Wake 101
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       12-18-2011, 10:34 AM Reply

8 years...750 billion dollars....4,500 American casualties.

The Iraq people celebrate the end of the "occupation" as the last of the troops leave. Now they fear continuing ways of war and corruption against each other without our military protection.

It's finally time for the Iraq people to stand and fight for their own freedom, but I doesn't appear they are willing to step up. Nothing changes! I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Agree with the Iraq war or not....We should all be grateful to those who have served in Iraq to give others a chance at freedom that many of us Americans take for granted.
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-18-2011, 11:06 AM Reply   
The USA Army/Navy/Marines are the best in the world. Simply amazing.

Never the less, going to Iraq was/is a huge blunder. While the surge was a success after years of failure, that success in no way assures an upside from this massive effort. We spent a king's treasure in lives/limbs/dollars to save a country within a culture that is a mess and will remain a mess. Afganistan, unfortunately, is a similar story only within a country/culture that is even more pathetic. I hope we learn a lesson from this endeveor to never attempt nation building in the middle east again. Going forward, we should attack/destroy specific targets and get out.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-18-2011, 11:37 AM Reply   
I(f you consider the ongoing costs for veterans I can imagine that the total will be much higher than 3/4 trillion. And i can imagine that the 3/4 trillion number is doctored to make it look lower.

Let's say that blacks were 75% of the population back before the Civil War. And then some other country freed them. You can figure that it wouldn't be good for the 25% whites. Pretty much the same for Iraq. Completely predictable that it would have been a bad outcome. The only people that took anything for granted was the Bush administration when it decided that we should go to war no matter what the cost.
Old    bigdtx            12-18-2011, 1:09 PM Reply   
Of course it was a disaster. Anybody with half a brain knew that from the beginning. But boy a lot of people sure did make a lot of money off it - so in the immortal words of GW - "Mission Accomplished".
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       12-18-2011, 1:31 PM Reply   
It should be put in their constitution that they have to sell us their oil for 10% less than any other price available for their pay back of the stupid war!
Old     (V)      Join Date: Dec 2011       12-18-2011, 3:19 PM Reply   
They loved it when we were over there. Everytime you would walk by a kid they would ask for candy, some of the other kids would try to sell you everything they had, mainly DVD's. they will miss us. I don't miss it.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       12-18-2011, 5:36 PM Reply   
It's easy to sit back NOW and say we shouldn't have gone to war over but at the time it sure seemed like a good idea. Time will tell how the Iraq war effected the middle east. With all that has gone on in the middle east lately (people trying to over throw evil dictators) in a attempt to win Freedom. I guess I was foolish to think that if the US cleaned house ( got rid of the dictators) and set up democracy the Iraq people would take charge of their own future. To me the us did their job. And then some. How many times did the Iraq army/police fail to step up! Fail to take charge and take control of their new country, it seemed to me Iraq wants the US out but will be crying the blues when we are gone. Are they gonna step up and take control of the roaches that will crawl out of the holes they are in???IMO no I think Iraq has become complacent and dependent on the US troops to do all their dirty work. ENOUGH of that. Welcome home troops job well done.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-18-2011, 6:33 PM Reply   
Grant, of course it seemed like a good idea to many of us. Unlike Bush we didn't have millions of dollars of intelligence (lol at the irony calling it intelligence) at our disposal. We had trust in the executive office to use due diligence. A trillion dollars was a high price to pay to be educated. And unfortunately the cost of our education was wasted on many. This isn't a case of hindsight. It's a case of deception and lies.

Quite frankly I couldn't give a crap how Iraq turns out. It's a predominately Shia county sitting right next to the predominately Shia axis of evil. I'll amend Big D's claim.. Anyone with half a brain that had the resources of the executive office would have had all the facts and known this before invading Iraq. I didn't know jack about the culture and demographics of Iraq when the war started. I don't even recall knowing there were Sunnis and Shias. Nor was I aware how big an enemy of Iran that Iraq was.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-18-2011, 10:26 PM Reply   
"It's easy to sit back NOW and say we shouldn't have gone to war over but at the time it sure seemed like a good idea"

It did?
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-19-2011, 12:47 AM Reply   
I don't fault regular Americans. They were not making the decision and they were not getting all the information.
We were sold a war. Many of us flipped/flopped as the war approached. Colin Powel's UN presentation didn't help.

I knew the war would be expensive but...
1) I did not know that the country was a powder keg of three and
2) I underestimated the ability for outsiders to disrupt the country.

