patrick.net

lostand confused says

They sign up to defend this great nation. not be drawn into endless wars that have no possible valid reason.Yup they sign up -so it is ok for them to be killed and blown up for stupid reasons-compassion is never been your strong point But hey logic, reasoning , common sense has never been your strong point eithe

YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR OUR TROOPS ..... YOU do not have the reasons why they signed up... There are many who fought who disagree with you and are proud of their service.. Stop being a idiot!

lostand confused says

Strategist says

And Bashar Assad, Iranian regime, N. Korean Kim, Kaddafi.

How many of our soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to get rid of them. Then how many more soldiers are you willing to be killed/maimed to get rid of the ruthless Taliban/al-queda types that come to take their place. Are you willing to go there-send you children and friends there?? or do you work for Halliburton salivating at the big bonuses you will get if we are at war with multiple countries???

Silly question.
How many 60 million people are you willing to watch die?

thomaswong.1986 says

lostand confused says

When the attacked us, Bush let the perprators go and instead attacked a country not related to the 9/11 attacks.

A separate issue... no one stated they were connected except a few uninformed here on Patnet.

The liberals have been pushing the issue of Iraq WMD long before Bush came to office. You can go back as far as mid 90s and Gores and Dems comments. Or are you a hypocrite and cant recall recent history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE

One can push and say anything you want-that is politics. But the one who acted and sent troops there was Bush-not the liberals. Unlike you if OBozo the clown sent troops in the ground to Iraq now -I would be railing against him. But hey talking to you is like talking to a tape recorder.

lostand confused says

How many of our soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to get rid of them. Then how many more soldiers are you willing to be killed/maimed to get rid of the ruthless Taliban/al-queda types that come to take their place. Are you willing to go there-send you children and friends there??

No one is asking YOU.. if you dont like it.. than dont sign up.. there are plenty others who WILL SIGN UP and WILL FIGHT regardless how much a pacifist you are..

Strategist says

Silly question.

How many 60 million people are you willing to watch die?

That is not a silly question. . Never take a risk, never get involved personally, let others die-but always compare a pet issue/conflict to the Holocaust. That is a sick attitude.

thomaswong.1986 says

lostand confused says

How many of our soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to get rid of them. Then how many more soldiers are you willing to be killed/maimed to get rid of the ruthless Taliban/al-queda types that come to take their place. Are you willing to go there-send you children and friends there??

No one is asking YOU.. if you dont like it.. than dont sign up.. there are plenty others who WILL SIGN UP and WILL FIGHT regardless how much a pacifist you are..

I am not a pacifist, but a realist. of course that will fly by your silly belief system.

lostand confused says

One can push and say anything you want-that is politics. But the one who acted and sent troops there was Bush-not the liberals. Unlike you if OBozo the clown sent troops in the ground to Iraq now -I would be railing against him. But hey talking to you is like talking to a tape recorder.

We would have invaded had Gore been President anyway. He has been pushing for getting rid of Saddam since the 90s..

Again you are short on memory.... The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

pick any video you want.. there are lots of Gore comments calling taking out Saddam one way or another for over 10 years. Long long before Bush ever considered being president.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gore+iraq+wmd

lostand confused says

I am not a pacifist, but a realist. of course that will fly by your silly belief system.

Your an idiot short on memory!

Your excuse for Bush invading Iraq is -Gore would have done it anyways?? Sheesh. In the world of reality, people deal with what happened, not someone a while ago might have said something. If gore did it I would have been against it too-but he didn't.

thomaswong.1986 says

lostand confused says

I am not a pacifist, but a realist. of course that will fly by your silly belief system.

Your an idiot short on memory!

Coming from you -that is a badge of honor. You are the resident clown on patnet, who provides endless amusement by exposing the depths of human stupidity.

lostand confused says

Your excuse for Bush invading Iraq is -Gore would have done it anyways?? Sheesh. In the world of reality, people deal with what happened, not someone awhile ago might have if gore did it I would have been against it too-but he didn't.

You truly are Lost and Confused... Syria, Iraq, and Libya, soviet client, all terrorist sponsored states backing "world liberation" movements have been seeking to create their own "Muslim Bomb"... they been at it since the 60s. So dont be so naive as to think we in the west wouldnt have stepped in eventually.

To you all this is new news...

