http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050126/D87S15V00.html


It's been nearly 2 years since you guys have gone to Iraq, and Bush is asking for "patience". Now some people (like Bryan) would wait 100 years wuthout a peep. But seriously, I'd like to hear how long it will be until your patience runs out (if it hasn't already). 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?? How long is it for you?

as long as it takes for the terrorists to get sick of it

Patience - ROFL

Said woman,
take it slow,
and things will be just fine
all we need is,
just a little Patience...

I'll give them until I empty one large jar of Skippy Peanut Butter :W Who's bringing the Jelly!! Oh and by the way! The bread is imortant. Although some good old solft white bread makes the best PB&J. I happen to love some really good multi-gran Bread!!! Goes good with Crunchy PB!! :Beer

Meanwhile....... corruption abounds in the white house........

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050127/D87SEK5G1.html


Isn't it IRONIC that BuSh, he who had absolutely NO PATIENCE w/ Iraq and had to rush into war, is now asking for PATIENCE from the US citizens? Screw him.

My sister recently returned from living in Germany for the last 5-6 years. She described the average German citizens' opinion on the BuSh administration as being appalled at the fact that Regan (and all prior administrations) used nearly infinite patience to bring down the Berlin wall and liberating the people of East Germany without firing a single shot, yet BuSh and his cronies had to wage war and kill tens (hundreds?) of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians to oust Saddam. When it comes to diplomacy, BuSh is a big FAT ZERO.

Regan (and all prior administrations) used nearly infinite patience to bring down the Berlin wall and liberating the people of East Germany without firing a single shot,"Infinite patience" my arse. He put our country into high gear from day one putting pressure on the Soviets. That war (Cold War) isn't measured in the billions of dollars, but in the trillions. Why no shots fired? Can you say "nukular weapons?" DUH!!!

Meanwhile....... corruption abounds in the white house........

Isn't it IRONIC that BuSh, he who had absolutely NO PATIENCE w/ Iraq and had to rush into war, is now asking for PATIENCE from the US citizens? Screw him.

My sister recently returned from living in Germany for the last 5-6 years. She described the average German citizens' opinion on the BuSh administration as being appalled at the fact that Regan (and all prior administrations) used nearly infinite patience to bring down the Berlin wall and liberating the people of East Germany without firing a single shot, yet BuSh and his cronies had to wage war and kill tens (hundreds?) of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians to oust Saddam. When it comes to diplomacy, BuSh is a big FAT ZERO.

Actually, there were real wars, sometimes called "proxy wars" because they were fought by Soviet allies rather than the USSR itself. American and Soviet forces enganged and killed each other over the skies of North Korea (whom we're still in a state of war with BTW). There were also countless casualties on both sides that ocurred during so called "black ops" (these actually still happen today, little wars nobody knows about). So just because one side or another didn't go kicking down the Berlin wall and burning down houses does not mean that it was a time of peaceful negotiations.

Oh, and these tens of thousands of "innocent Iraqi civilians" you're talking about... Are they the ones with the RPG's or the AK-47's Ohh, maybe the ones with the bombs strapped to their chests.

You know something, in the area of Iraq know as the Kurdistan Regional Authority (KRG) they are planning parades and celebrations in the streets. Voter registration areas are filled with proud Iraqis excited to finally have a voice in their government. All of this without US sodiers patrolling the streets. Why? Because these vile, disgusting affronts to humanity you like to call "innocent" aren't there. Why aren't they there? Because the Kurds have learned how precious freedom is, how many must die in order to acheive it. They understand the value of that which they have earned, and they are working together toward a better future. The boys down south had it handed to them...and much like Section 8 housing...they treat it like crap. Actually I should'nt say that because there are many brave and proud Iraqi's that won't let a bunch of thugs with guns tell them how to live their lives. And those men and women are registering to vote.

So what I'm trying to say is...hopefully you're "innocents" are sitting in Hell next to Goering, Hitler and Ho Chi Minh wondering where it all went wrong.

You talk as if EVERYONE in Iraq is an "insurgent". If that is the case, why didn't we just turn the whole country into a glass glacier? Oh YEAH! The OIL!!

