got violently ill

tony hipchest
06-17-2006, 11:09 PM
dont eat flipper. sharkfin soup should make you ill too. only a few animals should be eaten, all the rest should be used as political propoganda. like aids infected monkeys.
screw those animal rights activists :rolleyes:

3 to be 4
06-17-2006, 11:13 PM
dont get me started. Whole Foods, which supports Planned Parenthood, has stopped selling live lobsters because of the cruel treatment faced by the lobsters.
like i said, DONT GET ME STARTED........

Hawk Believer
06-17-2006, 11:20 PM
Hawk, you'd better check it out but we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East. Most comes from North & South America.

If we went over there for the oil, why didn't we just take it when Saddam fell?
I acknowledged that we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East. What I was saying is that oil is a very global commodity. Perhaps the most global. What happens in the Middle East affects the cost of oil in the western hemishpere and vice versa. We don't get any Norwegian oil but our prices sure went up when their workers went on strike last year.

I am not saying we went in to plunder booty like BlueBeard. I do think Bush's motivation was to garner more stability and control of a region that is vital to our nations security soley because of its oil reserves. I think Bush truly believed that he was going to start a democracy and it was going to spread and we would gain more allies in the area. And a more secure oil supply. Its not a bad idea on paper. Hindsight being 20/20 it doesn't seem to be working out at the moment but I don't count out the possibility of history smiling kindly on the Iraq invasion when we are old and gray. I pray that is the case for sake of these soldiers who have been killed and their families.

Hawk Believer
06-17-2006, 11:21 PM
dont get me started. Whole Foods, which supports Planned Parenthood, has stopped selling live lobsters because of the cruel treatment faced by the lobsters.
like i said, DONT GET ME STARTED........
Do you guys have "Plant Amnesty" out East?

3 to be 4
06-17-2006, 11:23 PM
Do you guys have "Plant Amnesty" out East?

Whats that? Potted Plants who went to Canada to avoid going to 'Nam can come back now?

Hawk Believer
06-17-2006, 11:37 PM
Whats that? Potted Plants who went to Canada to avoid going to 'Nam can come back now?
You know, i don't really know. I see bumper stickers for it. It scares me because the word amnesty suggests that there are people who are trying to transfer rights to plants. If that happens, I am not sure what we would eat.

Hawk Believer
06-17-2006, 11:42 PM
Whats that? Potted Plants who went to Canada to avoid going to 'Nam can come back now?
OK. I googled it.
PlantAmnesty strives for better prunings
PlantAmnesty is a group for people who don't beat around the bush...literally. It was founded several years ago by professional gardener Cass Turnbull, in response to the deadly practice of "tree topping," in which causes trees to weaken, rot and die a slow death. Turnbull calls it "death by a thousand blows." PlantAmnesty's mission has expanded to include malpruning of shrubs as well.

PlantAmnesty's goal is to end the senseless torture and mutilation of trees and shrubs caused by malpruning. It seeks to change the way pruning is done in King County, thus proving it can be done elsewhere in the nation and the world.

PlantAmnesty works on three fronts: educating the public and professionals about what constitutes bad pruning and why; providing all of the tools necessary (books, video, referrals, classes) to replace damaging methods and habits with healthy ones, and to engender a profound community-wide respect for plants and their contribution to natural and manmade environments. We're pleased to be part of PlantAmnesty's referral service.


I am pleased to see that they stopped their discrimination against shrubs.

I am not breaking down any Seattle sterotypes with this post...

3 to be 4
06-17-2006, 11:48 PM
my guess is that they support Planned Parenthood too. the weirdos.

tony hipchest
06-18-2006, 12:00 AM
my guess is that they support Planned Parenthood too. the weirdos. you mean plant parenthood?

and hawk believer.... you are correct... you should of never brought up that post of plant amnesty :sofunny:

holy crap i hope you were joking with that crap.... if not im just glad we dont have many trees growing around where i live.

( actually smokey the bear is from about 45 minutes away from where i live)

ALL THAT MEANS IS I CANT SMOKE CIGS IN OUR DRY ASSED MOUNTAINS!

3 to be 4
06-18-2006, 12:06 AM
what if a dog pisses on a tree? which side do you take?

tony hipchest
06-18-2006, 12:22 AM
what if a dog pisses on a tree? which side do you take?

ooooh. the ultimate PETA member living in tree hugger's land's conundrum. the simple answer is:

it depends on its bark.

:rofl:

Hawk Believer
06-18-2006, 12:28 AM
Holy thread drift. But... While we are off topic.... I always have wondered how PETA types feel about the inherent cruelty of the predator/prey relationship. I think I would rather be put down by a gun in a slaughterhouse than torn apart by a bunch of dingos.

And Tony, no, I am afraid that Plant Amnesty appears to be real. I am hoping that the name created partly in jest. But I really don't know.

3 to be 4
06-18-2006, 12:33 AM
Holy thread drift. But... While we are off topic.... I always have wondered how PETA types feel about the inherent cruelty of the predator/prey relationship. I think I would rather be put down by a gun in a slaughterhouse than torn apart by a bunch of dingos.

And Tony, no, I am afraid that Plant Amnesty appears to be real. I am hoping that the name created partly in jest. But I really don't know.


I would rather be shot out of a cannon against a brick wall that have my nuts torn off by a pack of hyenas. but thats me.

3 to be 4
06-18-2006, 12:34 AM
what about Iraq?

MattsMe
06-18-2006, 12:40 AM
what about Iraq?

How can you bring up something as petty and inconsequential as Iraq, when there are millions of poor suffering plants that need our attention!

As we speak, trees are being trimmed, grass is being mowed. Did you hear me, MOWED! As in mowed down!
Murdered in cold chlorophyll!!!

Not to mention all the poorly trimmed bushes! Which reminds me of a girl I was with once...

