Our Neighbors To The North

[Snee]

Originally posted by vidcc+3 May 2004 - 19:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 3 May 2004 - 19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 09:53
vidcc did you read my post? Where in it did I saw we invaded Iraq for the oil fields?

I was talking about when Saddam invaded Kuwait for that exact reasons.

Quoting Myself:

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.

yes i did read it... and you said

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches

we are not talking now about the gulf war, we are talking about iraq.

in the original thread i have quoted this from i asked you just who is prospering from our "liberation" of iraq.... it&#39;s not the iraqis as nearly all the contracts have gone to american companies ( who has the oil contract? ) American business is doing very well in iraq thank you very much.
The whole point was that we do only "liberate" countries we can prosper from.

edit : now i appreciate your viewpoint that you don&#39;t believe oil had anything to do with why we went in, i accept your view, but you are in a worldwide minority in that belief. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t believe so much in the oil bit either.

And furthermore, I kinda&#39; feel like hank here, they did sign up, they weren&#39;t forced to join the military, so they should have done what they were meant to do, and then complained about it.


As for they rest, it kinda&#39; seems to me as if Bush was pretty keen to declare war on people because his ratings were dropping.

I figure it was political, rather than monetary profit, that this war was about. At least from the POV of the administration. I ain&#39;t saying the general outcome o&#39; the war seems that bad to me either, it&#39;s still the motivation I wonder about.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc@3 May 2004 - 13:07
but you are in a worldwide minority in that belief.

That doesn&#39;t bother me one bit. That just means that I&#39;ll have to work harder to prove you wrong

[vidcc]

Snny...i did point out to hank that he was in a worldwide minority in that belief..i didn&#39;t say he was alone and i understood his viewpoint based on this belief

i have to agree that political motivation point to a degree, everytime bush got into trouble on the homefront he made some speech about fighting terror, however i believe that he might have wanted to do this before he came to office and his connections to the fuel industries are a bit too close to home to be coincidence.

And this is where the whole point of the thread comes in, yes these 2 men did sign up for military service, but they did so (possibly) in the belief that any fighting would be to protect "their country".....and just maybe they feel that this particular war doesn&#39;t fit that criterior as they have a same viewpoint as the majority of the world does that we are there for dubious reasons.

One point slightly off topic but in the same ball park.....many join the military because it&#39;s a way of getting benefits such as the vetrans medical plan. It&#39;s a sad case that many poorer people see this as the only way to cover themsleves in our increasing costly country. These 2 joined to get an education ( i&#39;m not sure how this works)....i don&#39;t know their financial standing but doesn&#39;t it worry you that joining up is the only way some people can do this?

[Snee]

Originally posted by vidcc@3 May 2004 - 21:05
... i have to agree that political motivation point to a degree, everytime bush got into trouble on the homefront he made some speech about fighting terror, however i believe that he might have wanted to do this before he came to office and his connections to the fuel industries are a bit too close to home to be coincidence.

And this is where the whole point of the thread comes in, yes these 2 men did sign up for military service, but they did so (possibly) in the belief that any fighting would be to protect "their country".....and just maybe they feel that this particular war doesn&#39;t fit that criterior as they have a same viewpoint as the majority of the world does that we are there for dubious reasons.

One point slightly off topic but in the same ball park.....many join the military because it&#39;s a way of getting benefits such as the vetrans medical plan. It&#39;s a sad case that many poorer people see this as the only way to cover themsleves in our increasing costly country. These 2 joined to get an education ( i&#39;m not sure how this works)....i don&#39;t know their financial standing but doesn&#39;t it worry you that joining up is the only way some people can do this?

Lessee&#39; again, dunno &#39;bout the oil bit.

Granted it might have been one of the benefits considered before going to war. But I think the trigger and the main reason was the need to keep bush floatin&#39;.

As for the desertion, it might have been, as you say, because they doubted the motives to going to war. But did they not have a second obligation? An obligation towards everyone else who also enlisted. Granted, had they been asked to build and run concentration-camps or somesuch, i could understand desertion. But in this case things were not very clear, therefore they should have done it for their fellow soldiers if nothing else.

This way someone else might have died in their stead.

I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s wrong to doubt the administration, but in the case of this desertion, maybe duty should have been attended to first.

As for the last issue, I do not want to say more than that it is very sad if this is, indeed the only way for some people to get said benefits. More than that I leave to J2K4 or someone else, who is more informed on the matter.

[BigBank_Hank]

i have to agree that political motivation point to a degree, everytime bush got into trouble on the homefront he made some speech about fighting terror, however i believe that he might have wanted to do this before he came to office and his connections to the fuel industries are a bit too close to home to be coincidence.

