Fort Hood soldiers breaking the silence in war in Iraq (1 Viewer)

[Hoyasaint]

:17: Very banned indeed. But in that photo you posted, the "M" looks like a badge of honor.

Interstingly enough, a GIS for "Very Banned" returned a photo from image shack linked back to this very site.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9792/breestocoltstonby0.jpg




TPS

I'm pretty sure Mods are very proud of being Mods, hence the "M" badge of honor.

 

[TPS]

Who is that, Amadhunter with a toupee'?

TPS

 

[RebSaint]

Ding, Ding, Ding, We have a winner!

lmao. Is this petty drive-by all you have? Really, is this the only point you can bring to what's turned out to be a quality thread? You'd have been better served posting some meaningless right-wing, pro-war blog.

Instead of piggy-backing on Spam's displeasure of my tone, I'll tell you the same thing I told him: take issue with any of my points instead of just posting what you think my "tone" should be.

It hasn't the first time, and it probably won't be the last time you take a personal shot at me. But I guess it's exactly what happens when one runs out of substantive points. We've all seen it before and I'm just underscoring the obvious.

I mean really *yawn* Spam and SBTB have completely opposite opinions on Iraq should be and we were managing a pretty good discussion here. Have anything to add?

 

[Hoyasaint]

Spam's displeasure of my tone

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

I'll get strange looks from others when I tell them I read the most interesting discussion on the war on my favorite Saints site, but if they read this, they'd understand. What a great thread DavidM, Shizzle, Dawg, Reb, TPS, Spam, SBTB, Adder, Shawn, Dads, etc., I hope you guys keep it going.

 

[Dave]

lmao. Is this petty drive-by all you have? Really, is this the only point you can bring to what's turned out to be a quality thread? You'd have been better served posting some meaningless right-wing, pro-war blog.

Instead of piggy-backing on Spam's displeasure of my tone, I'll tell you the same thing I told him: take issue with any of my points instead of just posting what you think my "tone" should be.

It hasn't the first time, and it probably won't be the last time you take a personal shot at me. But I guess it's exactly what happens when one runs out of substantive points. We've all seen it before and I'm just underscoring the obvious.

I mean really *yawn* Spam and SBTB have completely opposite opinions on Iraq should be and we were managing a pretty good discussion here. Have anything to add?

I think Spams post that I quoted points out quite well why I don't waste my time debating Iraq with you anymore. I did debate you on Iraq for a while, but "your complete inability to consider other factors" leads me to leave the Iraq discussions to someone else when it includes you. You of all people should be the last person complaining about taking personal shots at people. I think you have set the EE record for calling people partisans that you disagree with.

"Have a great day!"

 

[blackadder]

I'm pretty darn sure a lot of business groups were anticipating the fat contracts that would come their way... that's a lot different than saying that the war was fought to give those groups those fat contracts.

My point is that this is all understood in modern Washington D.C. It's tantamount to buying a constituency for your policy.

Filthy lucre is compelling.

 

[RebSaint]

I think Spams post that I quoted points out quite well why I don't waste my time debating Iraq with you anymore. I did debate you on Iraq for a while, but "your complete inability to consider other factors" leads me to leave the Iraq discussions to someone else when it includes you. You of all people should be the last person complaining about taking personal shots at people. I think you have set the EE record for calling people partisans that you disagree with.

"Have a great day!"

So in other words, you don't have anything else to add per the topic of the thread. And yes, I have set a record calling out people whose point of view comes from some canned political party tripe that I can listen to on AM radio or any other one of the worthless talking-head shows. I actually take the last comment as a compliment as attempting to shape discussion and debate here as something a bit better than just a worthless exchange of partisan talking points.

You too have a great day!

 

[blackadder]

That's an arrogant, over-simplistic, and pretty base assessment of that. Your complete inability to consider other factors is, honestly, shocking. You're bclemms/Ron Paul, blackadder/Israel in your dogma. You make fair points, but no one would ever be able to tell because of the sheer single-mindedness of your overall tone.

There's not dogma. just acceptance of reality.

Karen Hughes went on her Middle East fact finding tour for George W. Bush. She came back and reported that the Israel/Palestine conflict and U.S. policy in regards to it was the single issue that generated most hatred and resentment of the U.S. in the region, even moreso than the actual occupation of Iraq, and that good faith effort to resolve that conflict would do more to repair relations with the region than anything else.