Hawk Believer
06-18-2006, 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAH
Hawk, you'd better check it out but we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East. Most comes from North & South America.

If we went over there for the oil, why didn't we just take it when Saddam fell?

Hawk Believer Said:
I acknowledged that we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East. What I was saying is that oil is a very global commodity. Perhaps the most global. What happens in the Middle East affects the cost of oil in the western hemishpere and vice versa. We don't get any Norwegian oil but our prices sure went up when their workers went on strike last year.

I am not saying we went in to plunder booty like BlueBeard. I do think Bush's motivation was to garner more stability and control of a region that is vital to our nations security soley because of its oil reserves. I think Bush truly believed that he was going to start a democracy and it was going to spread and we would gain more allies in the area. And a more secure oil supply. Its not a bad idea on paper. Hindsight being 20/20 it doesn't seem to be working out at the moment but I don't count out the possibility of history smiling kindly on the Iraq invasion when we are old and gray. I pray that is the case for sake of these soldiers who have been killed and their families.


Thats where we left off...

tony hipchest
06-18-2006, 12:44 AM
Holy thread drift. But... While we are off topic.... I always have wondered how PETA types feel about the inherent cruelty of the predator/prey relationship. I think I would rather be put down by a gun in a slaughterhouse than torn apart by a bunch of dingos.

And Tony, no, I am afraid that Plant Amnesty appears to be real. I am hoping that the name created partly in jest. But I really don't know. good points. biologically speaking the war against plants could be more detrimential to our species than terrorists. but the terrorists seem like the predominant ULTIMATE threat. lets see where we are in 100 years when all the nations who support terrorism dont have the food or oxygen to fuel these f$*ks. then again if all the rain forests are depleted by then (which we are on pace for) noone will have the oxygen to breath. call me a leftist or a tree hugger. or call me someone who understands the most simple and basic biological principles..... we need water and air to survive.

im sure in 100 years, with a world population of 30-40 billion or so, someone will be able to figure out the answer. :rolleyes:

tony hipchest
06-18-2006, 12:46 AM
I would rather be shot out of a cannon against a brick wall that have my nuts torn off by a pack of hyenas. but thats me. i would prefer my nuts being bit off by a great white shark than being shot out of a cannon against a brick wall (unless i was ben roethlisberger without a helmet) but thats me.

tony hipchest
06-18-2006, 12:48 AM
Which reminds me of a girl I was with once...

if theres grass on the field... PLAY BALL!

MattsMe
06-18-2006, 12:49 AM
i would prefer my nuts being bit off by a great white shark than being shot out of a cannon against a brick wall (unless i was ben roethlisberger without a helmet) but thats me.

I can't decide. Would the shark kill me after biting my nuts off? If he wouldn't, then no, no shark bites in the scrotum for me. But if he would be so kind as to kill me after tearing off my testicles, then maybe we could do business.

MattsMe
06-18-2006, 12:51 AM
if theres grass on the field... PLAY BALL!

That's what got Chris Henry into trouble.

tony hipchest
06-18-2006, 12:54 AM
I can't decide. Would the shark kill me after biting my nuts off? If he wouldn't, then no, no shark bites in the scrotum for me. But if he would be so kind as to kill me after tearing off my testicles, then maybe we could do business. im sure either would result in death, and since i have a wierd thing with wanting to be killed by a shark, much more than being killed by an iraqi or a wall, i choose DEATH BY SHARK!

tony hipchest
06-18-2006, 12:56 AM
That's what got Chris Henry into trouble. and many, many, others. not me of course. (im thinking of r-kelley) :chuckle:

MattsMe
06-18-2006, 01:00 AM
A note to anyone catching up on this thread tomorrow:

Please ignore the last page or two. :cool:

Hawk Believer
06-18-2006, 01:07 AM
A note to anyone catching up on this thread tomorrow:

Please ignore the last page or two. :cool:
now you tell them.

SteelShooter
06-18-2006, 02:31 AM
yep, the american troops that liberated europe in 1946 were given flowers, hugs, and kisses....


i heard that was supposed to happen in iraq.


My Friends, I was there (more than once), we DID receive flowers, hugs, kisses, and more. What we are battling is not the local populace. We are battling the remainder of Saddam's cronies who lost power, money, and influence. Also, we are battling Syrians, Arabs, Lebanese, and a high number of Iranians....among others.

Most of us that are involved first hand, have the opinion, still, that we would rather fill 2500 bodybags, over three years, with our own Brothers and Sisters that volunteered, than to fill 3000 bodybags with civilians in one day (9-11).

You would be amazed at the heroics, the Patriotism, and the honor that most of these young people display. I still stand in awe of these Men and Women.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-18-2006, 03:13 AM
I happen to think it was and still is the main motivation for the US to be occupying Iraq.

NM


Hence gas now being .65 cents a gallon?

Livinginthe past
06-18-2006, 05:09 AM
Hence gas now being .65 cents a gallon?

Again I have to question why on earth you would suppose that the Government would be willing to pass any of the money/ profit they are making from this venture?

They dont call the finances he used to get into Government as the 'war chest' for nothing - the devil always claims his due in the end - and now big business is calling in the debt..

As sad as it is to say, Bush didnt invade Iraq to make the common mans wages go a little further every month.

NM

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-18-2006, 06:02 AM
Again I have to question why on earth you would suppose that the Government would be willing to pass any of the money/ profit they are making from this venture?

They dont call the finances he used to get into Government as the 'war chest' for nothing - the devil always claims his due in the end - and now big business is calling in the debt..

As sad as it is to say, Bush didnt invade Iraq to make the common mans wages go a little further every month.