"Four countries in the Middle East have been found in non-compliance with their IAEA safeguards obligations under the NPT: Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Syria. Of these cases, Iran and Syria remain unresolved."

GC(35)/RES/568 - Iraq's non-compliance with its safegaurds ...
www.iaea.org/.../gc35res-568_en.p...
International Atomic Energy Agency
Sep 20, 1991 - (b) Deploring Iraq's non-compliance with its safeguards obligations with the IAEA and violation of its obligat ions under the Treaty on the.

lostand confused says

Coming from you -that is a badge of honor. You are the resident clown on patnet, who provides endless amusement by exposing the depths of human stupidity.

We have to die because of your stupidity...Cleary you never read my links to get the facts. ... but thats typical of pacifists.. they think they come from a higher ground... laughable since they are just cowards.

Ah, it's one of those "your an idiot" days.

thomaswong.1986 says

lostand confused says

Coming from you -that is a badge of honor. You are the resident clown on patnet, who provides endless amusement by exposing the depths of human stupidity.

We have to die because of your stupidity...

no that is not new to me. but what is new to me is your idea of safety. Replacing these countries' leadership with al-queda types. because that is who is replacing the states where we have interfered. But to you having al-queda in charge of a possibly nuclear armed state is safe? LOL.

thomaswong.1986 says

Cleary you never read my links to get the facts. ... but thats typical of pacifists.. they think they come from a higher ground... laughable since they are just cowards.

facts what facts-that Bush invaded Iraq. Your "fact" is gore might have invaded anyways-that is your fact. Sigh...Thomas you outdo yourself everytime.

Thomas said:

"YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR OUR TROOPS ..... YOU do not have the reasons why they signed up... There are many who fought who disagree with you and are proud of their service.."

The rationale for signing up is irrelevant. Once a soldier signs on, they have a duty to support the current government whether they agree with it or not. No one should assume anything about any soldier's attitude.

lostand confused said:

"Your excuse for Bush invading Iraq is -Gore would have done it anyways??"

I which case the soldiers would get on with it. That is the role.

Howdy There says

Your excuse for Bush invading Iraq is -Gore would have done it anyways??"

I which case the soldiers would get on with it. That is the role.

Yes they should . That is a soldier's role-to fight and risk life and limb. Not stop in the middle of the battlefield and ask philosophical questions. But I think since they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, we as a nation should be careful of putting them in that position-that we should be careful and considerate when we ask them to make that sacrifice and not treat them like disposable fixtures.

On that issue , I think Obozo is actually much better and does not put soldiers in harms way for stupid reasons.

lostand confused says

facts what facts-that Bush invaded Iraq. Your "fact" is gore might have invaded anyways-that is your fact. Sigh...Thomas you outdo yourself everytime.

It was bound to happen.. be it Libya Syria or Iraq.. it has been in the making since the 1960s when they all became pro terrorist states seeking
nuclear weapons..

this all must be news to you...

lostand confused says:

"Not stop in the middle of the battlefield and ask philosophical questions. But I think since they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, we as a nation should be careful of putting them in that position...'

'Soldiers have a duty to protect the populace from enemies of the state.' I said that (and probably ripped it off from someone of more historical importance), and I think it is generally accepted? 'The populace has a duty to protect the soldiers from the state.' My thought as well, and also might be plagiarized.

Strategist says

Even though there are no WMD. Why?

Because there is oil there. Duh.

Representative Ed Royce on US response to the Iraq crisis.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000284890

zzyzzx says

Strategist says

Even though there are no WMD. Why?

Because there is oil there. Duh.

If it was really oil we would never have left.

Strategist says

If it was really oil we would never have left.

That's why it's all Obama's fault!!!

thomaswong.1986 says

You mean we bought gas from them... all the crying the Libs do over

the killings, they do little to get off the oil from the middle east.

You mean the Progressives who are always pushing for renewable energy, mass transit, and Local Production and Consumption?

thomaswong.1986 says

Very true.. and often overlooked... at least a women would walk down Tehran sq in a mini-skirt during the Shah years.. but today.. she would get killed over it.

And Saudi women can walk down Riyadh in a mini-skirt?

thomaswong.1986 says

so no we didnt create these people.. they were already fighting the Pro Soviet puppet govt in Kabul long long before we provided assistance.