She delivered that message and resigned the job.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_12_19/article2.html

 

[blackadder]

Therefore, yes, ultimately all Middle East policy is an outgrowth of oil. But we aren't talking about "ultimately" we're talking about "specifically". "Specifically" speaking we didn't invade Iraq because of oil. It was a geo-political decision. The threat of terrorism was what put the move in the "plus" column on the ledger so far as the Bush admin was concerned, but really Iraq is a position of enormous strategic value even outside of just the "war on terror". "Ultimately" the strategic value of the entire Middle East is wrapped up in oil, and therefore the strategic value of Iraq is derived from oil, etc, but "specifically" we didn't invade because of oil.

Not exactly accurate. If all policy in the Middle East is an outgrowth of oil, then we would never have supported Israel for so long at the expense of the Arabs. That is the only issue that has ever called into question, even remotely, our free access to the regions oil. The 1973 oil embargo, the only instance in which oil was used as a weapon against us, was a specific result of our Israel policy. It's the only issue that has traditionally come between us and the Arabs -- at least from the 40s through the 70s -- yet we took and continue to take policy positions exactly in opposition to our own vital strategic interests. Therefore, oil does not explain all US Middle East policy.

George Marshall, James Forrestal, Dean Acheson and the Joint Chiefs all advised Harry Truman not to unilaterally recognize Israel in 1948 because it would ultimately poison relations with the Arab world and threaten energy security. The young CIA issued intelligence assessments backing this position up.

Truman ignored all the advice, did as he pleased and made all those men look like prophets.

Oil is a factor, Israel is another. It's a treacherous ridge that we've been trying to negotiate since 1948.

Have a read, edify:

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html

 

[HouDat]

$$$$$

 

[DadsDream]

.

 

[Dave]

So in other words, you don't have anything else to add per the topic of the thread. And yes, I have set a record calling out people whose point of view comes from some canned political party tripe that I can listen to on AM radio or any other one of the worthless talking-head shows. I actually take the last comment as a compliment as attempting to shape discussion and debate here as something a bit better than just a worthless exchange of partisan talking points.

You too have a great day!

You complain about people taking personal shots at you and then you admit to be one of the biggest offenders of what you were previously complaining about?:dunno:

 

[RebSaint]

You complain about people taking personal shots at you and then you admit to be one of the biggest offenders of what you were previously complaining about?:dunno:

Look man, I'm not going to discuss your personal problems with how I post, my tone, or anything else in this thread on a personal level. Some have enjoyed this thread and have admitted as much.

If you have something to post about Iraq or the policy in Iraq, fine but I see nothing positive continuing this discussion publically.

If you have a problem, PM me and we can go from there.

 

[Saintshizzle]

But when you look at the pedigree of those who devised the Iraq strategy in the early 90's, and you look at the pedigree of those who implemented it in the present--how can anyone deny their clear ties to the oil industry? Even discounting any kind of intentional bias, the fact that so many of the key players came from the "oil" world view, suggests that this view was absolutely formative to the solution they devised for dealing with the middle east.

Remember the addage: follow the money. You can do it in the Spanish/American war, and you can do it in this one.

Military men by their nature see the world in terms of imminent military conflicts. Economists see the world largely in terms of the imminent economic struggles. Biologists see the specter of disease and/or biosystem collapse.

Oil men see the world through oil colored glasses. And oil men, Zionists, and those who felt a need to protect the Temple on the Mount for the second coming devised the current middle east strategy.

I have been wanting to accentuate this point for a couple of days now, but BD and my guys have monopolized my font lately. Well, they have linked-up so here it is.

Shawn, I have debated this with more people than you can imagine. Unfortunately, we will be years away from this time-period before many get that "Ah Ha" moment and realize that we had oil men running the country from 2000 to 2008. The "plans" were on the books when Clinton was in office. Even Bubba knew that the "evidence" simply was not there for an attack...especially unprovoked. Bubba simply was not greedy for oil, bottom line. These guys saw an opportunity and went for it; life, liberty and American financial status be dammed. If you were an oilman, I would expect no less from you.