NM

Im just trying to follow your theory here...You believe that we are not "in country" because of any reason other than that the government has a secret deal going on where they are spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a war... so that George Bush can syphon oil profits behind the scenes for personal gain?..Or are you saying that Big Business got him into office..so the government has set up a clandestine program to pad the pockets of the rich and repay their loyalty with the royalties from secreting oil out of the country and selling it for profit?
And that YOU are aware of this but the rest of the country is blissfully ignorant..how?

3 to be 4
06-18-2006, 07:24 AM
Im just trying to follow your theory here...You believe that we are not "in country" because of any reason other than that the government has a secret deal going on where they are spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a war... so that George Bush can syphon oil profits behind the scenes for personal gain?..Or are you saying that Big Business got him into office..so the government has set up a clandestine program to pad the pockets of the rich and repay their loyalty with the royalties from secreting oil out of the country and selling it for profit?


Excellent! Glad youve follwed along.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-18-2006, 07:29 AM
Excellent! Glad youve follwed along.


Actually I think that was on the X-files....except that in that episode the president was a werewolf also,...not very believable.

The conspiracy theory I mean...George may be a werewolf.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-18-2006, 07:42 AM
[QUOTE=tony hipchest, it would be found that it is mostly the poor (predominantly democrat) who join the service and fight the wars.[/QUOTE]


Tony I usually agree with your posts...but my friend you are smoking some excellent weed.

The military personel are BY FAR..right-leaning. Are there democrats? of course...but you will find the majority of them still have conservative ideas and values. The nature of the services makes it VERY hard to be a tree-hugging, "cant we just all get along" liberal. When was the last time you heard a marine say that he couldnt wait to get to the front line in order to "have an open discourse on the nature of freedom and the worldview of true liberty"

Most will say they want to do their job..go to new and exotic lands...meet people from different cultures...and shoot them.

3 to be 4
06-18-2006, 07:59 AM
Tony I usually agree with your posts...but my friend you are smoking some excellent weed.

The military personel are BY FAR..right-leaning. Are there democrats? of course...but you will find the majority of them still have conservative ideas and values. The nature of the services makes it VERY hard to be a tree-hugging, "cant we just all get along" liberal. When was the last time you heard a marine say that he couldnt wait to get to the front line in order to "have an open discourse on the nature of freedom and the worldview of true liberty"

Most will say they want to do their job..go to new and exotic lands...meet people from different cultures...and shoot them.


yeah, the idea that there are a lot of poor kids, both black and white, over there is just a bunch of hogwash and hoooey. :rolleyes:

3 to be 4
06-18-2006, 08:01 AM
Actually I think that was on the X-files....except that in that episode the president was a werewolf also,...not very believable.

The conspiracy theory I mean...George may be a werewolf.

he is no longer a werewolf. at one time he had a problem with it. But he was never addicted to being one. He simply decided to stop. And he hasnt been a werewolf ever since.

Livinginthe past
06-18-2006, 09:57 AM
Im just trying to follow your theory here...You believe that we are not "in country" because of any reason other than that the government has a secret deal going on where they are spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a war... so that George Bush can syphon oil profits behind the scenes for personal gain?..Or are you saying that Big Business got him into office..so the government has set up a clandestine program to pad the pockets of the rich and repay their loyalty with the royalties from secreting oil out of the country and selling it for profit?
And that YOU are aware of this but the rest of the country is blissfully ignorant..how?

You are kidding right?

Please tell me you are kidding.

I am certainly not the only person aware that this is how Governments are run in the States - are you trying to tell me that Big Business 'donates' millions of pounds to get somone like Bush (or whoever) elected and then just melts away into the scenery content that they have done a good thing?

Of course, I am not suggesting that it is purely oil based profit that the US invaded Iraq - there is also a hell of a lot of construction work to be done once the military have finished carpet bombing.

Maybe you weren't on this forum when I listed all of the American based companies that were picking nice fat contracts - construction and defense were the top earners.

To suggest that this scenario should be in the X-Files is naive beyond belief.

NM

3 to be 4
06-18-2006, 10:04 AM
wait a minute, LITP. Dont you know that Bush is an honest and decent man who is only doing the right thing in everything he does and we must support him because to not do so would be not supporting the troops and forgetting 9/11??????????

CAH
06-18-2006, 10:13 AM
I voted for Bush and glad I did. Finally a president who says what he means even though the Dems are all over his back calling everything he does as wrong.

I say back Bush or buy stock in white flags.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-18-2006, 11:06 AM
You are kidding right?

Please tell me you are kidding.

I am certainly not the only person aware that this is how Governments are run in the States - are you trying to tell me that Big Business 'donates' millions of pounds to get somone like Bush (or whoever) elected and then just melts away into the scenery content that they have done a good thing?

Of course, I am not suggesting that it is purely oil based profit that the US invaded Iraq - there is also a hell of a lot of construction work to be done once the military have finished carpet bombing.

Maybe you weren't on this forum when I listed all of the American based companies that were picking nice fat contracts - construction and defense were the top earners.

To suggest that this scenario should be in the X-Files is naive beyond belief.

NM

I am not only aware of the fact that American companies are now working in Iraq and making a profit...I am also aware that there is not a business in "this world" that works at a deficit. Any and all businesses that bid on contracts..agree to take on a job..."sell lemonade on the corner" do so with an assumption of profit making.
A company making profit is no more a logical reasoning for suspecting corruption than by trying to label Bush as "big business" because some businesses backed him. It is beyond doubt that some corporations backed Bush in the election...but it is also beyond coincidence that you fail to mention that OTHER big businesses back the Democratic party!! You have also conveniently not mentioned that the same CIA report that convinced Bush and his administration to attack ALSO convinced a MAJORITY of the Dems in congress to vote for the war resolution...The back pedaling that people like Kerry have demonstrated would put the best NFL cornerbacks to shame!
Maybe you can explain to me how they believed the same report but are not equally culpable...voted for this resolution ...but are not part of the same conspiracy...or maybe I am jumping to conclusions...are they? The only thing you have proven to be true is that BEYOND A DOUBT...if Kerry would had been elected there would be a DIFFERENT group of businesses making profit.
I am surprised that you have ignored the post of the soldier who is there now and the opinion of someone who spent 18 months in Iraq...who KNOW why they are/were there. We are not basing conclusions on media reports...Radio talkshows or second hand information.
This situation is so much larger than Party lines..political ideology...or individual ethics...to write it off as profit-mongoring is way to simplistic, and could not insinuate anything less than saying that our standing president is evil beyond any world leader in modern history.

