U.S. commander warns against Iraq cutoff

[Surfrider]

I work with facts.? You never seem to have many to support your theories.

Could have fooled me.

Me too...........where were those WMD again?

Talk about a strawman argument.

The issue of providing clasified information is much more complicated than you present it.? Let me ask you this, assuming arguendo that you are correct in that the maps prove that they were considering oil as a possible motivation to enter Iraq, were you making your allegations about the motivations for the war prior to the release of the maps?? I am guessing that your theory came before your supposed facts.

First of all it was not classified. He just wasn't giving it up, there is a difference.

The government rarely gives up information it doesn't have to.? Not to say that you are wrong, I don't think it is as clear cut as you are making it out to be.

Second they were looking at Iraq before 9-11, that is a fact.

Sure, we went to war with them in the early 90's.? They continued to violate the cease fire.? Clinton bombed them several times.? Of course we had our eyes on them.? It was a bunch of factors put together, including everyone's belief that he had WMDs, that led to the invasion.

I was dumbfounded to why they would go into Iraq, but I was against it since the claims were without merit and Saddam was co-operating. It was Bush who kicked the inspectors out.

That's a bunch of BS.? Saddam was not cooperating.? He refused to provide evidence of WMD material that was allegedly destroyed and he would not let anyone interview his people outside of the country.? For years, he would kick out inspectors and play the same game that Iran and North Korea has played to buy himself time.? Did it turn out to be a poor decision.? Of course.

Roll your eyes all you want, but I think people like you are extremely irresponsible especially considering that we currently have troops that have to deal the repercussions of the rage.? Do people like you cause all of the rage, no.? Does it contribute?? Yes.? Read all of my posts in this thread.? Don't generalize and misquote me.

 I'll say whatever I want. It has been reported that Iraq has created more terrorists and made us less safe. Coming from the top of the intelligence community. Not one mention was made however that people like me are making our troops less safe. For somebody who pretends to like facts you sure like to forget them real quick.

The evidence is on the TV everyday.? What do you think they believe our motivation was for entering Iraq?? Oddly, it seems to be the same as yours and many other people that share your beliefs.

This is the extent of your support.? You are speculating about what the maps were for.? I could also give you other reasons.? Considering that we have done nothing to take the oil, your argument seems to be competely incorrect.

What to you think they were for ? Condos? Every city was stripped off the map and all that was shown were areas marked off for oil reserves, exploration and refineries. Again, I will repeat myself for the 1000th time: the future oil contracts, not the oil now. Why do you keep making up fake arguments to tear down? I have said for years: future oil and oil contracts.

Again, your only evidence for this is this map.? Considering one of the biggest concerns was that Saddam would blow up the oil wells if an invasion took place, it is not out of this world to have such a map.? Furthermore, if Iraq would ever be able to establish itself as a peaceful prospering nation it would have to have the resources to do so.? Of course, this isn't conclusive evidence for this position, but it at least demonstrates that your position isn't well supported and definately debateable.? Yet, you continue to utter it because it supports your belief - a belief that began during the Florida election - that Bush is evil.? It looks like your predictions were wrong.? The aftermath supports a conclusion contrary to yours, just as the aftermath of the war supports a conclusion contrary to those that believed there were WMDs.? The US is not taken any oil from Iraq.? Yet, you will continue to utter your baseless accusations based on what you contend are intentions for "future oil contracts."?

Keep laughing.? I think it is terrible that people are mislead about our motivations for going into Iraq.? Again, neither me nor you are on the ground dealing with the repurcussions of that.

I will keep laughing at the morons on the side. The group that bashed me all along, that now turned out to be dead wrong about Iraq.
That change their user names so they can now speak out against Bush and claim they never supported him. Too cowardly to admit they changed their mind. Too cowardly to admit that they may have been wrong. Yet no matter what, at all costs will always do their best to try and accuse me of "hurting the troops" or "creating outrage" by using my freedom of speech to point out facts.

I never said you can't say what you are saying.? I am simply saying that it is irresponsible.? For someone that supposedly cares for the troops and wants America to be looked at in a better light, I am surprised you make such accusations that are backed by little support.?

As for the rest of your comments, you always resort to ad hominem attacks once you get backed into a corner.

Maybe if you guys could pull your head out of the sand long enough you may learn something.

From you?