You talk as if EVERYONE in Iraq is an "insurgent". If that is the case, why didn't we just turn the whole country into a glass glacier? Oh YEAH! The OIL!!

Let me pose a question to you...

A man robs a store at gunpoint. The police are called. While responding to the call an officer rounds a corner at a high rate of speed. While doing this his vehicle strikes another and kills the occupant. Who's responsible? The constable, for his lack of proper judgment...or the criminal whose actions caused the need for police in the first place.

So many people want to place blame on those who are trying to help. If there weren't any TERRORISTS in Iraq the country would be well on it's way to a Democratically elected govenment. I agree that the WMD thing was a bad reason for going... But we have a job to do now, we must deliver on our promise. That's what makes us the good guys. We must not let a few people whom are trying to hold onto their illegitemate power and their lemmings stop what was once the beacon of civilization on its march to freedom.

You are right, GWs gotten us into this mess, and theres no turning back.

Tell you what, I'll give the BuSh admin. some slack in the rope. IF this election goes 1/2-way well, IF "democracy takes hold" by this summer (lets say 7/30/05), IF we avoid 1600 US fatalities by that date, IF we are able to start pulling our troops out by then, and IF peace washes over Iraq following the election, THEN I'll back off bashing GW about Iraq. 6 months should be plenty of time to see a turn-around in the Iraq situation if GW's grand plan for the spread of democracy there is working. That's all the patience I have left.

And if not, that rope will come in handy for something else.

The problem is, if all those IFs happen, GW is going to gain great confidence and we will probably start messing with Iran.

And if not, that rope will come in handy for something
else.

Absolutely. Hanging yourself and putting us out of your misery would be a start.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon10.gif

Absolutely. Hanging yourself and putting us out of your misery would be a start.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon10.gif


Problem is, someone else's neck will already be in the noose.

:ricesmile <-- among others............

You are right, GWs gotten us into this mess, and theres no turning back.

Tell you what, I'll give the BuSh admin. some slack in the rope. IF this election goes 1/2-way well, IF "democracy takes hold" by this summer (lets say 7/30/05), IF we avoid 1600 US fatalities by that date, IF we are able to start pulling our troops out by then, and IF peace washes over Iraq following the election, THEN I'll back off bashing GW about Iraq. 6 months should be plenty of time to see a turn-around in the Iraq situation if GW's grand plan for the spread of democracy there is working. That's all the patience I have left.

And if not, that rope will come in handy for something else.

I'm glad the founding fathers didn't have your "patience"...otherwise they would have gone crawing back to King George in 1777.

IF this election goes 1/2-way well, IF "democracy takes hold" by this summer (lets say 7/30/05), IF we avoid 1600 US fatalities by that date, IF we are able to start pulling our troops out by then, and IF peace washes over Iraq following the election, THEN I'll back off bashing GW about Iraq.

I am more than willing to sacrifice 1600 troops, including myself if need be, so that they can have a free and true democracy. Try to think about life in the long run, instead of short term. Libs are always talking about how we need to think with our heart. Well i ask you, is letting 50+million people continue to be oppressed somthing that you find aceptable when thinking with your heart? I sure as heck dont think so. The only reason libs dont want us in Iraq, is because of old fashion partison pollitics. End it, and we, as the only nation that is free and powerful, can help to better the world. If that means sacrificing human lives in the process, AOI. Yes, i know that may seem harsh...but if you realise, that in the scope of the world, you are insignifigant...it doesnt matter. Be happy with your life, but when you add to the suffering of others (which is exactly what you are doing when you play the: im knowledgable, so my oppinion is right and im going to protest any effort that is made opposing my view: game), dont dare to presume that you are better than them, and you know whats best for them. That may have been a bit of a tangent, but is still relivent.

So you're saying it would be OK if your children died fighting in Iraq so that country could be "free"??? Saddam was an oppressor, but many Iraquis say it is worse now than when Saddam was in power, and it this is American freedom, they don't want it...


But I disagree, I don't think 1400 American deaths was worth it..at all. What's next? Trying to "liberate" China just because they aren't democratic and "free"????