In 1998 President Clinton said that Saddam was a menace and would one day need to be removed from power. In that same year John Kerry hand wrote a memo to President Clinton that if Saddam were to continue to break UN resolutions that he would need to be dealt with and that the use of military force would be appropriate. Saddam did continue to break resolutions (17 times) and the UN still did nothing. Now Kerry is saying that he only meant that memo to be a threat and he really did want to use military force.

And this is where the whole point of the thread comes in, yes these 2 men did sign up for military service, but they did so (possibly) in the belief that any fighting would be to protect "their country".....and just maybe they feel that this particular war doesn&#39;t fit that criterior as they have a same viewpoint as the majority of the world does that we are there for dubious reasons.

Signing up for the military is a job, and in every job sometimes you have to do things that you don&#39;t like to do. The circumstances may be different but its still their job, and that&#39;s what they signed up for. What the hell did they think they signed up for when they joined the military just to play pretend.

[Rat Faced]

were to continue to break UN resolutions that he would need to be dealt with and that the use of military force would be appropriate. ***** did continue to break resolutions (17 times) and the UN still did nothing.

Do you agree with the above statement?

Notwithstanding I can think of a number of countries it applies to...


What 17 UN resolutions have they broke?

Its my understanding that they dragged their feet and raised cain about them (and who wouldnt? Im sure your country and mine both would if forced to do everything they did), but I cant, offhand, think of one UN resolution they did not either comply with, or were in the process of complying with, when the Coalition invaded.. Unlike the another country that immediatly springs to mind, and to which the USA gives Billions in Military Aid. Slightly Hypocritical that...

Maybe you can enlighten me which UN resolutions they refused to comply with?

[Mathea]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 20:38
Signing up for the military is a job, and in every job sometimes you have to do things that you don&#39;t like to do. The circumstances may be different but its still their job, and that&#39;s what they signed up for. What the hell did they think they signed up for when they joined the military just to play pretend.

So if enlisting in the military is a job, then shouldn&#39;t they have the right to quit if they feel that strongly? If you&#39;re working and given something to do that you think is wrong, would you put your beliefs and morals on the back burner all because your employer tells you you have to do something?

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Mathea+3 May 2004 - 16:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mathea @ 3 May 2004 - 16:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 20:38
Signing up for the military is a job, and in every job sometimes you have to do things that you don&#39;t like to do. The circumstances may be different but its still their job, and that&#39;s what they signed up for. What the hell did they think they signed up for when they joined the military just to play pretend.

So if enlisting in the military is a job, then shouldn&#39;t they have the right to quit if they feel that strongly? If you&#39;re working and given something to do that you think is wrong, would you put your beliefs and morals on the back burner all because your employer tells you you have to do something? [/b][/quote]
Quitting and is one thing but these clowns left the country. If they apposed the war and felt it was against their beliefs why didn&#39;t they stay and stand up for what they believe in?

@RF: I&#39;ll be busy the rest of the afternoon so I&#39;ll do some research and find you some links when I get a minute.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 09:53
Quoting Myself:

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.

"never" is a mighty strong word, and a word that people should be careful with. as Biggles pointed out, the official policy of the U.S. was to treat Native American tribes as foreign nations. the U.S. made treaties with them (just as they would with any other foreign countries), promptly broke the treaties, went to war against the tribes, and swiped their land.

and a pretty huge chunk of the southwest U.S., we basically stole from Mexico. including some land that turned out to have a whole lot of oil.

but all that&#39;s pretty far in the past. at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, i&#39;d suggest perusing CIA documents/correspondence that&#39;s been made available to the public, for a great deal of insight into the U.S. government&#39;s motivations behind its entanglements in places like southeast asia, the middle east, south america, and the caribbean. it&#39;d prolly be easier to read a book or essays about the CIA and OSS (forerunner to the CIA) though, for a bit of organization and interpretation though. the stuff they intended to never be read by regular folk paints a completely different & greedier picture from what the gov&#39;t publicly claimed at the time (i.e. bringing freedom, democracy, etc to the world). not trying to beat you over the head with it or anything: i genuinely think it might be the kind of stuff you&#39;d be interested to find out about.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 14:38


In 1998 President Clinton said that Saddam was a menace and would one day need to be removed from power. In that same year John Kerry hand wrote a memo to President Clinton that if Saddam were to continue to break UN resolutions that he would need to be dealt with and that the use of military force would be appropriate. Saddam did continue to break resolutions (17 times) and the UN still did nothing. Now Kerry is saying that he only meant that memo to be a threat and he really did want to use military force.

And this is apropos of what?

Neither Clinton nor Kerry actually did unilaterally attack Iraq and then proceed to prosecute the war so poorly that no endgame is in sight, did they?

Furthermore, it seems a bit ( more than a bit, really) disingenuous to denegrate both Clinton and Kerry as leaders and then turn around and use them as support for what Bush has done.