Hammer67
06-18-2006, 12:41 PM
What goes on in the Middle East has a profound influence on the global oil market. So even though our oil was mined in our hemisphere, the Middle East had more influence than any other region on the cost of that oil. If Saudi Arabia stops oil production, the cost of Alaska oil goes way up.

I definately think oil is the main reason we are so vested in the region. What I don't get is why the adminstration is being so apologetic or evasive about it. I think if they would be more up front about it they would have had more people in their camp. The US is totally reliant upon oil to maintain our economy. We don't control this resource. China and India are modernizing and create a massive amount demand for oil. Oil production is limited and many people arguably predict that the next century will bring a capped level of production that will not meet demand. So we have a major strategic interest in the oil producing nations of the world.

Of course we are there for oil. There are plenty of countries and regions that we could help stabilize and foster democracy in. But the Middle East is one of the biggest priorities because of the oil. Why are people ashamed to say that?

I think Bush was hamstrung into making false arguments about Iraq being a terrorist threat to our security and weak arguments about WMDs because to argue the benefits of protecting our oil supply would play into his characterization as an oil industry boot licker.

I don't agree with how we got into this war and how its been prosecuted. But I at least can take comfort that someone in the adminstration had a theory that Iraq was the most available country in the Middle East (besides Israel) for us to install a government that we would have more control over and demonstrate the benefits of a free market democracy to its neighbors. Because we will need more friends in the Middle East if we don't figure out another energy source quickly. That seems a lot more reasonable than pretending Saddam was a military threat to our security.

Again..this defies logic. Yes, the Middle East does have an effect on oil prices but not directly...as I stated, the price of oil is governed by the fears of the market. So, in a sense, if the Middle East flares up, there are investors in the oil futures market (many who probably still believe that OPEC delivers the majority of our oil) that go crazy and hence the cost of barrels shoots up.

Why didn't the US just invade and take over Iraq in 1991 when we could have easily done so?

Also, why not go after Saudi Arabia? They are the only Middle Eastern country that provides us with any amount of oil worth going after?

There are many holes to this argument that have not been answered. Just a bunch of guesses.

Hammer67
06-18-2006, 12:44 PM
I acknowledged that we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East. What I was saying is that oil is a very global commodity. Perhaps the most global. What happens in the Middle East affects the cost of oil in the western hemishpere and vice versa. We don't get any Norwegian oil but our prices sure went up when their workers went on strike last year.

I am not saying we went in to plunder booty like BlueBeard. I do think Bush's motivation was to garner more stability and control of a region that is vital to our nations security soley because of its oil reserves. I think Bush truly believed that he was going to start a democracy and it was going to spread and we would gain more allies in the area. And a more secure oil supply. Its not a bad idea on paper. Hindsight being 20/20 it doesn't seem to be working out at the moment but I don't count out the possibility of history smiling kindly on the Iraq invasion when we are old and gray. I pray that is the case for sake of these soldiers who have been killed and their families.


Very good post Hawk. I do have my doubts about the Oil argument but I don't pretend to know everything about the situation. I do agree with this assesment though and I hope this teory is right for the world's sake. Christ, they have been fighting with each other in that region for centuries...I don't really think anything the US does will really make them feel differently but at least it's a different policy.

Hammer67
06-18-2006, 12:45 PM
I would rather be shot out of a cannon against a brick wall that have my nuts torn off by a pack of hyenas. but thats me.


:rofl:

Hammer67
06-18-2006, 12:54 PM
Im just trying to follow your theory here...You believe that we are not "in country" because of any reason other than that the government has a secret deal going on where they are spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a war... so that George Bush can syphon oil profits behind the scenes for personal gain?..Or are you saying that Big Business got him into office..so the government has set up a clandestine program to pad the pockets of the rich and repay their loyalty with the royalties from secreting oil out of the country and selling it for profit?
And that YOU are aware of this but the rest of the country is blissfully ignorant..how?


What a great post....I couldn't have said it better. This is why, as a moderate, i m turned off by arguments from the left. Just seems like one big unfounded conspiracy theory.

Hammer67
06-18-2006, 12:57 PM
yeah, the idea that there are a lot of poor kids, both black and white, over there is just a bunch of hogwash and hoooey. :rolleyes:

Well...actually, this would probably be the case if there was a draft but being as a good portion of the forces over there are Reserves, you have a lot of middle class white males over there. Hence my two cousis who are both college educated. And, my step brother who was also college educated and is in the Navy.

Hammer67
06-18-2006, 01:05 PM
I am not only aware of the fact that American companies are now working in Iraq and making a profit...I am also aware that there is not a business in "this world" that works at a deficit. Any and all businesses that bid on contracts..agree to take on a job..."sell lemonade on the corner" do so with an assumption of profit making.
A company making profit is no more a logical reasoning for suspecting corruption than by trying to label Bush as "big business" because some businesses backed him. It is beyond doubt that some corporations backed Bush in the election...but it is also beyond coincidence that you fail to mention that OTHER big businesses back the Democratic party!! You have also conveniently not mentioned that the same CIA report that convinced Bush and his administration to attack ALSO convinced a MAJORITY of the Dems in congress to vote for the war resolution...The back pedaling that people like Kerry have demonstrated would put the best NFL cornerbacks to shame!
Maybe you can explain to me how they believed the same report but are not equally culpable...voted for this resolution ...but are not part of the same conspiracy...or maybe I am jumping to conclusions...are they? The only thing you have proven to be true is that BEYOND A DOUBT...if Kerry would had been elected there would be a DIFFERENT group of businesses making profit.
I am surprised that you have ignored the post of the soldier who is there now and the opinion of someone who spent 18 months in Iraq...who KNOW why they are/were there. We are not basing conclusions on media reports...Radio talkshows or second hand information.
This situation is so much larger than Party lines..political ideology...or individual ethics...to write it off as profit-mongoring is way to simplistic, and could not insinuate anything less than saying that our standing president is evil beyond any world leader in modern history.