Last edited by diamonddad; 12-19-2011 at 12:51 AM.
Old    deltahoosier            12-19-2011, 2:50 AM Reply   
Executive office my a$$. Your and all leftists refusal to tell the truth in regards to the role of congress and the previous democrat executive structure so the democrats get a pass is a main reason for my massive hatred of the democrat party. They were all in on it. The executive office does not have special intelligence gathering and congress have another. Have you ever thought of the fact they all had the same info and came up with the same answer? At least one person had the balls enough to stand up and own it.
Old    deltahoosier            12-19-2011, 2:55 AM Reply   
Funny thing is about the article, if you replace the words Iraq with Oakland and Troops with police, I think it would be equally valid. It almost sounds verbatim like the local propaganda rags in the Bay Area
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-19-2011, 4:12 AM Reply   
"The executive office does not have special intelligence gathering and congress have another."

Oh really? Google "executive privilege".
Old     (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       12-19-2011, 8:26 AM Reply   
Everyone who disagrees with Delta is a "lefty" and the republicans can do no wrong....Mmmm, good Koolaid
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-19-2011, 9:01 AM Reply   
Delta has a giant W tattooed on his rear.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-19-2011, 9:24 AM Reply   
No, the Republican Party is far from perfect; however, terrorist were being trained in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction could have been (I say they were relocated before the invasion) housed there. Regardless, Democrats did support the invasion. Fortunately, good things did come from the invasion. The media does a poor job of covering the support and appreciation by most of the Iraqi people for what America did, but you have to talk to people who were actually there to discover the truth. and
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       12-19-2011, 9:53 AM Reply   
Everything has a ripple effect. The invasion of Iraq and the Hunt for WMD's would still be up for discussion if The US had not gone in to Iraq and turned over every stone. Many people Colin Powell said he didn't think WDM's were there but we still went in. Mabey we were so upset at 9/11 we were blinded by rage that we wanted to strike the first person that looked at us sideways. IRAQ. Yes we made some mistakes. IMO going into Iraq was a good Idea. Setting it up for Iraq to Overthrow its own goverment was also a good idea. Letting Sadam fly Helecopters with guns and Sadam's army mowing down thousands of people that wanted him out BAD IDEA. It sent the people of Iraq the Wrong message. If you stick your neck out it will get chopped off.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       12-19-2011, 9:56 AM Reply   
IMO if we would have secured some borders before the invasion it would have really put the issue to rest. Should have done the same with the museums as well(for history's sake).
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       12-19-2011, 9:58 AM Reply   
One more thing the title of this thread "Iraq Freedom" if freedom is what Iraq wants THEY not the US are the ones that are going to have to fight to keep it.
Look at how this country and EVERY other country got its freedom.
Old     (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       12-19-2011, 10:27 AM Reply   
I agree, Grant. You can't "give" anyone freedom. They have to earn it for themselves. Fighting wars in third world countries is a losing proposition.

As far as the WMD's: We could have destroyed their facilities without sending a single troop in. We have the technology.

We still have the wool over our eyes. There is more here than we are being told. Same with Afghanistan.

Fighting for human rights is a worthwhile cause, but not one that can be won easily. We're trying to turn around thousands of years of their culture. Not an easy task.

FWIW, I wouldn't buy into this Republican or Democrat BS. They're all guilty in some regard. Open your eyes.

Anyway.... for all of the problems we have here at home, I still say God Bless America, and God Bless the troops that are willing to stand in harms way to allow our way of life.
Old     (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       12-19-2011, 10:28 AM Reply   
Oh... And yes.... There were a lot of cronies that made millions off this war.
Old     (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       12-19-2011, 11:32 AM Reply   
This is not about Reps or Dems. the President can't pay for a war. Bush needed a Democrat majority Congress to fund the war.

Our intell community is bipartisan and they believed, as well as other large Nation's intell communities that Iraq was funding terrorists and there were WMDs.

Congress has access to the same intell sources as the President through the US select Committe on Intell. It was set up so the Intell community couldn't be hijacked.

I hate to say it but we went there for the oil. We are dependant on foriegn oil and we must maintain control in the Middle East.

The parties are equally responsible for the dependence on oil. Simply put: Conservatives want to access more energy through power plants coal and atomic and increased drilling for oil and pipelines. Liberals want to restrict our energy use by limiting energy production. Since they can't agree on a solution we must remain in the Middle East.

Both Parties knew that we must control the oil and therefor voted for the war.
Old     (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       12-19-2011, 11:38 AM Reply   
GD is right. We can bomb the governments out of power without sending in ground troops. We can not maintain a policing action in the middle east. That was obvious to me from the beginning and shoiuld have been obvious to Congress.
Old     (colorider)      Join Date: Jun 2001       12-19-2011, 12:32 PM Reply   
wonder if the price of ammo is going to come down now..
Old    deltahoosier            12-19-2011, 1:02 PM Reply   
You can not bomb a governments out of power. Case in point gulf war 1 and Germany of WW1 and WW2.