We didn't create them but we gave them weapons and know-how. Then they turned it on us. Blowback is a bitch.

BTW, we started helping the Pashtu Fundamentalists before the Soviets sent assistance to the Afghan government.

If the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to save a Communist regime, then we invaded Vietnam to save an Oligarchy. President Thieu won 94% of the vote in 1971, must have been really popular, almost as popular as Saddam when he was re-elected.

thomaswong.1986 says

Harsh ? ... The shah had to deal with Marxist Terrorists attacking it cities during the 60s and 70s. They were backed by the Soviets like so many

When Mossadegh was in power, Communists were a small minority. The Shah's oppression made them a viable force - just like the Shah's oppression empowered the Islamic Revolution.

thomaswong.1986 says

So what... what are you complaining about...deal with it when

you buy your next gallon of Opec Oil...

Whip came from Petro dollars from gas consumers like you...

do you keep paying for this ? or become self sufficient in oil ?

I don't know what you're saying here, no clue. You don't consume OPEC oil?

thomaswong.1986 says

Go to war over oil.. you sure dont hear lots of Liberals calling for that ....

I'm saying if we go to war for oil using Human Rights as BS cover, why don't we take over Saudi Arabia for the same reason? Because they own our politicians, that's why.

thomaswong.1986 says

Ghaddafi however NEVER gave up backing terrorist groups like Hamas or what was left of the PLO.

The Saudis, Jordanians, Gulf States, Egypt, etc. - all our allies - funded the PLO.

Ghaddafi gave up when the Wahhabi fanatics started screwing with him about a decade ago. We then shook his hand, forgave him, he paid indemnities to his victims and gave up his nuclear program..

Then, we killed him anyway. Now, our Wahhabi Rebel friends are fighting our puppet government, after killing our Staff. Benghazi!

thomaswong.1986 says

why are you being a apologist for these Terror Backed States ?

I hate Saudi Arabia, mother of all Wahhabi terrorism.

Hey Wong, where did the majority of 9/11 hijackers come from?

How many were Libyan, Iranian, Syrian?

thunderlips11 says

We didn't create them but we gave them weapons and know-how. Then they turned it on us. Blowback is a bitch.

If you give a barbarian a knife they will stab you with it.
If you give a barbarian a gun they will shoot you with it.
If you give a barbarian nukes they will nuke you with it.
The moral of the story is don't give them weapons.

thunderlips11 says

I'm saying if we go to war for oil using Human Rights as BS cover, why don't we take over Saudi Arabia for the same reason? Because they own our politicians, that's why.

Can you name a President who bows down to them?

Strategist says

If it was really oil we would never have left.

Why not? International oil companies (BP and Shell. Iraq liberators Britain and US. coincidence?) just had a record for oil production in Iraq last month totally free of Husseim. Mission accomplished.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

If it was really oil we would never have left.

Why not? International oil companies (BP and Shell. Iraq liberators Britain and US. coincidence?) just had a record for oil production in Iraq last month totally free of Husseim. Mission accomplished.

We extract it, but they get to own it. If they sell it to us we pay for it.
Iraqis would starve if it wasn't for oil.

Strategist says

We extract it, but they get to own it. If they sell it to us we pay for it.

Iraqis would starve if it wasn't for oil.

Big oil companies, the kind that had lots of juice in the Bush (oilman) Cheney(oilman) white house don't extract it for free. Or anywhere near free.

The oil goes on the world market. The goal was keeping the supply going with a US friendly government in charge and non nationalized oil companies producing. The goal was never outright ownership of the oil. Even the most mouth breathing neocon fool (redundancy) knows the US can't get away with stealing Iraq's oil.

Strategist says

Can you name a President who bows down to them?

Here's Bandar "Bush" bin Sultan, named so for his close relationship with the Bush family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan

Bandar bin Sultan was told about the invasion of Iraq before Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, was, according to Bob Woodward and other accounts.

Saudi Arabia's pernicious influence is one of the reasons the US response to the anti-democracy crackdown in Bahrain, where Saudi hastily supplied tanks shut down democracy protesters, elicited only the lightest of Oh sad, how bad remarks (and no action of course) from noted Human Rights Defender, Hillary Clinton, then Sec. of State.

Those Chemical Weapons used in Syria that the US originally tried to blame Assad for?
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

Bandar bin Sultan was Chief of Saudi Intelligence when this happened.