I was just getting ready to reply but i am glad you did...took the words right out of my mouth.

In one of my favorite lines from the Godfather II: "We are all part of the same hypocrisy."

LITP:
Business has profited from every war in the history of man. Who else will perform cleanup and reconstruction? Who profited from the reconstruction of the South after the Civil War? Who profited from the reconstruction of Europe in WWII under the Marshall plan? Who profited from the reconstruction of Japan? Will you then argue that all of these wars were fought so that big business would profit from rebuilding the destruction? What a ridiculous notion. Of course we understand this will happen. It's a capitalist society. But to think that there aren't more noble motivations here is also naive. Don't forget that Clinton also was in favor of going to war and repeatedly bombed Iraq...this is not a new notion.

The fact that Iraq violated UN restrictions, alone, justified the war. Some of us conveniently forget that in our effort to paint Bush as the bad guy. Some people spend so much time trying to find the bad that they overlook the good.

Hawk Believer
06-18-2006, 01:32 PM
I don't really think anything the US does will really make them feel differently but at least it's a different policy.

Hammer your post made me think of one of my favorite lines from The Big Lebowski when they were discussing German Nihlists -
I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-18-2006, 01:51 PM
I was just getting ready to reply but i am glad you did...took the words right out of my mouth.

In one of my favorite lines from the Godfather II: "We are all part of the same hypocrisy."

LITP:
Business has profited from every war in the history of man. Who else will perform cleanup and reconstruction? Who profited from the reconstruction of the South after the Civil War? Who profited from the reconstruction of Europe in WWII under the Marshall plan? Who profited from the reconstruction of Japan? Will you then argue that all of these wars were fought so that big business would profit from rebuilding the destruction? What a ridiculous notion. Of course we understand this will happen. It's a capitalist society. But to think that there aren't more noble motivations here is also naive. Don't forget that Clinton also was in favor of going to war and repeatedly bombed Iraq...this is not a new notion.

The fact that Iraq violated UN restrictions, alone, justified the war. Some of us conveniently forget that in our effort to paint Bush as the bad guy. Some people spend so much time trying to find the bad that they overlook the good.

Excellent post..well thought out and undeniable facts

Hammer67
06-18-2006, 03:08 PM
Hammer your post made me think of one of my favorite lines from The Big Lebowski when they were discussing German Nihlists -

Well...although that is perhaps my favorite comedy of all time :sofunny:... it still doesn't reflect the current and historical issues that have surrounded the Middle East. The instability in that region has been there since long before the arrival of the US as a world power and it will be there for a long time to come. It's like a hornets nest...unfortunately, avoiding the nest in the past has not kept us from getting "stung." Now we are trying to go after it with Raid for a different approach....(I know, I know...it is a simplistic analogy but on a very high level that is what we are trying to do.)

This is where my disdain for liberal foreign policy comes into play. They don't have any. I am open to ideas on how to stabilize the Middle East and create a safer world for everyone. But the best the liberals tend to offer up is how Bush is wrong or an idiot or whatever else...that's great, enlightening. As a voter, I want solutions, not endless nitpicking.


Wow...I went on a Dennis Miller rant....sorry about that. :smile:

SteelShooter
06-18-2006, 03:14 PM
Tony I usually agree with your posts...but my friend you are smoking some excellent weed.

The military personel are BY FAR..right-leaning. Are there democrats? of course...but you will find the majority of them still have conservative ideas and values. The nature of the services makes it VERY hard to be a tree-hugging, "cant we just all get along" liberal. When was the last time you heard a marine say that he couldnt wait to get to the front line in order to "have an open discourse on the nature of freedom and the worldview of true liberty"

Most will say they want to do their job..go to new and exotic lands...meet people from different cultures...and shoot them.


OohRahhhh Brother!

SteelShooter
06-18-2006, 03:22 PM
I voted for Bush and glad I did. Finally a president who says what he means even though the Dems are all over his back calling everything he does as wrong.

I say back Bush or buy stock in white flags.


Again..................OohRahhh!

White flags and black bodybags.........just like we did under Clinton. How mnay trips did I make to the Gulf region during his tenure where I was a target with little authorization to defend myself?
Isn't it funny how we were directed to make massive Tomahawk Strikes the same day he was to testify during the Lewinsky fiasco?
Sorry to those who do not support "George Dubya," But I've been serving under the right and the left wing.....I gotta tell you, it's much more comforting when the Big Guy himself says "we're coming." Very unlike Bill C. and his, well, let's wait and see what happens, then we can talk about it attitude.

FYI.......a majority of the Military's Enlisted and Officer Ranks are Conservatives (intentionally capitalized mind you).