I don't have a giant anything on my butt except for a hatred for a political party that can not tell the truth if they had too and their ignorant followers that still to this day believe republicans were the ones who took them to war. Wake the heck up. It was both political parties period. You want proof. We are still at war 6 years after congress was taken by the democrats and we are still at war with a democratic president and senate even after we got bin laden. You tell me who was for the war?

Executive privilege my fanny. Congress has a committee that has all this information. Another thing you forget. The president can not declare war. Congress has to declare it and at a minimum fund it. The UN also gave its blessing too. You forget that Iraq was basically testing missile systems against us for the French, Russians and Chinese. The Germans were going behind our backs with the oil for food scam.

The article is a opinion piece at best. Again it fits Oakland just as well as it does Iraq.

We did not go anywhere for oil. We get a very small percentage from the middle east. We get most of our oil form Canada and Mexico.
Old     (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-19-2011, 1:25 PM Reply   
hindsight is 20/20.

We were attacked. We did not know on how large the operation was. We were trying to do some preventative cleanup and assessment based soley on sanctions already on the books. Saddam caused this war, not the US. We knew he had WMD because we gave it to him to hold Iran at bay in the 80's. We did not know if it was still valid or where it was. Remember, we asked for inspectors to be allowed in and complete the work from the first war in Iraq. He stonewalled for over a year (he had to because complete disclosure would have starting Iran foaming at the mouth). We did find stockpiles of US Sarin, but it wasnt kept properly, and was expired\useless.

At THAT point, we should have walked. The "humanitarian effort" was not our responsibility. It was damage control for calling Saddam's bluff.
Old     (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       12-19-2011, 2:12 PM Reply   
Delta, now that we can send bombs through the front door, the examples from the previous wars don't hold true. Sadam was done after the bombing.

The small amount of oil we get from the middle east is the difference between $4 gas and what the rest of the world pays, about twice what we pay.

Saddam had also threatened other countries with MWDs.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-19-2011, 2:18 PM Reply   
"I don't have a giant anything on my butt except for a hatred for a political party that can not tell the truth"

Just to be 100% clear, do you honestly believe that the Republican party always tells the truth?

As far as "still being at war with a Democratic blah, blah, blah". Iraqi operations are essentially over and you have the GOP clowns that are running for president (with the exception of R.P.), criticizing Obama proclaiming we shouldn't leave Iraq. The only thing we ever found as far as WMD's is concerned in Iraq was a bunch of metal tubes. So I guess we should attack any country stockpiling metal tubes. Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       12-19-2011, 2:32 PM Reply   
Yes I would like to think we have the Most power full Military in the world and (we can send bombs threw doors) We can land Jets on ship's pitching 30 feet up and down at night in the ocean. But remember it still took us years to fink and kill OSB. You got to put "Feet on the Street" to get the roaches. We are talking about people that have been at war for hundreds of years.
Afganastan did teach us that intel on the ground is worth way more than any Eye in the sky. Experts did agree we knew "Everything about Nothing" when it came to the middle east. We hardley knew the language. We gave OSB little to no credit that he or his group had the means to reach out and touch us. Im sure we dont think the same now and to fight these people we need Spy's and intel from with in.
What are you gonna do to Afgan, Bomb the hell out of it, LOL Good luck with that. send hundreds of million dollar laser guided bombs to blow up holes in the ground. Yea been there done that. How effective was that for us? Thank god we are on our way out. bring our troops home and have them protect the US
Old    deltahoosier            12-19-2011, 5:06 PM Reply   
I is wide know military doctrine that you can not take a country by bombing alone and only one country has been defeated with bombing alone and not taking the actual capitol. That was Japan but I don't think we were going to nuke Iraq.


I don't trust government in general. To fully trust an institution with that much power is foolish. Also, I understand that a central government can not pass laws that are good for all the people thus I prefer states rights. I mainly look at the make up of the political parties and what they stand for. Democrats are pro UN and are pro share the wealth. That tells me they are very interested in spreading our wealth to the world. That is why you will never get better economic times with Democrats in charge. Republicans and Democrats are the richest people in the world. Not one party has the lock on being rich so the party of rich vs poor does not work anymore. If you look around the country, almost all middle America is republican. Mostly the high population (rich) areas are Democrat. Those areas also have the most moral decay and violence. They also tend to have a weird view of right and wrong. Then throw in the horrible amount of conspiracy theories thrown at Bush and the absolute venom and hatred for our president by these people pretty much solidified my view of the party and its followers.
Old    deltahoosier            12-19-2011, 5:08 PM Reply   
Also, it does not matter what we found, the middle east is a problem and Iraq is a foothold to that problem. Also, the Democrats and Republicans had a similar if not exact view of the problem and that is the point.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-19-2011, 6:24 PM Reply   
"Bush and the absolute venom and hatred for our president"

So that is wrong, but you can spew "absolute venom and hatred" for Obama? I don't get it. Your hypocrisy amazes me.

