Jimmy Carters Christmas message to the troops

[Dan and Judy 614]

This is pulled from Wikipedia, the link to it is provided below

In another example, a memo from the Defense Department under the Johnson Administration listed the reasons for American persistence:

70% - To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat.

20% - To keep [south Vietnam] (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.

10% - To permit the people [of South Vietnam] to enjoy a better, freer way of life.

ALSO - To emerge from the crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.

NOT - To 'help a friend'[3]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-8"[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

I dont know the exact date of the memo above. so I am using the start of the Nixon admistration as beginning point

to show how many Americans died after it was decided that the best reason for being there was to avoid an embarrasing

defeat.

NIixon was elected in 1968.

Death toll 1968- 16,592

Death toll 1969- 11,616

Death toll 1970- 6081

Death toll 1971- 2357

Death toll 1972- 641

Death toll 1973- 168 PEACE TREATY---- "PEACE WITH HONOR"

This is the result

1975 COMMUNISTS OVERRUN SOUTH VIETNAM

This is not about Geoge Bush, Obama has "endorsed" this war. I dont know his exact words but he said it was important for us to win. My fear now is that the best reason for fighting this war is to avoid a humiliating defeat.

Afganistan aint Viet Nam. but there are similarities.

The taliban are fighting a guriella war. We dont have the man power to occupy every foot of Afganastan. If we killed every taliban in Afganastan tommorow. With in a week there would be more flowing in from Pakistan. We are fighting a war against

Guriellas that have a safe haven. We take a few out now and then with the predator drones. As in the Vietnam war we are

imposing restraints on ourselves. The United states has the miltitary power to wipe out Pakistan but we're not going to do it.

What is our end game? To prop up the Karsai Goverment? That's not exactly a solid foundation. We've been there 9 years

I'm not sure we are better off than after the 1st year. I'm not a fanatic about this. But it is surely reasonalbe to question it now.

How many years and men are we willing to sacrifice for a "peace with honor" that could easily evaporate a year after we are gone? If we can't win, the sooner it is said and accepted the better.

[웃 910]

I should have said proposed pipeline, and yes I know a bit about pipelines seeing how I have spent the better part of my life working in Prudhoe Bay, Valdez, and area's in between on the Alaska Pipeline.

It's called the Big Picture, and only someone naive would think the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan to save the so called poor souls of those country's from WMD's, dictatorships, and to spread democracy while were at it. It's all about $$$$$.

It actually started with US interest in Europe seeing how Europe is dependent on Russian oil and gas, yet UNOCAL saw an even bigger market with China. Control of oil and gas means control of country's energy sources. China, the Caspian Sea - Georgia - Europe or even gas and oil to India all mean big money.

Bush had a heyday with Americans seeing how they helped to write the book on "Naive and Patriotic". It's like aliens sucked out peoples brains so that they had zero memory of events such as Vietnam, Iran - Contra, Chile, etc...

I'm sure Cheney gets very excited when he sees these maps considering he is raking in millions (or is it billions) of dollars off of this war. And Bush Jr. is laughing all the way to the bank as well. You are so smart you figured it all out. I can't believe they haven't been caught yet.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I'm sure Cheney gets very excited when he sees these maps considering he is raking in millions (or is it billions) of dollars off of this war. And Bush Jr. is laughing all the way to the bank as well. You are so smart you figured it all out. I can't believe they haven't been caught yet.

Read and learn. And no "this is wiki bs" spiel. The sources and references are at the bottom of each link. And don't forget, Halliburton, BP, Exxon, etc... are all wh*res working out of the same wh*re house. Nobody, and I mean nobody makes the world turn like oil company's. Everyone else is a distant second when it comes to influencing foreign policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

Halliburton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_scandal

Plame affair

Edited December 13, 2010 by Why_Me

[웃 910]

Sorry buddy, "the oil companies" as if that is 1 or 2 people, are making enough billions that the recent gulf spill was chump change to BP. They could give 2 sh!ts about Iraqi oil. They (whoever they is) would not risk federal prison time trying to bribe senators when they make enough as it is.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Sorry buddy, "the oil companies" as if that is 1 or 2 people, are making enough billions that the recent gulf spill was chump change to BP. They could give 2 sh!ts about Iraqi oil. They (whoever they is) would not risk federal prison time trying to bribe senators when they make enough as it is.

LOL ?

[alienlovechild 75]

I believe the reason "we" felt the first war was necessary was that kuwait had oil and we didnt want Sadam to be in charge of that much oil, especialy since he had the abilitity to do the same to Saudia Arabia which would then give him way to much control over

(our) oil.

Our excuse for this war was to liberate Kuwaities, but our reason was oil.

More specifically to keep Sadam from controlling it.