Livinginthe past
06-18-2006, 03:31 PM
I am not only aware of the fact that American companies are now working in Iraq and making a profit...I am also aware that there is not a business in "this world" that works at a deficit. Any and all businesses that bid on contracts..agree to take on a job..."sell lemonade on the corner" do so with an assumption of profit making.
A company making profit is no more a logical reasoning for suspecting corruption than by trying to label Bush as "big business" because some businesses backed him. It is beyond doubt that some corporations backed Bush in the election...but it is also beyond coincidence that you fail to mention that OTHER big businesses back the Democratic party!! You have also conveniently not mentioned that the same CIA report that convinced Bush and his administration to attack ALSO convinced a MAJORITY of the Dems in congress to vote for the war resolution...The back pedaling that people like Kerry have demonstrated would put the best NFL cornerbacks to shame!
Maybe you can explain to me how they believed the same report but are not equally culpable...voted for this resolution ...but are not part of the same conspiracy...or maybe I am jumping to conclusions...are they? The only thing you have proven to be true is that BEYOND A DOUBT...if Kerry would had been elected there would be a DIFFERENT group of businesses making profit.
I am surprised that you have ignored the post of the soldier who is there now and the opinion of someone who spent 18 months in Iraq...who KNOW why they are/were there. We are not basing conclusions on media reports...Radio talkshows or second hand information.
This situation is so much larger than Party lines..political ideology...or individual ethics...to write it off as profit-mongoring is way to simplistic, and could not insinuate anything less than saying that our standing president is evil beyond any world leader in modern history.

Hey lambert,

You see where I said 'Governments' in my previous post - that includes the Republicans, the Democrats and whoever else gets in.

The name Bush appears in my post, because he is the guy who has taken the US to war.

Of course, the Dems have financial backers, just the same as the Republicans do - and believe me if Kerry has taken the US to war with Iraq I would be here typing the exact same stuff.

So lets not turn this into a convenient political party broadcast - the guy in charge happens to be a Republican - and he happens to have had his war chest funded by big business that profits directly from war and the aftermath of war.

Again, I could care less how the Democrats voted or didnt vote - they have shown themselves to be a spineless, undeserving rival party - they will follow the party line - the one which is easiest and lines their pocket the quickest.

I hope these last few paragraghs will convince you to stop making this a Repubs v Dems issue - it isn't.

I haven't ignored the posts of anyone on this board, least of all a soldier - but I bet I can find a soldier who thinks this war is wrong for every one you can find that thinks its for the greater good.

I would imagine that it would be very difficult for a soldier who is stationed in Iraq to be able to view the big picture while he is right in the middle of the conflict.

I wouldn't go as far as to call Bush evil - he is just a convenient front man for the real pieces of work in the back room - the same guys who worked for daddy and the same guys with shares in Defense contractors.

NM

SteelShooter
06-18-2006, 03:42 PM
You are kidding right?



Of course, I am not suggesting that it is purely oil based profit that the US invaded Iraq - there is also a hell of a lot of construction work to be done once the military have finished carpet bombing.

NM


First - Get your facts straight. The military has not "carpet bombed" since the Arc-Light missions of VietNam.

Second - There was quite an effort made on our part to reduce the required destruction so that we could re-build this country. From Precision Bombing vs "carpet bombing" to using innovative weapons to disable vs destroy the power grids, even taking a greater risk to our own security to save a bridge instead of annihilating it. If this were a "War for Profit" as you seem to be advertising, we would've been given Carte Blanche to vaporize whatever crossed our weapons' sights.

Evety war has some form of business interest afterwards. Remember the Carpet Baggers immediately following the Civil War...that is a negative example. But, on a positive note, did we not assist in the re-building of a large portion of Western Europe after WWII? Believe it or not, this reduces follow-on violence. Unlike Post WW I Germany, where we did nothing and the Germans were without most everything to the point of following a little known Corporal's rhetoric into the greatest War this planet has ever known, we re-built and offered a modicum of safety and security (physical as well as financial).

There will always be a very small amount of drama and comspiracy in poiltics. But there are still noble causes alive and well in today's society. :salute:

Livinginthe past
06-18-2006, 03:43 PM
I was just getting ready to reply but i am glad you did...took the words right out of my mouth.

In one of my favorite lines from the Godfather II: "We are all part of the same hypocrisy."

LITP:
Business has profited from every war in the history of man. Who else will perform cleanup and reconstruction? Who profited from the reconstruction of the South after the Civil War? Who profited from the reconstruction of Europe in WWII under the Marshall plan? Who profited from the reconstruction of Japan? Will you then argue that all of these wars were fought so that big business would profit from rebuilding the destruction? What a ridiculous notion. Of course we understand this will happen. It's a capitalist society. But to think that there aren't more noble motivations here is also naive. Don't forget that Clinton also was in favor of going to war and repeatedly bombed Iraq...this is not a new notion.

The fact that Iraq violated UN restrictions, alone, justified the war. Some of us conveniently forget that in our effort to paint Bush as the bad guy. Some people spend so much time trying to find the bad that they overlook the good.

Wow.

Talk about terrible analogies.

I think you will find the civil war was fought by two armies occupying the same piece of land, the same country - and that they were fighting to call it their own.

That, my friend is a little different to dropping a load of bombs and deploying troops on a sovereign nation that is 6,000 miles from the USA.

WWII is another awful comparison - Germany had genuine plans to conquer the world - they were on the match across Europe before the US stepped in - you going to tell me a 2nd world nation comprising of 26 million people is likely to do the same?

I think not.

And dont say that breaking UN sanctions is reason enough for war - thats BS for two reasons.

1. The UN itself didnt declare war , so how can you use their method of arbitration to justify the US occupation of Iraq?

2. I dont see the USA knocking on the door of North Korea any time soon? Know why?

Because there isn't enough in it for the big guys - the US Government will continue to turn a blind eye.

On top of everything else, it was the supposed presence of WMD's that justified the invasion - if that doesnt make the US Government cynical profiteers, then it certainly makes them incompetent.

NM

Livinginthe past
06-18-2006, 03:48 PM
First - Get your facts straight. The military has not "carpet bombed" since the Arc-Light missions of VietNam.