[The Dog]

Berkeley you are pathetic man.  IF you want to say we could be wrong about the reasons for going to war and all that, you're entitled.  But to think for a second that comments like mine and SLC are endangering the troops and contributing to the negative view of America is just such bull shit.  and you know it.  at least you should.  you're more or less telling us to not ask questions, to not second guess the scum bags who got us into this mess to begin with and to just wave a flag, tie a yellow ribbon and be good americans and not say a word against the neo cons and their puppets.  thats about as UN american as you can get.  really pathetic dude.

[Surfrider]

Berkeley you are pathetic man.? IF you want to say we could be wrong about the reasons for going to war and all that, you're entitled.? But to think for a second that comments like mine and SLC are endangering the troops and contributing to the negative view of America is just such bull shit.? and you know it.? at least you should.? you're more or less telling us to not ask questions, to not second guess the scum bags who got us into this mess to begin with and to just wave a flag, tie a yellow ribbon and be good americans and not say a word against the neo cons and their puppets.? thats about as UN american as you can get.? really pathetic dude.

Starting off with an ad hominem.  Good. 

With all due respect Hanna, your response is ridiculous.  I don't know how many times I have to repeat a simple argument before you can understand it.  I am not saying you shouldn't question.  Question and criticize all day long.  I think that's a good thing.  There is one caveat to that; have some basis for doing so.  I agree with the WMD arguments and that the administration has been incompetent in many areas in executing the war.  But I do not buy the arguments you guys are making without facts to support them. 

Are you seriously defending and arguing against my assertion that it is not a good thing to continuously repeat that the United States had ulterior motives for entering the war when those theories are not supported by any meaningful facts?

Are you arguing that arguments such as those coming out of Americans have no effect?  The same motivations you attribute to our leaders are the same motivations that are used by the terrorists.  This is an indisputable fact.  Now if there was a basis for them, by all means utter them all day long.  However, most of the time there is not.  Yet, irresponsibly, you guys continue to utter them.


By all means criticize and ask questions; just have support for your conclusory assertions.  I don't expect you guys to agree with me when doing so would make you look pretty ridiculous.  However, I am yet to see either one of you counter the arguments that I am making.  Instead, you simply attack me, make strawman arguments, misread what I am writing, and put words into my mouth.  That is the first sign that I have struck a nerve and that you guys have no worthy response.

[The Dog]

Sorry dude, the difference between you and me is you need hard facts to make your conclusions - I can read between the lines and draw my own.  If I set a pie out to cool and come back to it later and its not there but my dog has pie shit all over his face, I don't need a video of it to know that hes probably guilty.  Read everything the neo cons were writing/saying before the war.  Look at all the lies they made to cover up the real reasons they wanted to go in in the first place.

I doubt terrorists are reading HTGTH anyways   

Stop trying to be so clever and deconstruct every post and arguement made and just use your head.  THey wanted a war, they wanted oil, they wanted a US presencce in the middle east - they had to sell the war to the world and most of all the American people, they used lies, fear and faulty intelligence to do so.  This is all old news, don't act like its a big shock now.  And that is NOT speculation, there is proof of all the things I said (lies, fear, bad intelligence). Don't ask me to find you a source b/c i'm sure you've read all this when it became news to the rest of us.

[SLCPUNK]

Berkeley you are pathetic man.

Amazingly pathetic actually.

The same people who brought us this war, who supported this war, who asked us to sit down and shut up when it started, turned out to be dead wrong about everything.

On the other hand you have me. The guy who has said the same thing since day one: Going into Iraq is like putting a stick in the hornets nest and that Bush does not understand the makeup of that region.

And what happened in the end?

I was right. Not only was I right, but the NIE released a report saying exactly what I predicted would happen years ago: We created more terrorists and are less safe because of Iraq.

Yet the same group still come back and laugh when I tell them they may want to stop running their mouths for once and actually learn something. All these years the same fools have been telling me to shut up, that I don't support the troops, and (still to this day) that I am endangering the troops. A cowards way to muddy argument and silence dissent.

America just voted, and you guys lost..........for a reason. The reason is that your slogans, yellow ribbons and fake patriotism isn't cutting it anymore. Nobody buys it. People see what is happening in Iraq and it is hard to tell somebody that they are "endangering the troops" when the troops are already coming home in boxs or with their arms blown off.

The only people who endangered our troops are the lying motherfuckers who sent them over there in the first place. Those people on this board who supported that decision; the decision to lie to our country and our servicemen and send them off to die (while Iraqs killed one another and Hallibuton?s stock doubled.) are who I hold responsible. Shame on them (even more so now) to use our servicemen and women as a cheap means to silence an opposing voice. (Ironically it is that voice that has grown from opposition to the majority in this country, and they seem to also forget that.) Is that all our military is good for in their eyes? If you wanted to degrade our military, you have succeeded alright.