"Also, it does not matter what we found, the middle east is a problem and Iraq is a foothold to that problem"

So if that is the case, why did Bush proclaim it was to thwart Iraq's WMD's? Why not just say that from the beginning?
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-19-2011, 7:47 PM Reply   
hindsight is 20/20
BS! Presidents are not afforded this luxury. And, it's even worse knowing that we were SOLD this war. They trumpeted everything that supported the war; they suppressed everything that discouraged the war; they prepared for the battle but not the after battle; they failed to keep the Iraqi Army in place; they failed to seal off the borders; they failed. And, it cost us a fortune in dollars, arms, legs, heads and bodies.
Old     (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-20-2011, 5:56 AM Reply   
BS! Presidents are not afforded this luxury. And, it's even worse knowing that we were SOLD this war. They trumpeted everything that supported the war; they suppressed everything that discouraged the war; they prepared for the battle but not the after battle; they failed to keep the Iraqi Army in place; they failed to seal off the borders; they failed. And, it cost us a fortune in dollars, arms, legs, heads and bodies.
If all we wanted was war, then why did we give Saddam the first choice to simply comply with the cease-fire agreement already agreed upon? Why after that did we give him the choice to just step down? Why did we spend over a year presenting a case to the UN? If a war is that critical that it needs to be "SOLD" to us, you certainly dont give the enemy 2 plausible outs to avoid war, and you certainly dont give him 18 months to prepare nor do you tell him your coming. You realize that had Saddam taken either option, this war you think was so critical would not have happened. Then what would we have done to quench this alleged bloodlust?

Secondly, this was not a new war. We have been at war with Iraq since Desert Storm. We agreed to a cease-fire with conditions. The conditions were military surrender and UN agreement that allow the UN to inspect and oversee the catalog and destruction of the remaining US Sarin in Iraqi possession. Those inspectors were kicked out of Iraq before they completed their job. Certainly you understand what a violation of a cease-fire agreement implies.

We know we gave Saddam WMD
We know he used them on at least two occasions
We know he threatened to use them in DS (remember the chem suits?)
We know the UN started cataloging and destroying the WMD stockpile, but were kicked out before they finished.
We know he claimed to have used the US Sarin to produce more Sarin and threatened to use it again during the second offensive.

yet some of you say that WMD were not a threat, or didnt even exist!

They did exist, and it should have been ok, to come up empty handed and confirm they were no longer a threat. For some reason in the US coming up empty handed meant it was a lie, and forced us into humanitarian work.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-20-2011, 6:28 AM Reply   
Jason, the war with Iraq was started the day Bush proclaimed they were a part of Bush's "Axis of Evil".

There was evidence, prior to Operation Freedom, that Saddam had ceased all programs concerning chemical and biological weapons. The US was sold a war whose basis was Saddam's immediate ability to wreak havoc with WMD's. Yet, we don't find even one? If you want to invade a country for X-reason then don't say it is for Y-reason. That was my issue with the war.
Old    deltahoosier            12-20-2011, 6:47 AM Reply   
I don't recall starting conspiracy theory posts on a near daily basis on Obama plotted a terror attack on the US or let a terror attack happen on purpose or criticize his leadership ability because he was reading a book to school children or say he lead us to war while ignoring your own parties vote or saying Bush hates black people and let Katrina happen to them on purpose or Bush caused global warming. I am sure I can think of a few other items but these were the idiotic items that had to be dealt with on a near daily basis.

Now, I would like for you to contrast any of my criticisms against that crap. I would not say I am hypocritical at all. I think the healthcare bill is open season considering I am one of the 51% of the income tax payers that actually has to pay for that crap. I can fairly point out that Obama is still at war even though he ran on a platform of stopping the wars (just like the other democrats ran for in 2006). I actually have been quite fair to him in regards of him having enough intellect to see the actual facts in front of him and still staying with the plan. I think leftist have been more critical of the president than I have. I think his allowing the fascist EPA to rule that air you exhale is a pollutant is part of a grander share the wealth plan. Matter of fact the candidate Obama even said out loud that he was for sharing the wealth. That sounds great to the 49% of the people who do not pay income taxes except when Obama said share the wealth he means to the world not the USA. I think it is fair to criticize when you have the leader of the greatest country the world has known to bow to other leaders and go on a world apology tour.