Second - There was quite an effort made on our part to reduce the required destruction so that we could re-build this country. From Precision Bombing vs "carpet bombing" to using innovative weapons to disable vs destroy the power grids, even taking a greater risk to our own security to save a bridge instead of annihilating it. If this were a "War for Profit" as you seem to be advertising, we would've been given Carte Blanche to vaporize whatever crossed our weapons' sights.

Evety war has some form of business interest afterwards. Remember the Carpet Baggers immediately following the Civil War...that is a negative example. But, on a positive note, did we not assist in the re-building of a large portion of Western Europe after WWII? Believe it or not, this reduces follow-on violence. Unlike Post WW I Germany, where we did nothing and the Germans were without most everything to the point of following a little known Corporal's rhetoric into the greatest War this planet has ever known, we re-built and offered a modicum of safety and security (physical as well as financial).

There will always be a very small amount of drama and comspiracy in poiltics. But there are still noble causes alive and well in today's society. :salute:

I will take your definition of carpet bombing - you know alot more about that than me.

I already explained in aprevious post why WW2 is a god awful analogy.

And politics is ALL drama and conspiracy - not just a small amount.

I respect your opinions on war terminology, and maybe you need to think the best of the current administration to continue in the service - but your opinion of Government is so obviously viewed through rose tinted glasses im wondering if they are Navy standard issue.?

NM

Livinginthe past
06-18-2006, 03:56 PM
wait a minute, LITP. Dont you know that Bush is an honest and decent man who is only doing the right thing in everything he does and we must support him because to not do so would be not supporting the troops and forgetting 9/11??????????

That is one of the most despicable ploys that the Bush administration has employed - if you dare question any part of their actions then you are labelled as un-American and a potential traitor.

Im just glad there appears to be plenty of Americans who are willing to consider the information they are being fed and not just regurgitating it.

Last time I looked America was the largest, most famous Democracy in the world - not the place you cant share an opinion without being called a traitor.

Oh, and another tactic that disgusts me is the way people say you cannot be pro-forces and anti-war - that is a truly sickening notion and I cannot believe people swallow it.

NM

SteelShooter
06-18-2006, 04:16 PM
I will take your definition of carpet bombing - you know alot more about that than me.

I already explained in aprevious post why WW2 is a god awful analogy.

And politics is ALL drama and conspiracy - not just a small amount.

I respect your opinions on war terminology, and maybe you need to think the best of the current administration to continue in the service - but your opinion of Government is so obviously viewed through rose tinted glasses im wondering if they are Navy standard issue.?

NM


LITP,

In order to be completely fair, I must admit that you make some very, very valid points.
The "rose tinted glasses" comment was a tad off-base though. I have served under Reagan, George Sr, Bill's Wife, and now Goerge W. I have been able to see the differences in style, approach, political affiliation, and stance. Nothing is perfect...nothing. So, I will lean forward in seeing the best that I can in any particular administration. Is it "obvious" as you put it? I believe it depends on what side of the fence you are viewing it from.

So we agree to disagree; no harm, no foul.

Overall, nice debate and opinion offerings Bro.

Livinginthe past
06-18-2006, 04:42 PM
LITP,

In order to be completely fair, I must admit that you make some very, very valid points.
The "rose tinted glasses" comment was a tad off-base though. I have served under Reagan, George Sr, Bill's Wife, and now Goerge W. I have been able to see the differences in style, approach, political affiliation, and stance. Nothing is perfect...nothing. So, I will lean forward in seeing the best that I can in any particular administration. Is it "obvious" as you put it? I believe it depends on what side of the fence you are viewing it from.

So we agree to disagree; no harm, no foul.

Overall, nice debate and opinion offerings Bro.

Thanks man,

Enjoyed the debate, and thanks for the army info - its always good to learn new stuff.

Take it easy

NM

tony hipchest
06-18-2006, 05:27 PM
Again..................OohRahhh!

White flags and black bodybags.........just like we did under Clinton. How mnay trips did I make to the Gulf region during his tenure where I was a target with little authorization to defend myself?
Isn't it funny how we were directed to make massive Tomahawk Strikes the same day he was to testify during the Lewinsky fiasco?
Sorry to those who do not support "George Dubya," But I've been serving under the right and the left wing.....I gotta tell you, it's much more comforting when the Big Guy himself says "we're coming." Very unlike Bill C. and his, well, let's wait and see what happens, then we can talk about it attitude.

FYI.......a majority of the Military's Enlisted and Officer Ranks are Conservatives (intentionally capitalized mind you).

genaral schzwartskopf made a trip to the gulf with no authorization to press on.

i dont have any figures of the % of enlisted that are registered as rep's or dem's. i could be wrong, but mine was an assumption that the majority of the enlisted come from lower income - poor class citezens, and the majority of this sample of population are registered dems. then again not all of the lowere income - poor actually register to vote and alot of the enlisted, enlist at the age of 18. many probably enlist before they actually vote in their 1st election.

i believe a marine, or those who fight on the front lines, and all the other enlisted are willing to do their job and passion just as well as the guy right beside them regardless of party affiliations. i dont think one soldier is better than the other just because of the way they vote, if they voted at all. but the military has historically flourished under a rep administration and if a 2 striper airman wants a raise or better housing their best bet is to vote republican.

but i will definitely give you this. im pretty sure that reps make up the majority of college educated officers and above. while i mentionned trees, oxygen, and food in this thread, i am definitely not anti war (infact i voted for bush II for the simple fact i dont like changing leadership in a time of war, and believe in supporting your leader), i actually posted the philosophy of carpe diem and manifest destiny of which i am all for.

i am neither left or right. although registered dem, i have crossed party lines plenty of times.

Hawk Believer
06-18-2006, 05:42 PM
Last time I looked America was the largest, most famous Democracy in the world - not the place you cant share an opinion without being called a traitor.


NM
You obviously haven't read Ann Coulter.