So you're saying it would be OK if your children died fighting in Iraq so that country could be "free"??? Saddam was an oppressor, but many Iraquis say it is worse now than when Saddam was in power, and it this is American freedom, they don't want it...

Alright, first of all you are wrong when you say they dont want freedom, even at the hands of Americans.i dont need to go through this again. This is an immage unfairly presented by the media. Speek with anyone who has been in Iraq since we have gone over there, not just army people, but anyone. That is unless they went over to be an ultra liberal doush, and decided that they could help the peace process themselves.

im saying that, if i had children, yes it would be ok(hell id be damned proud of em), and since i dont...when i finally join the army, yes it would be ok if I died. Again, this may sound harsh to you, but individual humans dont matter in a world scope. and when you say 50,000,000:1600...i say that if i died to free 31,250 people, i know that my life would have been a sucess. Who else could say the same. " Oh, I led a life in the status quo, i had 2.5 children, a wonderful spouce, and i had an suv a minivan, and a lincoln :). Throughout my life, especially in the 60's, i have preached about how we need to do somthing to help the people of the world that are less fortuneate than I, but never did any actions apon it, and opposed anything that tried to do it just because they didnt do somthing how I wanted it done." Because, actions speek louder than words. There is no problem with saying that you dont want you be in, or your loved ones to be in harms way, but to say that everyone must feel the way you do is ludacris. I know that you are thinking, no im not saying that...but yes, yes you are. If you take time and anylize what you are saying, when it all comes down to it, that is indeed what you are saying. And what do we call it when we impose our beliefs on someone, or a group of others.......? Come on, i know someone has the answer...! :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox:

But I disagree, I don't think 1400 American deaths was worth it..at all. What's next? Trying to "liberate" China just because they aren't democratic and "free"????

That is unfair to say. We are "liberating" Iraq is not as the main reason for being there, that is to defeat global terrorisim, and in the meantime, we are helping the peoples of Iraq to be free. Are there terrorists in China, trying to kill us? I doubt it. Are they a safe haven to global terrorists, nope. We will not yield random wars. That is just a fear that has been pounded into your head by the media, and people who protested vietnam who are now people in places in society that are who we trust without questioning, eg. teachers. Yes, we may infact go to war with Iran, N.Korea, and Palestine, but they will not be so called "random" wars, or wars of riches (oil). Also, id like to point out that no where have we prospered from Iraq's production of oil throughout this endevor...i dont know why it is still brought up, it is as moot as thw WMD theories.

Mr. Wilson,

There never were any terrorists in Iraq trying to kill Americans. The Iraqi government themselves never said they wanted to kill Americans. They had no way to even reach America if they felt like killing Americans. No Navy, no Air Force to speak of. There were no WMD (which was the reason George said you guys were going to Iraq, NOT terrorism). Prior to the US being in Iraq, there was no civil unrest, no car bombs, no acts of terrorism. And yes, you have prospered from Iraq oil. All the while, even while Iraq was an enemy of the US, you guys imported, on average 500,000 barrels of oil PER day. Remember, this was even when the US had sanctions on Iraq because they were so evil. Not evil enough to buy oil from though. Since the occupation of Iraq, you guys have imported on average 625,000 barrels per day from Iraq. So please don't tell me oil had nothing to do with it. Iraq was never a threat to the US. EVER. If the US really wanted to invade a country for humanitarian reason, they should have went to Africa, Rwanda, the Congo where MILLIONS of people were murdered. Don't get me wrong..Saddam was an ass, but he was no threat to the US and he wasn't the worst of the worlds tyrants. The US is super friendsly with Saudi Arabia even though they have the worst record human violations in the Middle East. Why? Oil my friend, oil....

Go read the first few chapters of mein kampf, it will explain to you that Saddam and the terrorist were at war with us, and brings you into the mind of a man that very easily compaired to saddam, and being as such, you can draw conpairtive conclusions about what truly was going on.

I am familiar with the book. Everything he did was done because he believed he was doing it in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. Sounds ALOT like Bush. I'm even more frightened now knowing that you are using Hitler's book as a benchmark to determine who you are at war with...

