Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Sev wrote: Regardless, I can see how an action like having soldiers in Iraq can be a defensive tactic. And the point stands that America was attacked first.

Boy have I heard this excuse more than I'd like. The United States have caused more deaths, injuries, and broken families far more than the disastrous results of 9/11. Due to a number of Saudis hijacking American airliners and turning them into lethal weapons, the United States has reason and "intelligence" to attack and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq? And you call that a "defensive tactic"?

There is so much to say about this issue but so little time. I must leave for now.

MoveOn people!!!

I think it is fairly clear that Bush had an agenda prior to 9-11 to get back to Iraq. This had to do with controlling a government that had big oil, and we need a friendly government in place.

The terrorist action taken against the US in New York got the wheels turnings. As soon as the military could get things rolling in Afghanistan, where the key people currently resided, it was easy to argue that Iraq was harboring terrorist and weapons, since they wouldn't allow us free and easy access. The stage was set for pushing his agenda forward, and finishing his Dad's botched first attempt.

Once he lied to everyone and got it pushed through, it no longer matter if he was caught for the lie, as he was. He already got us burried deep on this thing, and there was no way out. He took advantage of our fear and anger early on, as many leaders have done in the past. That is how you get the public to buy this kind of thing. Lucky for Bush he has a large volunteer military to pull from, who for some reasaon feel obligated to carry out there sworn mission - obeying the Commander and Chief. I respect them, and feel bad for them, as I have said before.

kali wrote:
Again, Google "The Great Game" and "Peak Oil" learn something.

Why should I google the same propaganda your spewing already in this thread. To blindly follow and post the words and ideals of another is hypocracy. You will say its evil and wrong to blindly follow the Marine Corp, but blindly follow and spew the words of a radical propagandist.

Hyprocacy is not something I subscribe to, how about you?

MrShake wrote:

kali wrote:
Again, Google "The Great Game" and "Peak Oil" learn something.

Why should I google the same propaganda your spewing already in this thread. To blindly follow and post the words and ideals of another is hypocracy. You will say its evil and wrong to blindly follow the Marine Corp, but blindly follow and spew the words of a radical propagandist.

Hyprocacy is not something I subscribe to, how about you?

I figured one can consider the various agendas of the loons, corporate and environmentalist for yourself and after considering many points of view decide for yourself.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make an "O Ring" think.

.

jonnythan wrote:I don't need "government clearance" to believe that starting an armed conflict with a foreign nation that posed no immediate threat to the US was not a proper use of the US military.

Based upon what? What makes you think it was no threat?

Note, I am not saying that Iraq was a threat, but I am saying that the common man doesn't know enough to know that he doesn't know.

I'm an ex-soldier and until a few years ago when someone asked if they should give the military a try, I would advise them to join one of their local reserve units to get a taste of service, then if it suited them, sign up with the regulars. I figured then, that most people would or could benefit from even a short three year stint in the Forces.

Now however, I tell them that if they want to run the risk of getting their arse shot off for no good reason other then to make Shrub and that smirkin' weasel Harper look tough, then go for, otherwise go to college or university or get in the trades and make a real life for yourself.

It truly sickens me to see our young and patriotic Canadian lads and lasses in uniform being wasted for no real good reason. Afghanistan was barely justifiable, Iraq was not and now Shrub and Co. are making the same noises towards Iran. Its pure unadulterated Bull dodo, nothing more and nothing less.

As soon as the US turned away from the mission in Afghanistan and attacked Iraq, Canada should of pulled its troops out and brought them home, instead leaving them there holding the f'ing bad.

If I sound pissed, its because I am. Right now I have a buddy who is on his third flippin' tour in Afghanistan. Soon as that one is over and if he gets out alive and whole, he is retiring. Too late to save his marriage, but maybe soon enough to save his skin.

I seem to be missing the OP

Sev wrote:Regardless, I can see how an action like having soldiers in Iraq can be a defensive tactic. And the point stands that America was attacked first.

Not by Iraq or anyone remotely associated with Iraq.

scan wrote:I think it is fairly clear that Bush had an agenda prior to 9-11 to get back to Iraq. This had to do with controlling a government that had big oil, and we need a friendly government in place.

The terrorist action taken against the US in New York got the wheels turnings. As soon as the military could get things rolling in Afghanistan, where the key people currently resided, it was easy to argue that Iraq was harboring terrorist and weapons, since they wouldn't allow us free and easy access. The stage was set for pushing his agenda forward, and finishing his Dad's botched first attempt.

I also agree with the hidden agenda but I strongly disagree with the issue being about oil. I'm actually sick and tired of hearing/reading people indicate they know it's about oil when I'm willing to bet that was the farthest from his mind, though none of us, can speak for him.

I view several issues of his hidden agenda:

1. Revenge. Bush wanted revenge against Saddam for the attempt on his fathers life brought about by Saddam.
2. Aiding terrorists. Though most of the middle east is encased with Muslim terrorists, this helped Bush provide a more legitimate excuse to conquer Saddam. One, for the revenge and two, there is NO WAY to conquer one country to fight terrorism, obviously, since they are all over. Therefore, taking control of a country and leader, whom Bush hated, was an opportune time to bring the terrorists to him. The main goal of the terrorist is to "kill" Americans. Let's face it, they hate us. Therefore, filling a country with American soldiers brings the terrorists to them.
3. To somewhat agree with a controlling government, though, I believe more to keep tabs on the surrounding countries for obvious reasons.

As for the oil issue, I still refuse to believe that was a high motive for the invasion. Perhaps on a smaller scale he may have said, "hey, I'm doing this to kill Saddam and a plus would be to get cheaper oil" but not the soul aim. Since Iraq is number 7 on the Crude Oil import chart with 481 thousand barrels to date this year, compared to 1853 thousand from Canada, 1427 from Saudi Arabia, 1448 from Mexico, 1025 from Nigeria and 1120 from Venezuela, I highly doubt there would be much of a benefit from oil in Iraq. Hell, even Angola imported 524 thousand to date.

But this is simply my opinion and nothing based on facts except for the oil imports.