Hammer67
06-18-2006, 06:05 PM
That is one of the most despicable ploys that the Bush administration has employed - if you dare question any part of their actions then you are labelled as un-American and a potential traitor.

Im just glad there appears to be plenty of Americans who are willing to consider the information they are being fed and not just regurgitating it.

Last time I looked America was the largest, most famous Democracy in the world - not the place you cant share an opinion without being called a traitor.

Oh, and another tactic that disgusts me is the way people say you cannot be pro-forces and anti-war - that is a truly sickening notion and I cannot believe people swallow it.

NM

Valid arguments and there are those out there that do accuse dissent as such. But, what I don't like, to be fair, is when you endless bashing. Bush is stupid, the war is wrong, America is evil...blah, blah, blah. Fantastic, great...agian, enlightening. But tell me how to stabalize that region and make the world safer for my kids and then grandkids. After all, that is why we fight.

And, my comparisons to other wars are completely on point, even if you fail to see how (no offense). You are making general statements about big business profiting off the current war and how that was one of the only motivations for such:

I am certainly not the only person aware that this is how Governments are run in the States - are you trying to tell me that Big Business 'donates' millions of pounds to get somone like Bush (or whoever) elected and then just melts away into the scenery content that they have done a good thing?

Of course, I am not suggesting that it is purely oil based profit that the US invaded Iraq - there is also a hell of a lot of construction work to be done once the military have finished carpet bombing.

Maybe you weren't on this forum when I listed all of the American based companies that were picking nice fat contracts - construction and defense were the top earners.


Well, in using this argument, one could look to history and previous wars for comparison. Of course every war is different from a political reasoning stand point. I know that (Or, I should know that as I minored in History focusing on American warfare! :smile:).
But you are presenting an arguement based on assumptions. And as if this never happened for any war. So I ask, who should do the cleanup? How was this handled in the past? It isn't a "terrible" analogy if you think about the point I am getting at.

While we may disagree on the political motivations, we do have troops currently in harms way and bickering about why we are there is now counterproductive. THe decision was made and we should stand behind our troops. This means showing a united front of support for their cause. That's my view, anyhow....

Hawk Believer
06-18-2006, 08:00 PM
So the way I see it (in an overly simplistic way) there are two ways to deal with our current and future problems with our oil supply. One, we can secure and control as much of the world's oil fields as possible. Or two, we can become less reliant on oil.

The first option is the only thing we can do in the present. Even though it means expending lives and dealing with countries that hate us and we would otherwise ignore.

To become less reliant on oil, there are two options. We could try to voluntarily decrease our energy consumption; this ain't happenin.

Or we could try to develop other energy sources. Thomas Friedman has proposed a massive gasoline tax to fund what he calls a modern Manhattan Project. If we devoted a significant amount of treasure and science towards deveoping new energy sources we could come up with something in a decade or so. He argues that this would be the single greatest thing we could do to protect out national security. I beleive he makes a pretty convincing argument. If we could develop a nuke in 5 years and go from having our first satellite to a man on the moon in a decade, I am sure we could make a breakthrough in energy as well if we devoted equal resources.

The hard part would be the gas tax. It would screw up our econmoy and quality of life. But maybe that is the sacrifice our generation needs to make for our nation's security, just like the "Greatest Genertion" did for us.

Anyway, there is one unconventional plan for decreasing our Middle East problems. This would be an isolationist policy eventually and probably wouldn't help out the Middle East too much. But it would definately decrease our need to engage with countries whose cultures and values are often at odds with ours.

SteelShooter
06-18-2006, 08:13 PM
genaral schzwartskopf made a trip to the gulf with no authorization to press on.

i dont have any figures of the % of enlisted that are registered as rep's or dem's. i could be wrong, but mine was an assumption that the majority of the enlisted come from lower income - poor class citezens, and the majority of this sample of population are registered dems. then again not all of the lowere income - poor actually register to vote and alot of the enlisted, enlist at the age of 18. many probably enlist before they actually vote in their 1st election.

i believe a marine, or those who fight on the front lines, and all the other enlisted are willing to do their job and passion just as well as the guy right beside them regardless of party affiliations. i dont think one soldier is better than the other just because of the way they vote, if they voted at all. but the military has historically flourished under a rep administration and if a 2 striper airman wants a raise or better housing their best bet is to vote republican.

but i will definitely give you this. im pretty sure that reps make up the majority of college educated officers and above. while i mentionned trees, oxygen, and food in this thread, i am definitely not anti war (infact i voted for bush II for the simple fact i dont like changing leadership in a time of war, and believe in supporting your leader), i actually posted the philosophy of carpe diem and manifest destiny of which i am all for.

i am neither left or right. although registered dem, i have crossed party lines plenty of times.

Actually, the Officer Corps is about half-and-half on the average. With the Enlisted ranks being, as stated before, primarily Republican.

True about the 2-striper voting Republican, you were dead-on with that one.

And you were dead-on again with the fact that one Troop is no better than the next in regard to party affiliations. We are all Brothers/Sisters out there.

Once the "party" starts you do not think of these things......................only of not being the cause of harm or of letting down your Brother.

Suitanim
06-18-2006, 08:23 PM
I'm starting to think I may stay out of these arguments for awhile. More brilliant minds than any of ours have argued over less and all been wrong before.

The War is on. History will be the ultimate judge.

MattsMe
06-18-2006, 09:38 PM
I'm starting to think I may stay out of these arguments for awhile. More brilliant minds than any of ours have argued over less and all been wrong before.

The War is on. History will be the ultimate judge.

:iagree:

Hammer67
06-18-2006, 09:56 PM
I'm starting to think I may stay out of these arguments for awhile. More brilliant minds than any of ours have argued over less and all been wrong before.

The War is on. History will be the ultimate judge.

All too true...as I said, we're already there, right or wrong.