The definition of insane: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You guys called me names, told me I hated my country, the troops, supported Saddam, and all sorts of pathetic shit. But in the end I was right, and you guys who followed Bush have egg on your face. But once again, you arrogance overwhelms us all, and it is truly embarrassing to read your posts here.

Maybe you should take a second and actually learn something from this entire experience. Could it possibly be, that the guy you called a traitor, the guy you claimed hated his country, who turned out to be dead on, may actually know what he was talking about? How could that possibly be? Is there something in your brains that actually may click there? Maybe, just once, you should shut the fuck up and listen instead? Instead of droning out the same shit you have been saying for years, even after you are dead wrong, maybe just shut the fuck up and listen for once? Could that really be a possibility here? Instead of this endless loop of stupid you keep spitting out?

And maybe, just maybe be grown up enough to admit your leader, and his propaganda machine used you guys like a bunch of toilets.

[Booker Floyd]

Again, refrain from calling people pathetic, which could lead to another ban on political talk.

To keep from making more Iraq threads, Ill post this in here:

Kissinger: No Military Victory in Iraq

By TARIQ PANJA
The Associated Press
Sunday, November 19, 2006; 7:05 AM

LONDON -- Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.

In a wide ranging interview on British Broadcasting Corp. television, Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors - including Iran - if any progress is to be made in the region.


The week's events from around the world, captured in pictures.

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi Government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he said on the BBC's Sunday AM breakfast show.

But Kissinger warned against a rapid withdrawal of troops, saying it could lead to "disastrous consequences," destabilizing Iraq's neighbors and causing a long-lasting conflict.

"If you withdraw all the forces without any international understanding and without any even partial solution of some of the problems, civil war in Iraq will take on even more violent forms and achieve dimensions that are probably exceeding those that brought us into Yugoslavia with military force," he said.

Iraq's neighbors, especially those with large Shia populations, would be destabilized should their be a quick withdrawal from Iraq, Kissinger said.

"So I think a dramatic collapse of Iraq, whatever we think about how the situation was created, would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region," he said.

Kissinger, whose views have been sought by the Iraqi Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker III, called for an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Iraq's neighbors and regional powers like India and Pakistan to work out a way forward for the region.

He also said that the process would have to include Iran and that the U.S. must enter into dialogue with the country.

Asked if it was time for President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to change course, he responded: "I think we have to redefine the course, but I don't think that the alternative is between military victory, as defined previously, or total withdrawal.

[Surfrider]

Berkeley you are pathetic man.

Amazingly pathetic actually.

As usual, you start out with an ad hominen as well. ?For someone that likes to shove logical fallacies down people's throats, you sure are quick to use them. ?Funny thing is, the entire rest of this post is a classic strawman, ironically the fallacy that you always accuse others of using.? All you can do is attack me and change the subject.? If people can't see that that is all you do, I cannot help them.

The same people who brought us this war, who supported this war, who asked us to sit down and shut up when it started, turned out to be dead wrong about everything.

I am not disputing this point. ?However, it is certainly a strawman.

On the other hand you have me. The guy who has said the same thing since day one: Going into Iraq is like putting a stick in the hornets nest and that Bush does not understand the makeup of that region.

Actually, that is not what you said from day one. ?Again another strawman.

And what happened in the end?

Strawman.

I was right. Not only was I right, but the NIE released a report saying exactly what I predicted would happen years ago: We created more terrorists and are less safe because of Iraq.

I would like to see a post of you predicting this years ago. ?My recollection is that you were against the war, but not for the reasons stated in this post. ?Nevertheless, it is a strawman argument. ?

Yet the same group still come back and laugh when I tell them they may want to stop running their mouths for once and actually learn something. All these years the same fools have been telling me to shut up, that I don't support the troops, and (still to this day) that I am endangering the troops. A cowards way to muddy argument and silence dissent.

You fail to address any of my post. ?Instead you simply try to change direction. ?I don't blame you. ? Again, however, this is simply a strawman argument.

America just voted, and you guys lost..........for a reason.

I wouldn't group me in with "you guys." ?SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSttttttttttttttttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwww ww mmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnn?

The reason is that your slogans, yellow ribbons and fake patriotism isn't cutting it anymore. Nobody buys it. People see what is happening in Iraq and it is hard to tell somebody that they are "endangering the troops" when the troops are already coming home in boxs or with their arms blown off.

