|
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
This is all I need to make my point that RANN is an uninformed dumbass who can't admit he's wrong. I don't care if they're under Ronald McDonald's direction at the moment, they are still U.S. owned and operated assets and fully involved in the mission.
Admit you were wrong, fag. |
Don't get Butthurt (or homophobic) just becuase you're too dumb to understand what's going in other parts of the world.
NATO has forces there, all under NATO control, NOT US control or command, dipshit. The USAF is not flying missions there for the USA, nor do they have any central command over NATO assets. As I said several pages ago, and as repeated on this page, the USA is a member of NATO and has obligations to perform as part of a NATO controlled military force.
It's not even a discussion point that US planes or pilots are being used, as they are under full NATO control. If you're too thick to understand this, please just keep jacking off to your easy-wipe pictures of Ronald Reagan and leave this thread alone.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Rann, people aren't divided into the good guys and the bad guys; it's not so black and white. While I think the war in Iraq was a terrible idea from the start, and I think that some of the people who were in charge of it made money off it is disgusting, I think it's pretty naive to say that they just wanted to go in for money. There were multiple reasons, PKC has stated them, for us going in; though I personally don't agree with them.
|
I have never once stated or inferred they are, or that any situation is black or white. This whole time I've been saying the machinations are incredibly complex, but distilled down to it's , I believe it was, and is about money. You're assuming that I don't have a grasp of complex issues or a full understanding, but I assure you I get every little detail, it's just have a different conclusion; I've posted up snapshots of how deep the financial interests and profiteering has been, and that really is the tip of the iceberg, just the shit we get to know about.
Christ, I myself indirectly made money from the iraq war, working for a copper cable supplier in the UK, to help "rebuild iraq". This was just a small company working for one contracted broadcast installer, (of a 1000 others in Iraq) due to the rebuilding efforts. Just think about every aspect of infrastructure - the true and incredibly broad scope of what the Oil and defense industry (and everything that goes with it) has made out of the war.
I really don't care if people think otherwise, but I was old enough to understand the first iraq conflict, when Bush Snr actually had a somewhat legitimate reason for taking out Saddam, so I know the reasons given the second Bush Administration were just thin smoke and mirrors.
I have yet to hear valid reasons about why we did go to war. I've heard a lot of bullshit since and just try to remember EXACTLY what we were told at the time.
It was simply about the fact that Saddam allegedly had WMD's. There actually was no UN precident or allowance to go in to to Iraq, and certainly not remove him for "humanitarian" reasons. Yes, he did a great job of blagging that he did have them but I believe at a point before the war, they knew it wasn't the case and suppressed the fact as "the decider" had already decided and the calculations had already long been done.
It has now been proven that there was a concerted effort to create or push intelligence that validated the necessity for invasion, at all costs, including the firing and demotion of people who questioned it, not to mention the plame affair. Yeah, saddam bullshitted about having them, but so do a dozen other countries, and the main problem is that there was simply no proof, and even the weapons inspectors were telling us this.
We now know Bush changes the narrative on why we were in Iraq, after we got there. This is an important distinction, as unlike the USA or at last Bush's sentiments, the UK could never have gone to war based on the premise of regime change, hence why the "sexed up" and "45 minute" documents were needed prior to invasion. They HAD to use the excuse of WMD's or it wasn't going to fly.
And look what happened. Blair and Brown paid with their careers when it became obvious we had gone in under false pretenses. Blair went from golden boy and respected world leader, to a political leper at least in the UK.
So all this aside then, why did we go to war?
Nation building? Reducing dependence on Foreign Oil? Removing an evil dictator? Saving the Kurds? Spreading democracy?
Really? You believe that shit? Because I don't and it's the type of usual republican language that seems to appeal to the dimly lit and under educated.
Why spend billions doing this? Why loose thousands of lives over this?
The only thing that makes sense, was is the rewards for those involved, regardless of the intentions; It's easy to make "difficult" decisions, if you know you're going to get paid hard and get executive immunity regardless of your actions.
However, I do think Alfi has a point about finishing what Daddy didn't. Ego does play in to this somewhere, especially judging what we now know about Bush Jnr.
And no, I won't fucking spell Cheney correctly if I can help it 
|