On the wmd issue. We knew we sold them to Iraq for starters. The non government leftist actually started to attack the president on this issue briefly and then quickly dumped it when they realized it proved his point. We also knew he used them on his own people. We also knew they other countries were testing their weapon and communications systems against our airplanes on a daily basis. From the legal aspects you had to present the legal case regardless of the other reasons. The president also talked about the other issues but wmd's became the political issue. The criticism of the president was not about truth but about politics. The wmd issue was the only issue they could latch onto and use it to brown shirt the president. Bill Clinton and everyone in his cabinet publicly decried we needed to take out Saddam prior to Bush taking office. The main stream democrats even stated it after 9/11. After the attacks it no longer was a nuisance issue but a real issue. The folks from the middle east were coming to the conclusion that the US was weak and with the political climate and economic climate they figured they could finally collapse our government. They like the Japanese were mistaken. We were not sold anything and to believe it is childish. They ALL had the same intel and came to the same conclusion in regards to Iraq and Afgahnistan and unfortunately they were correct. We know have lived among them for a decade and have been able to show them we are not a bad people and have made major inroads to their culture and their tribal system. We know have intel sources on the ground in all areas of the middle east. It is invaluable.

Let me ask you this. What happened to all the democrats that voted for the war? Kerry, Libermann, and the others? You did not hear a peep from them again after the war started. The Democrats were out of every segment of office. The gun grabbing share Americas wealth angle of the far leftist in the party pissed off the American public so the democrat party was becoming more moderate but loosing because why did we need moderate democrats when they sounded like the republicans. What happened was the Move crowd took over the party. They used the war as the separating event. All moderate democrats were sent out to the farm and the Dean's and Pelosi's were moved in. These people would have never been allowed to come into leadership in any other decade. They are radicals. They basically ignored the issues of their party voting for the war just like they kept repeating that republicans are against immigration even though the real words are illegal immigration. There is no truth in their words. They just want to gain power and they did it because the average rank and file only sees the R or D by the name and treat it like the football fan mentality. They have to win at all costs. You really should read your history of propaganda. That is how the democrats treated the war.
Old    deltahoosier            12-20-2011, 6:50 AM Reply   
When you give someone 18 months to prepare for war don't you think they are smart enough to move them?
Old    deltahoosier            12-20-2011, 6:53 AM Reply   
Also, was Bush right or wrong about the Axis of Evil. If I was to publicly proclaim that gangs are bad, does that mean gangs are all of a sudden going to start criminal activity? A roach is a roach is a roach. Just because you name it does not change it. Also, the "axis of evil" was another raging event from the left if we want to document unfair criticisms.

Also, I don't see us on the ground against Iran or North Korea. The war did not start with "axis of evil"
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-20-2011, 7:02 AM Reply   
"saying Bush hates black people"

But calling Obama, Hitler, is okay?

"Also, I don't see us on the ground against Iran or North Korea. The war did not start with "axis of evil""

It most certainly did. The implications were/are too high to invade Iran. China was not going to openly accept us waging war on North Korea. Iraq was the only other option. There are country's that were more viable to add to the "Axis of Evil", Iraq was irrelevant at the point when we invaded.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-20-2011, 7:06 AM Reply   
You Iraq War believers are dwindling from a religion to a cult. Do you guys have Bush on a Cross as your symbol? LOL @ the idiocy of thinking that the liberals are your war killjoy. They are not liberals. They are called normal people, even if "normal" feels way too liberal to you.
Old     (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-20-2011, 7:40 AM Reply   
It was agreed upon that Iraq should be taken apart for aggression towards Kuwait. We stopped short of taking them apart when a ceasefire agreement was made. If a country is to hold to its convictions and show the rest of the world that it keeps its word, what should be the consequence for breaking a ceasefire agreement?

Jeremy, it wasnt changed to Y reason until after the anticlimactic result of finding their weapons program in such a state of disrepair. IMO it would have been cheaper just to say, yep we found what was left of the WMD and it is no longer a threat. Mission Accomplished and left.

