Who Are These People We Are Fighting For?

[Danno 1,228]

I hope that post was sarcasm. Our leaders are full of sh*t 99% of the time.

Do you doubt Bush really believed(s) the key to peace over there

would be found through democracy?

Obamer on the other hand had yet to commit to a position.... at least not since the campaign trail.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Do you doubt Bush really believed(s) the key to peace over there

would be found through democracy?

Obamer on the other hand had yet to commit to a position.... at least not since the campaign trail.

It's all about oil. Anyways dictatorships seem to work the best over there imo. If no dictatorship, then the Muslim extremist take over and everything gets out of whack. Democracy and the middle east go together like oil and water.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Why_Me

[웃 910]

It's all about oil. Anyways dictatorships seem to work the best over there imo. If no dictatorship, then the Muslim extremist take over and everything gets out of whack. Democracy and the middle east go together like oil and water.

If it is all about oil then how come we are not producing oil here? You saying we will destroy our reputation overseas, kill 10s of thousands of civilians, thousands of our own military, and spend billions to get oil? Is the ROI really that high?

It's like the religion debate. You have to use a little common sense and it will be become crystal clear that we aren't there for oil...We've got nearly 50 billion barrels of oil here:

[mawilson 2,133]

47.5 billion barrels may sound like a lot of oil, but it's really not.

It's barely enough for 6 years of US consumption (21 million barrels per day).

[웃 910]

47.5 billion barrels may sound like a lot of oil, but it's really not.

It's barely enough for 6 years of US consumption (21 million barrels per day).

Are you saying (like Why_Me) that we are killing our own people, killing their people, and spending BILLIONS of tax payer dollars a month, so that Exxon Mobile can turn a profit? We don't even tax them so we aren't getting much of a return on investment if that is the case...Did you see who made $19 billion in profits in 2009, didn't pay a dime in taxes, and made the number 1 spot on the top 10 tax avoiders list?

[mawilson 2,133]

Are you saying (like Why_Me) that we are killing our own people, killing their people, and spending BILLIONS of tax payer dollars a month, so that Exxon Mobile can turn a profit?

Not just Exxon Mobile -- military/defense contractors as well. Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, GE Aircraft Engines, Raytheon, to name a few.

[웃 910]

Not just Exxon Mobile -- military/defense contractors as well. Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, GE Aircraft Engines, Raytheon, to name a few.

So we are spending billions of dollars a month and putting our military at risk so that we can lose trillions/billions but these companies can make profits and not pay taxes on those profits?

Is that the sole reason we are there?

I am pretty sure if we were in 0 wars and had 0 world military presence Boeing STILL would have won that $35 billion dollar contract a month back...

Whether or not we are fighting or at world peace military equipment will be built. I highly doubt we have to look for a war in order for these companies to stay in operations.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so we are spending billions of dollars a month and putting our military at risk so that we can lose trillions/billions but these companies can make profits and not pay taxes on those profits?

Is that the sole reason we are there?

I am pretty sure if we were in 0 wars and had 0 world military presence Boeing STILL would have won that $35 billion dollar contract a month back...

Whether or not we are fighting or at world peace military equipment will be built. I highly doubt we have to look for a war in order for these companies to stay in operations.

Not explicitly, more of a byproduct. Although it likely was explicitly the case in Iraq - given that the Bush administration awarded $5 bn in no bid reconstruction contracts to companies like Halliburton.

[mawilson 2,133]

So we are spending billions of dollars a month and putting our military at risk so that we can lose trillions/billions but these companies can make profits and not pay taxes on those profits?

In a nutshell, yes.

I am pretty sure if we were in 0 wars and had 0 world military presence Boeing STILL would have won that $35 billion dollar contract a month back...

Not really. You can't justify having the largest military in the world and a trillion-dollar military budget when we are not at war and/or when there's no real threat.

So to create a threat, we go around the world pissing people off until they start attacking us, at which point the expense becomes justified.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So we are spending billions of dollars a month and putting our military at risk so that we can lose trillions/billions but these companies can make profits and not pay taxes on those profits?

Is that the sole reason we are there?

I am pretty sure if we were in 0 wars and had 0 world military presence Boeing STILL would have won that $35 billion dollar contract a month back...

Whether or not we are fighting or at world peace military equipment will be built. I highly doubt we have to look for a war in order for these companies to stay in operations.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=303748&view=getnewpost <--- You don't think we are in those country's to promote democracy and world peace do you ? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

[SMR 368]

Yeah, clearly I know that there are no American troops in Azerbaijan or Singapore, hence why I wrote that none of those places have the context of their women and children being pulverized by US airstrikes the way

Afghanistan does. IE, it's very telling that none of those places has erupted in violence and murder, even though they have populations of Muslims who are just as Muslim as afghans are. Pat's laying the blame for it on their Muslim-ness though, and it's a misguided blame. He knows better than that, as evidenced in the previous columns he's written, that I linked to. He's having a senior moment today I guess.

I may be wrong about this, but I seem to remember that there were no US troops or US airstrikes in Afghanistan before 9/11, 2001. Yet the 9/11 attacks were based in Afghanistan. Many of the attackers were Saudi or others, yet I can't think of abuse towards any of those countries.

It's true that there are no American troops in Muslim countries that aren't threatening the US, but you seem to be confusing the chicken and the egg.

[_Simpson_ 250]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan29.html

http://buchanan.org/blog/why-are-they-at-war-with-us-3458

Pat Buchanan knows better than this- he's written so before.

Millions of Muslims in Chad have not rioted or harmed anyone in light of Terry Jones. Neither have tens of thousands of Muslims in Singapore, millions of Muslims in Thailand, or millions of Muslims in Azerbaijan. But then none of those places have the context of 10 years of American airstrikes blowing their kids to smithereens either. Wrong as what's happened in Afghanistan, attributing this outbreak of violence to "because they're Muslim" is ridiculous, and Pat knows it.

What are you suggesting here? That its somewhat excusable?

Why dont you love all people? Why do Muslims get your undivided attention?

[sandinista! 1,816]

I may be wrong about this, but I seem to remember that there were no US troops or US airstrikes in Afghanistan before 9/11, 2001. Yet the 9/11 attacks were based in Afghanistan. Many of the attackers were Saudi or others, yet I can't think of abuse towards any of those countries.

It's true that there are no American troops in Muslim countries that aren't threatening the US, but you seem to be confusing the chicken and the egg.

remember that obl guy? he's said over and over that his motivation is the presence of us troops in saudi arabia. take from that what you will. a lot of planning and meetings among the planners and perpetrators took place in hamburg, germany as well. that doesn't implicate germany in being complicit in what happened, or meaningful in the whole deal. but what i was responding to in the first place is pat buchanan's 180 on the subject. which i am inclined to agree with fishdude's comment here.

"The 9-11 terrorists were over here because we were over there. They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries."

-pat buchanan, from the link i posted

[sandinista! 1,816]

What are you suggesting here? That its somewhat excusable?

Why dont you love all people? Why do Muslims get your undivided attention?

what part of when i said "Wrong as what's happened in Afghanistan" in reference to this horrible outbreak of violence, don't you understand?

[sandinista! 1,816]

It is always a bit surreal to read posts by those who claim most Muslims don't sympathize with Radical Muslims (when they can simultaneously barely admit Radical Muslims exist) parrot the Radical Muslim talking point "it's your fault we act like this."

just as surreal as someone who can call decapitated toddlers after a us airstrike "collateral damage", and tell the remaining afghans "it's your fault we had to drop bombs on your neighborhood and kill your kids".