And you are such the patriot? ?You are willing to believe and make groundless accusations about the reasons we went to war - reasons that are used by the terrorists as motivation to kill our troops - without any support for them? ?You are such a patriot. ?I would think you would give our country the benefit of the doubt, at least when there is no meaningful evidence to support your viewpoint.

The only people who endangered our troops are the lying motherfuckers who sent them over there in the first place. Those people on this board who supported that decision; the decision to lie to our country and our servicemen and send them off to die (while Iraqs killed one another and Hallibuton?s stock doubled.) are who I hold responsible. Shame on them (even more so now) to use our servicemen and women as a cheap means to silence an opposing voice. (Ironically it is that voice that has grown from opposition to the majority in this country, and they seem to also forget that.) Is that all our military is good for in their eyes? If you wanted to degrade our military, you have succeeded alright.

First, I agree that it was wrong to send kids over there and that those people are responsible. ?However, how does this give you a free reign to make comments and accusations that are going to make things worse? ?If you really cared about them wouldn't you want things to be the best for them when they are over there? ?Certainly you cannot tell me that such baseless comments don't fuel the fire. ?

Please stop justifying your shameful actions by pointing to other shameful actions. ?That is another logical fallacy and makes you look ridiculous.

By the way, this entire argument is merely a strawman as well.

The definition of insane: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You guys called me names, told me I hated my country, the troops, supported Saddam, and all sorts of pathetic shit. But in the end I was right, and you guys who followed Bush have egg on your face. But once again, you arrogance overwhelms us all, and it is truly embarrassing to read your posts here.

I never made any of those comments. ?Again, another strawman. ?At this point I know you will not address the issue at hand.

Maybe you should take a second and actually learn something from this entire experience. Could it possibly be, that the guy you called a traitor, the guy you claimed hated his country, who turned out to be dead on, may actually know what he was talking about? How could that possibly be?

I never called you those things. ?Again, another strawman.



It looks like I have struck a nerve with you SLC. ?I think you are finally realizing that what you do on a daily basis is shameful and irresponsible. ?I say criticize and dissent all you want, but just be responsible in doing so. ?I have clearly demonstrated in about four or five posts that you guys are irresponsible in uttering your arguments about our motivations for the war. ?You fail to address them, but simply use strawmen to change the subject. ?That's fine. ?I know that you won't admit it, but I hope that you have read my posts and realize that what you are doing is irresponsible and that if you truly care about our troops and our country you will stop making baseless allegations. ?

[The Dog]

Jesus H Ca-rist....Berkeley you are the most predicatable poster on HTGTH.  Everytime someone forces you to deal with the reality of your crap out the mouth statements all you do is respond with "thats strawman, thats ad hominen, thats illogical, senator, I do not recall ever saying that". hahah.  And then you close with "I guess I am touching a nerve!!" ooooooh.  you nailed us didn't you? hahah please. just pathetic.  Did you even read what SLC or I have been saying?  Wait, thats a dumb question.  Of course you haven't.

I'll say it one more time then I'm done with this topic.  To even suggest for a second that saying or even suggesting that the true motivations for the war were oil and a US backed democratic state in the middle east is "endangering the lives of our troops" is so over the top you should be embarrassed. Not only are we right in saying so, b/c those were the reasons, but its also soooo retarded to think that terrorists need anymore motivation then the ones they have/had since the invasion of Iraq.  if you think someone sitting in the middle east is reading a GNR board and then deciding to become a suicide bomber you are crazier then they are.

If you don't believe those were the motivations then I ask you to tell us what you think they were.  We know the ones that sold the war to the american people were lies - so enlighten me to what the real ones were.  If you're going to respond with WMDs or terrorists, don't bother, i'll stop reading as soon as I see it - we all know those weren't the reasons and we all know that bush/cheney knew there were none.

[gilld1]

Rummy knew they had wmd at one point because he still had the invoices and shipping verification of their components for them.  Berkley you seem to be in denial of reality.  It was a war based on lies and the only ones who still believe the lies are the deadenders of the Rep party.   

[Surfrider]

Rummy knew they had wmd at one point because he still had the invoices and shipping verification of their components for them.? Berkley you seem to be in denial of reality.? It was a war based on lies and the only ones who still believe the lies are the deadenders of the Rep party.? ?