In hindsight, Saddam should have allowed the UN to complete their process, avoiding conflict with the US, and rolled the dice with Iran.
Old     (bendow)      Join Date: Sep 2005       12-20-2011, 8:22 AM Reply   
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
The USA Army/Navy/Marines are the best in the world. Simply amazing.
Air Force?
Old    deltahoosier            12-20-2011, 8:45 AM Reply   
No John. Lies are the killjoy and both sides of the isle not taking responsibility for the sake of politics and "winning" is wrong. Wrong is wrong and you are wrong. It was just not Bush and the sooner people admit it we will be able to get over this. Until then, I will continue to hate democrats for the liars they are. The truth is in front of you. It has nothing to do with Bush. It has to do with truth and unrational hate of one man for the sake of "winning". Bush was actually closer aligned to moderate democrats on the political spectrum economically and more conservative socially. All actions of the democrat party in regards to the war are in front of you but you still have this weird belief system that their words is what is important and not their 6 years since and several years prior record on the subject. Regardless of for or against the war, you can not keep with this memo that Republicans were the only ones for the war. The facts do not support your claim. Regular people don't want war either John but if you had to look at which war was effective, which one is over with people participating in elections and which one has no end? The democrats publicly supported Afgahnistan and we are still there even after getting OBL. Who wanted war?

Jeremy, you really believe the president started the war over a simple declaration of an axis of evil? Really? Are we really that simplistic?

Also, who called Obama Hitler? I thought we were talking about my hypocrisy and I do not remember calling Obama hitler. What kind of strawman is that? First rule of debate. Going to the hitler card automatically makes you the loser. BTW, they called Bush hitler too and I don't remember hearing on natoinal TV that Obama is hitler like I did about Bush hating black people and the other issues.

Last edited by deltahoosier; 12-20-2011 at 8:48 AM.
Old    deltahoosier            12-20-2011, 8:57 AM Reply   
Just in case you don't understand and you want to continue to follow political hacks, here is a nice little site that talks about what I have been saying plus it has some other tid bits in regards what they found in Iraq in regards to who was their and where Iraq was funneling money to OBL and others. They even found the bomb designer for the Lockerbye bombing there. I will include a small few quotes but read about what they found there.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. * video

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. *

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. *

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 * video

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. *

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. *

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. *

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. * video

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. *

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. *
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-20-2011, 9:37 AM Reply   
Yes, the Air Force is great too. But, I do think the folks on the ground deserve special recognition.

And, I am a conservative. A true conservative would not SELL an ELECTIVE war with an improbable UPSIDE.

Last edited by diamonddad; 12-20-2011 at 9:41 AM.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-20-2011, 3:31 PM Reply   

Delta, this was bought and paid for by the Iowa Tea Party, a group you support and admire.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-20-2011, 4:13 PM Reply   
"I don't remember hearing on natoinal TV that Obama is hitler"

I guess somehow you missed the whole Hank Williams Jr. thing??
Old    SamIngram            12-20-2011, 4:47 PM Reply   
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"I don't remember hearing on natoinal TV that Obama is hitler"

I guess somehow you missed the whole Hank Williams Jr. thing??
You can't get away with that crap... Bocephus didn't say that Obama is Hitler.

now on the other hand Ted Nugent has called him a POS...

IMO the ideals of President Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, are antithetical to the American Story. His beliefs are totally against everything that I know my country to be. His parents were registered communists, his mom went to a communist school, and his mentors were communists and terrorists, his pastor a racist, etc...
Old    deltahoosier            12-20-2011, 10:00 PM Reply   
Jeremy, I don't even know what the tea party does. How can I support and admire a group that I have not read one single thing about. More imagination from you. I have heard what they stand for from various sources but have never sought to even read anything from them to be honest with you. I am surprised you are only offended by contrasting hitler on your billboard but don't seem to mind Lenin being up there.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-21-2011, 5:44 AM Reply   
Delta, quit being so literal. That was one mere example, the first one I came to on Google. You know there are others. I personally don't have a problem with the American people criticizing any president. There will never be a president that doesn't have a large group of detractors. I think that is one thing that distinguishes us from other nations, an ability to criticize leaders without fear of persecution. I also find it amazing that you have not read "one single thing about" the tea party. Especially considering that when I have referred to the group on this forum as "Teabaggers" and you took great offense to that statement.
Old    deltahoosier            12-21-2011, 6:32 AM Reply   
I take offense to the statement because I know they are a conservative group and liberal groups have continued with the name calling against them like they did against Bush for years. You have no idea how much the name calling and conspiracy theories have made me despise the democrats. Bush had his own shortcomings on some issues without made up crap. I can not stand intellectually dishonest arguments and what they did against Bush was just nasty and childish especially when they to argued and voted to do the same things. Beyond that, I have not really read anything about the group. I know they are conservative. I know they did riot like the OWS people. They seemed to be respectful to their surroundings at the gatherings. I seem to remember not being completely happy with them during the budget battles a few months ago but that was only due to things I heard through the news.