:I Hitler's intention was to rule the world through military domination. This was not Saddam's goal. His goal was to be what he felt was a great leader in the arab world. Hitler's views, and his written word, have nothing to do with the current situation. I doubt that reading anything Hitler had to say will provide any insite into this war.

I am familiar with the book. Everything he did was done because he believed he was doing it in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. Sounds ALOT like Bush. I'm even more frightened now knowing that you are using Hitler's book as a benchmark to determine who you are at war with...

i do not use it as a benchmark to determine who we are at war with, i use it to look into the mind of terrorists, because that infact was what he was.

hmm....seems the only time gwb actually used "the almighty creator" as reasoning was for the stem cell research issue. So, doesnt sound like him...

He may not have used the term "almighty creator", but GWB has based alot of his actions and decisions on god. Hence the faith based initiative.

You mean Faith Based Giveaway. Just another kind of pork.

You mean Faith Based Giveaway. Just another kind of pork.
Bush, the other white meat.

As I recall rather clearly, the reasons for taking out Saddam were based on his history of thumbing his nose at UN resolutions. He was in fact breaking the terms of the cease fire for years, thus reverting to a state of war with the original coalition. The issue of WMD was brought up in the SOTU address, true enough, but the administration's argument did not rest on that. You liberals started re-writing history almost immediately with that. I would have bet good money that WMD would have been found, but alas they were not. It does not change the original reasons for taking action on "regime change" in Iraq (A Clintonian policy adopted in 98 BTW).

Also, let us not diminish the fruits of our labor on this great and historic day in Iraq. Do not dishonor the brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice to see this come about.

As I recall rather clearly, the reasons for taking out Saddam were based on his history of thumbing his nose at UN resolutions. He was in fact breaking the terms of the cease fire for years, thus reverting to a state of war with the original coalition. The issue of WMD was brought up in the SOTU address, true enough, but the administration's argument did not rest on that. You liberals started re-writing history almost immediately with that. I would have bet good money that WMD would have been found, but alas they were not. It does not change the original reasons for taking action on "regime change" in Iraq (A Clintonian policy adopted in 98 BTW).

Also, let us not diminish the fruits of our labor on this great and historic day in Iraq. Do not dishonor the brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice to see this come about.

AOI!

AOI!
Yeah, I don't know what that means.

As I recall rather clearly, the reasons for taking out Saddam were based on his history of thumbing his nose at UN resolutions. He was in fact breaking the terms of the cease fire for years


Ahhh..the old "UN Resolutions" argument. Well Saddam DID ignore resolutions...but then before the US went in, THEY ignored the UN. And if it was such a bad thing to ignore UN Resolutions, perhaps the US should have invaded Israel, since they were ALWAYS in violation of some UN resolution almost all the time, moreso than Iraq. Multiple resolutions at once. For nearly 35 years!!! Oh..and the president of Israel is a convicted war criminal!! I will say it again..the reasons for going to Iraq were dubious at best.......

Ahhh..the old "UN Resolutions" argument.The pot calling the kettle black on "old" arguments? :N

Mr. Wilson,

There never were any terrorists in Iraq trying to kill Americans. The Iraqi government themselves never said they wanted to kill Americans. They had no way to even reach America if they felt like killing Americans. No Navy, no Air Force to speak of. There were no WMD (which was the reason George said you guys were going to Iraq, NOT terrorism). Prior to the US being in Iraq, there was no civil unrest, no car bombs, no acts of terrorism. And yes, you have prospered from Iraq oil. All the while, even while Iraq was an enemy of the US, you guys imported, on average 500,000 barrels of oil PER day. Remember, this was even when the US had sanctions on Iraq because they were so evil. Not evil enough to buy oil from though. Since the occupation of Iraq, you guys have imported on average 625,000 barrels per day from Iraq. So please don't tell me oil had nothing to do with it. Iraq was never a threat to the US. EVER. If the US really wanted to invade a country for humanitarian reason, they should have went to Africa, Rwanda, the Congo where MILLIONS of people were murdered. Don't get me wrong..Saddam was an ass, but he was no threat to the US and he wasn't the worst of the worlds tyrants. The US is super friendsly with Saudi Arabia even though they have the worst record human violations in the Middle East. Why? Oil my friend, oil....