Partially true. Besides Kuwati, the entire southern part of the Persian Gulf could be wide open to Iraq and the Saudis and GCC members knew that.

Sadam thumbing his nose at us was annoying to most of us. Bush had the additional incentive that Sadam put the hit out on his dad.

The fact that we attemped to kill Sadam during the first war would be irrelevent

Cheney was chomping at the bit to go in and do what he had advocated during the first war.

The country was already wound up for war and mobilized.

The opportunity to strike was here.

the WMD could have even been what they wanted to see but I lean more towards fabrication. at exactly what level would be more speculation

Another poster who's never heard of Bill Clinton before and hasn't clue what he was doing for 8 years. Was there some collective news blackout outside the U.S. during the 90s? Then again plenty of Americans who don't remember either. Mobilized a la the Guns of August? You're about 100 years off.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Partially true. Besides Kuwati, the entire southern part of the Persian Gulf could be wide open to Iraq and the Saudis and GCC members knew that.

Another poster who's never heard of Bill Clinton before and hasn't clue what he was doing for 8 years. Was there some collective news blackout outside the U.S. during the 90s? Then again plenty of Americans who don't remember either. Mobilized a la the Guns of August? You're about 100 years off.

Sorry, I thought this covered the Clinton years. I wasn't trying to write a book

After the war that we "won", Sadam was thumbing his nose at us,we kept rubbing his nose in the dirt, but it is really anoying if you

are rubbing someones nose in the dirt and they are still laughing at you.

sometime after that Sadam put a hit out on Bush Sr. I believe when he was visiting Saudi Arabia.

fast forward to 911

The no fly zones and the embargoes was us rubbing his nose in the dirt. Him taking an occaisional pot shot at our planes, getting things in spite of the embargo and in general running off at the mouth would be him laughing at us. Other than that my most vivid recollection of the Clinton years would be red berets and smoking cigars the hard way.

I believe the Mobilization reference was legit,

Yes I've read the guns of August, Since those countries bordered each other it was sort of a race to see who could mobilize first and

then once they were mobilized it would be best to strike before the others had mobilized.

Getting all the men and supplies together to fight the war in Iraq took months, not days. The army national guard, and the reserves had already been called up, Anyone in Afganistan had to go 1500 miles to get to Iraq, Anyone in the states had to go 8000 miles.

Having troops running around in afganistan and functioning as units even if they wernt fighting anyone was preparing them for Iraq,

If they waited another year a lot of them would have been gone and the training waisted. The supply lines from the US would be more established and running smoothly.

Not sure what you have against the word mobilize.

[alienlovechild 75]

I believe the Mobilization reference was legit,

Yes I've read the guns of August, Since those countries bordered each other it was sort of a race to see who could mobilize first and

then once they were mobilized it would be best to strike before the others had mobilized.

Getting all the men and supplies together to fight the war in Iraq took months, not days. The army national guard, and the reserves had already been called up, Anyone in Afganistan had to go 1500 miles to get to Iraq, Anyone in the states had to go 8000 miles.

Having troops running around in afganistan and functioning as units even if they wernt fighting anyone was preparing them for Iraq,

If they waited another year a lot of them would have been gone and the training waisted. The supply lines from the US would be more established and running smoothly.

Better but WWI mobilization has nothing to do with Iraq as they weren't going to attack the U.S. and they knew we were coming so no element of surprise and most important of all, the vast majority of the Iraqi army never mobilized. Pretty common to muster troops and then just send them back to their bases and no reason to say it was impossible in 2003 either. Most invasions troops and supplies not from Afghanistan either. Training isn't wasted as troops train in war and peace so that's not correct either.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Better but WWI mobilization has nothing to do with Iraq

I agree %100. Thats why I was so baffled when you brought it up (Guns of August), Off by 100 years? I sure didnt say anything about it in my original post.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Spot on. This is just nitpicking partisan hackery. Jimmy Carter is a great humanitarian and human being. He also happens to be loathed by Right Wingers who jump on every word he says like he's committed treason. They can't see past their partisan hatred of him to recognize and acknowledge his great contributions to this country and the world, which is pretty sad.

Kind of like how the left acted towards Reagan. Difference is Reagan was a successful president.

[웃 910]

United Nations Lifts Iraq Nuclear Weapons Sanctions

UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council has voted to lift sanctions that barred Iraq from acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and long-range missiles.

A resolution adopted Wednesday by the council also lifted sanctions that prohibited the country from pursuing a civilian nuclear program.

With U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden presiding, the council also voted to return control of Iraq's oil and natural gas revenue to the government on June 30 and to terminate all remaining activities of the oil-for-food program, which helped ordinary Iraqis cope with sanctions.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz18CZSNEns

Edited December 15, 2010 by Lord Infamous