Here's two stories about Qatar and Saudi Arabia in Syria.
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/12/world/la-fg-syria-funding-20140112

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/world/middleeast/sending-missiles-to-syrian-rebels-qatar-muscles-in.html?pagewanted%253Dall&_r=0

Does not matter how many US troops get killed. If we can save the life of one, just one Iraqi, it will all be worth it!

Strategist says

What really surprises me is a lot of atheists and liberals who never fail to
attack Christians, but will never say anything against Islam

It's a matter of (myopic) perspective. Living in a Christian, Fox News dominated country, there are plenty of occasions for christians to cause trouble for non-christians, often for sharia-law-like reasons such as abortion and LGBT matters.
There are also many instances where a consensus of "christians" or plain foxbots will pass along some manner of horseshit about muslims, and as a group they will all agree; any challenger is likely to be a liberal or other outgroup by their standards, and is rabidly turned on and attacked by the group, precluding any learning or understanding and preserving their consensus reality that all muslims are (whatever.)
What you DON'T see are the occasions when a liberal may be talking to muslim folks, and challenging misconceptions THEY may have about western and often specifically christian ideas. The Fox-loving Merkins are predisposed to think that all muslims are the same; it is interesting to talk to "westernized" muslims. The jingoists and foxbots fail to recognize that the underlying problems with muslims who fail to integrate with cultures such as in Britain, are actually problems of opportunity and economy, not Islam per se.

Automan Empire says

Strategist says

What really surprises me is a lot of atheists and liberals who never fail to

attack Christians, but will never say anything against Islam

It's a matter of (myopic) perspective. Living in a Christian, Fox News dominated country, there are plenty of occasions for christians to cause trouble for non-christians, often for sharia-law-like reasons such as abortion and LGBT matters.

Agree with Automan Empire that Strategist is making a pretty bogus straw man. People who dislike radical Christianity are also likely to dislike radical Islam. Radical Christianity is definitely very Sharia-like. It's hilarious to me that fundamentalist Christians worry that Sharia might be imposed here in the US when the only people trying to impose Sharia-like elements are fundamentalist Christians.

corntrollio says

Agree with Automan Empire that Strategist is making a pretty bogus straw man. People who dislike radical Christianity are also likely to dislike radical Islam. Radical Christianity is definitely very Sharia-like. It's hilarious to me that fundamentalist Christians worry that Sharia might be imposed here in the US when the only people trying to impose Sharia-like elements are fundamentalist Christians.

We don't have radical Christianity in the West. We don't burn witches any more, or stone someone to death or kill gays. If it happens it's considered a crime and swiftly dealt with by the rule of law. Now look at the Mid East. There is no comparison. Even Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have pointed this out. I understand Sam Harris has body guards as he is targeted by radical Islam. He is not targeted by radical Christianity.

Strategist says

corntrollio says

Agree with Automan Empire that Strategist is making a pretty bogus straw man. People who dislike radical Christianity are also likely to dislike radical Islam. Radical Christianity is definitely very Sharia-like. It's hilarious to me that fundamentalist Christians worry that Sharia might be imposed here in the US when the only people trying to impose Sharia-like elements are fundamentalist Christians.

We don't have radical Christianity in the West. We don't burn witches any more, or stone someone to death or kill gays. If it happens it's considered a crime and swiftly dealt with by the rule of law. Now look at the Mid East. There is no comparison. Even Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have pointed this out. I understand Sam Harris has body guards as he is targeted by radical Islam. He is not targeted by radical Christianity.

I would also add....if anyone wants to make the world a better place within the religion context, we need to spend our time and resources attacking Islam, not Christianity. Simply because we get a bigger bang for the buck by controlling the worst, the most dangerous and the only one that wants to annihilate us.

I'll go. Just recall me back to active duty.

Strategist says

We don't have radical Christianity in the West.

Anyone trying to implement law based on scripture is radical. We have plenty of people who would like to do that in the West. Just like most Christians aren't radical Christians, most Muslims aren't radical Muslims. It just so happens that radical ones are in power in certain places, but that was once the case with Christians too (no one expects the Spanish Inquisition...).

Of interest... synopsis of troop movements and recent events...

thunderlips11 says

Of interest... synopsis of troop movements and recent events...

The synopsis is that in the very near future this will be the scene in Baghdad.