Saying it was a war based on lies is one thing.  There is actually evidence to support that contention.  To say it was a war based on the administration's quest for oil is something different altogether.  There is no support for this latter position.  The posts in this thread have proved that.  If they had even a scintila of support for that position, they would have put it forward in this thread.  Most of you hate Bush and believe the war was wrong and a mistake.  You are willing to believe whatever theory is in line with those views.

[Surfrider]

Jesus H Ca-rist....Berkeley you are the most predicatable poster on HTGTH.? Everytime someone forces you to deal with the reality of your crap out the mouth statements all you do is respond with "thats strawman, thats ad hominen, thats illogical, senator, I do not recall ever saying that". hahah.?

First of all, your posts are full of logical fallacies that clearly demonstrate the weakness of your position.  Second, I hope you can see the sarcasm and irony of pointing out when such fallacies are used by the person that constantly throws out these terms and believes that he is intellectually superior to the rest of us.  I find it pretty funny actually.

And then you close with "I guess I am touching a nerve!!" ooooooh.? you nailed us didn't you? hahah please. just pathetic.? Did you even read what SLC or I have been saying?? Wait, thats a dumb question.? Of course you haven't.

Your posts are full of some stuff I agree with and some stuff that I do not.  However, most of it is simply off topic and doesn't address the argument that I am making.  I am not following the bait of your guys' attempt to change subjects and argue things that that have no relevance to this particular discussion.

I'll say it one more time then I'm done with this topic.?

I would be too if I were you.  I just hope that you read this thread carefully and are actually thinking about some of the rhetoric that you spew on this board.

To even suggest for a second that saying or even suggesting that the true motivations for the war were oil and a US backed democratic state in the middle east is "endangering the lives of our troops" is so over the top you should be embarrassed.

That is a very misleading and simplistic way of framing my argument.  I think you are smarter than that.  I don't disagree that a motivation for the war was a US backed democratic state in the middle east.  As for the oil, you fail to set forth any proof for that position.   

Not only are we right in saying so, b/c those were the reasons,

Sorry Hanna, but your conclusory suggestion that those were the motivations does not make it so.

but its also soooo retarded to think that terrorists need anymore motivation then the ones they have/had since the invasion of Iraq.?

Of course, the motivations that they attribute to the US for invading Iraq may also heighten the hatred.  Agree?  By the way, you are making the same illogical argument that SLC did.  You are basically justifying your position, not on the facts, but on the argument that they already hate the US, and therefore you can say what ever irresponsible thing you want.

if you think someone sitting in the middle east is reading a GNR board and then deciding to become a suicide bomber you are crazier then they are.

Of course I don't think this is the case.  However, this rhetoric is not limited to you guys and it is not limited to a GNR message board.  SLC always says that those that support Bush and war on this board are making things worse for the troops.  Do those people have an effect from a GNR message board?  When he says that he speaks from a broader perspective.  I think you can muster brain cells to figure that out.

If you don't believe those were the motivations then I ask you to tell us what you think they were.? We know the ones that sold the war to the american people were lies - so enlighten me to what the real ones were.?

Instead of providing support for your theory, you are trying to change the subject and debate my position.  I think it was a series of things: WMDs, creating a pro-american democracy in the middle east, Saddam's support of terrorism, and the many breaches of UN resolutions and seise fire agreements.  The evidence supports these positions.  Were they trigger happy.  Sure.  That doesn't mean that these weren't the real motivations.

If you're going to respond with WMDs or terrorists, don't bother, i'll stop reading as soon as I see it - we all know those weren't the reasons and we all know that bush/cheney knew there were none.

We know that they knew there were none?  Enlighten me.  How exactly do we know that?

[Bud Fox]

Your usual intelligent analysis. Try not to drool on your shoes.

This isn't about oil? Why don't you ask your president why there are no American troops in Pakistan, where Osama is, while there are 150,000 in Iraq, where Osama ain't, and why it has been that way for years now. Fox is certain that it is difficult for you to read these things, and to face up to the fact your president is a bare faced, shameless fucking liar, whose lies led to the deaths of thousands of people. It must be a real drag. Tough shit.

The simplest and most obvious explanation is certainly not the convoluted "9-11 changed everything" bullshit. Here is it quite simply: The neo-cons are widely on record as having desired an invasion of Iraq since the 1990s. 9-11 allowed them to hijack the US military to fulfill their wish. Period.

[gilld1]

I wish that my wife was a naive as the Bush believers.  "Honey I only went to the titty bar because they have a great juke box."  "Yes, there's glitter on me because I was making something special for you."  "That's not lipstick, it's a rash."

Orwell would be very proud of these clowns.