As far as Obama and hitler? don't know much about that. Hitler was the only conservative authoritarian that anyone ever talks about in history. The rest of the other tyrants tend to be liberal authoritarians in which I consider Obama wishing to become by using the EPA to help with his global share the wealth schemes.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-21-2011, 10:58 AM Reply   
Well said, Someone Else. I don't understand why the libs hate the invasion so much anyway. I mean if you want to do something about human rights violations, Iraq was a good place to start. It's not uncommon for men to throw acid on the faces of unveiled women--in Pakistan anyway. A greater problem is brewing in Iran with their development of Nuclear Weapons. Maybe we should have them over for a beer so we could talk about that.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-21-2011, 12:19 PM Reply   
Even most Republicans have disavowed Bush and believe the Iraq war was a mistake. You can stop deluding yourself that it's only libs anytime now.
Old     (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       12-21-2011, 2:58 PM Reply   
Well said Hosier, and well thought out in sharp contrast to the comments by the opposing view.
Old    SamIngram            12-21-2011, 3:17 PM Reply   

BTW, Merry Christmas to All!
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-21-2011, 4:41 PM Reply   
"You have no idea how much the name calling and conspiracy theories have made me despise the democrats."

But the Republicans do the same, exact thing. How come you don't despise the GOP? I mean, do you think before you post things?
Old    deltahoosier            12-22-2011, 7:13 AM Reply   
I meant to state that the Tea Party people did NOT riot like the OWS people.


I don't get into the names here and their thing. You joined this forum relatively late so I understand your point of view that both sides do it to some degree. You would have had to be in this forum through the Bush years to see what I mean. It was horrible. Everything from pictures of Bush and a Chimp, Bush caused katrina, Bush stole the elections (both of them), Bush hates black people, Bush caused the wars (still hear that one today), Bush tanked the economy (at the start of his presidency), Bush is just plain stupid comments. You name it. It was daily. I rarely see a Obama post on here compared to the daily lashing Bush would get. Many of the discussions on here are about policy of the government these days and may reference Obama if he is championing them. That is fair game. Most of what we got on here and many forums for that matter had nothing to do with policy but straight personal attacks because the democrats policies were really no different than the presidents.

I thought about it Jeremy and I have taken your thinking before I post comment to heart. So to offer a olive branch I figured I would name a few things that Bush did that people seemed to be very angry about and contrast them to the current or even past ideology of the democrats.

- Gitmo Bay (wait, that is not one. Obama actually kept it open)
- How about the Kyoto treaty. That one is pretty important right. Save the world because the USA are evil polluters. Bush would not sign it so he is evil (oops wait, Clinton would not sign it either and Obama has not started that bandwagon either)
- Illegal immigration. Bush was sure evil on that one since Republicans are against immigration. Oh my. Almost did it myself. Republicans are against ILLEGAL immigration. almost fell for the democrat version of republicans position. (wait, Clinton and Obama have not done anything either one way or the other?)
- I know. Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for his stellar anti war work. That is way different than that evil Bush who cause those wars. (wait, we are still at war and only have drawn down in Iraq after two years from the Bush signed agreement to leave Iraq and Obama the peace prize president even invaded another sovereign nation to get a single person. That peace prize winner?)
I am running out of things that Bush did that democrats would not do. oh wait. I know one. How about that dang Patriot Act. We can all agree that is evil as it comes and I sure heard enough about it to truly believe Bush is the devil and is going to steal your rights. That G@# D@#M Bush. I will even use the * symbol for his name like they do on liberal web sites because that Patriot Act was the lowest thing that Son B#$ch ever did to the public. Matter of fact, I am a Colts fan and just the name Patriot pisses me off so I am right their with you on this one. Down with BUSH!!!! (oh wait.....Obama signed off on extending the Patriot Act???? Even increased its scope???? Well, this is almost too much for this non thinking man to comprehend. I guess I have nothing.)
Old    deltahoosier            12-22-2011, 7:27 AM Reply   

We all know that people from both parties are not happy about the wars. Kind of odd. Not a single antiwar protest since the democrats took back the house and senate in 2006. I was pretty young during Vietnam time. I could have sworn the protests only got bigger as the wars lasted up until the conclusion of the war in Vietnam. Funny as hell that Iraq and Afghanistan wars were only protested until democrats got in office? Funny how that stuff happens huh? Don't hear a negative word about the wars at all these days do we? And that is why I really can not stand democrats and consider them liars. They played politics with the wars and with our soldiers.