Hey, Michael Moore...why don't you tell the whole story. This 500,000 barrels of oil that we imported was actually bought from the United Nations. This was part of the oil-for-food program...a program that was corrupt and mismanaged by the same people you say we should have begged for permission to go into Iraq from. So...I'll say it again. YES OIL WAS A REASON FOR GOING!!! It is in our national interest to secure a source of petroleum.

Here's some real numbers...

From Air Force Magazine:

The US is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign oil, but the biggest
source is not the Middle East.

In 1996, US wells still produced slightly more than half the oil consumed in the US. In 2001, however, imports accounted for 57 percent of US consumption.

The US last year imported $100 billion worth of crude from 97 nations.

Some 47 percent of imports came from the Americas. In fact, Canada—with
$14.5 billion in sales—was the top foreign supplier of oil to the US last year.
Next came Venezuela, from which the US imported $13.3 billion worth of oil.

Saudi Arabia is the third-largest individual supplier of oil to the US, with sales of $12.5 billion last year. The Middle East supplies less than onequarter
of all imports.

Oil is fungible, and any disruption of world supply anywhere would quickly be felt in the global market. Prices would rise as consumers competed for diminished supplies.

Sources: International Trade Administration, DOC and
Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply
Monthly.
-------------
So, if we were securing oil at a fairly cheap price, and we suddenly decided to rampage through Iraq in a conquest for more oil...why didn't we just go up to Canada. I mean, by your reasoning there should be a coupla thousand troops up there...What's the only difference then...oh yeah, Canada's a friggin democracy... They're part of a civilized world... If we want more oil we just ask...

Wait... I get it... You work for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and you're miffed that Iraq is taking away your business... It all makes sense now.

I'm glad the founding fathers didn't have your "patience"...otherwise they would have gone crawing back to King George in 1777.

Dude, don't even go there. That's apples and watermellons. Fighting for our own freedom and independance on our own turf is nowhere near the same as shoving it down some country's throat on the other side of the globe.

Oil is fungible, and any disruption of world supply anywhere would quickly be felt in the global market. Prices would rise as consumers competed for diminished supplies.Fungible . . . good word.

Were all gonna be screwed by China anyways as far a fuel prices....they will be able to consume the entire OPEC daily production by themselves....

Ahhh..the old "UN Resolutions" argument. Well Saddam DID ignore resolutions...but then before the US went in, THEY ignored the UN. And if it was such a bad thing to ignore UN Resolutions, perhaps the US should have invaded Israel, since they were ALWAYS in violation of some UN resolution almost all the time, moreso than Iraq. Multiple resolutions at once. For nearly 35 years!!! Oh..and the president of Israel is a convicted war criminal!! I will say it again..the reasons for going to Iraq were dubious at best.......

Well, that is the argument that was used. WMD was a small and rather insignificant aside. I am sure it was aimed at fence sitters, and that backfired. That is why it is now so blown out of proportion. The U.S. acted outside of the UN, we did not defy it directly. Saddam broke the peace, we phucked him up. Now Iraq is better. Israel is our ally. Like it or not, that's world politics.

Were all gonna be screwed by China anyways as far a fuel prices....they will be able to consume the entire OPEC daily production by themselves....


lol, never gonna happen. Because the mainstay of the chineese country is along the coast...thats multi billions of people...they cant live anywhere else, becasue its all deserts and mountians. They already have public transportation that is efficent enough for them, and if they go about making roads for cars then they will have to cut down on housing, which would not be traded...the chineese auto market WOULD be an awesome one, if they could support the ammt of vehicles. i say they will have no more than 250 million vehicles at their peak. if that. a hell of a lot less than the US.

No offense Mr. Wilson, but you need to got to your favorite search engine and do some reasearch on China's oil use before you respond. Oil is used for alot more than just fuel for cars and trucks.
http://www.iags.org/la020204.htm

that is tru, i was in car mode...so thats all that came into mind...u r very right in that aspect.

Car mode?

Car mode?
yes, i had been working on my car all day, or night or w/e... and thats the only aspect of oil consumption i was thinking of...