I don't doubt that people from both parties changed their position on the war, but only one group of people hold on to this belief that only one group was for the war.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-22-2011, 9:15 AM Reply   
John, true, some politicans who backed the war effort are now saying it was a mistake., and I apologize for sounding like a “right-wing Charlie, but It’s easy for politicians to name call and “Monday Morning” quarterback after the fact. IMHO when dealing with international policy, the public will never know the real reason for the invasion, and now that the troops are withdrawn, I’m afraid the real terror has set in,00.html
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-22-2011, 10:36 AM Reply   
Delta, we were killing our kids at 15x the rate of the Iraq war, and bombing the crap out of peasants. Nobody declared the Vietnam war over after a few weeks. The Iraq war was supposedly over right after the invasion. The only thing Iraq and Vietnam have in common is that they were terrible mistakes.

As far as the "real terror" setting in, they will have to settle it out just like all those other nations in Africa where people are dying left and right. You guys are acting like it's the US's fault that these people aren't civilized enough to make a peaceable society. Also those people in Congress don't know jack. They vote for whatever they believe is going to keep them in office.
Old     (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       12-23-2011, 1:58 PM Reply   
Vietnam was very similar to Iraq in that in both instances we were fighting an enemy that could put down their weapons and blend into the population. At the end of the Vietnam War the enemy could pick when they wanted to engage us just like Al Qiada currently does in Iraq. when they didn't want to engage us they walked around Saigon alongside us.
Old    SamIngram            12-23-2011, 2:17 PM Reply   
I just hope that Iraq, or Egypt for that matter, doesn't become Cambodia... What we allowed to happen in Cambodia is unforgivable. My dad served two tours in Vietnam and then served another three years in Cambodia with the French. The stuff he witnessed is crazy. He is unusual in that he talks about it to anyone who will listen, he wants us to remember. The most memorable story that I have heard him tell is how the Khmer Rouge liked to kill lots of people. They would line everyone up in a single file line and then fire a large caliber rifle through as many as the bullet would travel. They killed so many people they wanted to save bullets. He saw this happen over 20 times. Their favorite method for killing people was the shovel.

He just turned 70. He now thinks that radicals will take over Iraq. He thinks the same is happening in Egypt now.
Old     (wakeskatethis)      Join Date: May 2011       12-23-2011, 8:05 PM Reply   
Ron paul 2012. Time to wake up sheeple and that mean u dave williams!!
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-25-2011, 11:16 AM Reply   
That "religion of peace" is working it's magic again (and again)...

Islamists kill dozens in Nigeria Christmas bombs
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       12-26-2011, 6:45 AM Reply   
"My dad served two tours in Vietnam and then served another three years in Cambodia with the French." That is amazing!
I bet most people don't even know about the killing fields.
Sam, why was it our responsibility to help Cambodia?
SE, stop acting like we would have gone to war if there would have been a Democratic president in office.
Old    deltahoosier            12-26-2011, 8:46 AM Reply   
Why would I act like it. The democrats talked about it for years and even wrote letters stating that they need to do it. They even voted to go to war. Remember the president can not go to war, he has to ask the approval of congress. The democrats got the power of the purse in 2006 (over a half decade ago) based on the antiwar platform and we are still at war (one of which is Afgahnistan which I argued from the beginning was the unwinable war between the two. So my retort to JS, please quit acting like the republicans were the only ones who wanted to go to war. The sooner you embrace the truth of the situation the sooner the healing can begin.
Old    SamIngram            12-26-2011, 8:51 AM Reply   
Originally Posted by joeshmoe View Post
Sam, why was it our responsibility to help Cambodia?
I think it was our responsibility in Cambodia since, according to my dad and what I have read, we basically went in and stirred up a hornets nest. By going to Vietnam we caused the Viet Cong or the NLF to be reinforced by every communist nation in the world. The Chinese, the Cubans, and the Russians all participated on a much, much larger scale than they were with the French. Furthermore, our policy of not officially going into Laos or Cambodia resulted in huge communist strong-holds that the Viet Cong and the Khmer Rouge later use as the basis for future control over the people. They set up a supply line that was later utilized by Saloth Sar (Pol Pot) to implement his ideals on the Cambodian people. Also, due to the fall of Saigon thousands and thousands of people fled Vietnam into Cambodia and Laos. As a result every community had strangers in it and everyone distrusted everyone else. Since the people were no longer united to any degree it was much easier for Saloth Sar to regain control.

My dad mainly worked with the Montagnards or the Degars which is why he was able to make it out alive after five years of non-stop fighting - the locals taught him how to survive. By working and living with the Montagnards he saw lots of stuff that the normal serviceman in Vietnam didn't see. His main and sometimes only connection with the rest of his unit and CO was often just information and supplies dropped from a low flying Cessna 185 from the Ravens. To this day he speaks English, French, Khmer, and Vietnamese.

Dad says we are currently doing the exact same thing today in Iraq and Egypt.
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       12-26-2011, 10:06 AM Reply   
Thanks Sam, still amazing!


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:29 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home


© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us