|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
This Is Some Pretty Fucked Up Shit...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| This Is Some Pretty Fucked Up Shit...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| IF 6 WAS 9 |
This supports an article posted awhile back regarding permanent presence in Iraq... And a possible build up to a war with Iran..
US Wants 58 Bases In Iraq, Shiite Lawmakers Say
McClatchy reports the U.S. is demanding 58 military bases in Iraq as part of a "status of forces" agreement that would allow American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely:
Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.
"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."
The proposed "status of forces" agreement could lead to an uprising in Iraq, according to a leading Iraqi cleric:
A leading Iraqi Shiite cleric said Monday the status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad could lead to an uprising in Iraq.
"It is not to the benefit of the U.S. as a major power to lessen the sovereignty of Iraq. This treaty is humiliating to the Iraqi people, and might cause an uprising against it and those who support it," Grand Ayatollah Mohammad al-Modarresi told the Iranian state-run English-language service, Press TV.
Modarresi said the strategic framework between Iraq and the United States needs a full understanding of the situation in Iraq before negotiations on the arrangement proceed. "It will surely fail if kept as it is," he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/...q_n_106172.html |
|
|
| IF 6 WAS 9 |
Did you want to respond to the thread subject? |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354120,00.html
....... the $5 billion plan has the backing of the Pentagon.....
Planners envision an international village inside the U.S. embassy complex in the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq.
Planners envision the "Tigris Woods Golf and Country Club" in the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq. Planners envision an information kiosk and ATM machine in the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq.
 |
|
|
| BarkonCue |
Quote: Originally posted by IF 6 WAS 9
Did you want to respond to the thread subject? |
:jj: No. |
|
|
| CrackHead_Fan |
I'll respond!
Good. Best news I've heard all week. |
|
|
| BarkonCue |
Quote: Originally posted by IF 6 WAS 9
Did you want to respond to the thread subject? |
Sorry, I put this in the wrong thread. My Bad... ;) |
|
|
| IF 6 WAS 9 |
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
I'll respond!
Good. Best news I've heard all week. |
Explain how this is good news. Specifically. |
|
|
| JTProcess |
they hate us for our freedom!
Not because we're moving into their country and throwing up mc donalds and starbucks... |
|
|
| CrackHead_Fan |
Quote: Originally posted by IF 6 WAS 9
Explain how this is good news. Specifically. |
Because by maintaining permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, we will be actively engaged in promoting/protecting democracy in the Middle East and preventing a power vacuum in the area. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Because by maintaining permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, we will be actively engaged in promoting/protecting democracy in the Middle East and preventing a power vacuum in the area. |
That's not why we went there. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
It isn't? |
wow.
feigned ignorance.
that tactic never gets old.
*yawn* :rolleyes: |
|
|
| CrackHead_Fan |
Actually, the definition of "feigned ignorance" is saying "That's not why we went there."
Or are you just that naive?
Allow me to save us all a little time. Your next response will be something like "Well that's not the reason the administration gave us for going to war."
And my response will be, we went into Iraq for a host of reasons (all of which Saddam Hussein provided us). But the goal of establishing a stable democracy in the region is the one that will eventually be applauded by history. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Actually, the definition of "feigned ignorance" is saying "That's not why we went there."
Or are you just that naive? |
Are you really stupid enough to believe that if Bush had gone to congress with....what did you say, exactly?
oh, yeah:
"Because by maintaining permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, we will be actively engaged in promoting/protecting democracy in the Middle East and preventing a power vacuum in the area."
If Bush had gone to congress with this, what are the chances he would have gotten the go-ahead?
Even with a group of republican ass-suckers, he still would not get his war. They're ass-suckers, but they're not suicidal, and they're not that fucking stupid. |
|
|
| CrackHead_Fan |
| Like I said. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
applauded by history. |
That's the funniest fucking thing you've ever said. :D |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Actually, the definition of "feigned ignorance" is saying "That's not why we went there."
Or are you just that naive?
Allow me to save us all a little time. Your next response will be something like "Well that's not the reason the administration gave us for going to war."
And my response will be, we went into Iraq for a host of reasons (all of which Saddam Hussein provided us). But the goal of establishing a stable democracy in the region is the one that will eventually be applauded by history. |
Btw- the one that you're hoping will be "applauded by history" is the only one left that hasn't yet been proven to be a lie.
Good luck with that. |
|
|
| CrackHead_Fan |
| Ugh. How tiresome is the "We never should have invaded Iraq" whine? Do yourself (and us) a favor and leave politics to those who are willing to actually DO something, even if it isn't popular, because it is the best thing to do in the long run. Permanent bases in Iraq, while evil and incomprehensible to you, are exactly what needs to happen. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Ugh. How tiresome is the "We never should have invaded Iraq" whine? Do yourself (and us) a favor and leave politics to those who are willing to actually DO something, even if it isn't popular, because it is the best thing to do in the long run. Permanent bases in Iraq, while evil and incomprehensible to you, are exactly what needs to happen. |
Hey, everybody, it's republiman!!!
Seeing into the future, and also into alternate realities, it's republiman!!!
Able to lie through his teeth even in the face of mountains of contrary evidence, it's republiman!!!
Able to leap to conclusions that normal human beings wouldn't dream of, it's republiman!!
Able to ignore thousands and thousands of real deaths and injuries while obsessing over the imaginary ones in his head, it's republiman!!! |
|
|
| jigzaw |
Read my lips: no new nation-building. That's fer Libruhls.
 |
|
|
| CrackHead_Fan |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
Hey, everybody, it's republiman!!!
Seeing into the future, and also into alternate realities, it's republiman!!!
Able to lie through his teeth even in the face of mountains of contrary evidence, it's republiman!!!
Able to leap to conclusions that normal human beings wouldn't dream of, it's republiman!!
Able to ignore thousands and thousands of real deaths and injuries while obsessing over the imaginary ones in his head, it's republiman!!! |
 |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
|
Now you are quoting Lenny Bruce? I guess he was a staunce conservative seeing how his First Amenment rights were denied when he performed! |
|
|
| CrackHead_Fan |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Now you are quoting Lenny Bruce? I guess he was a staunce conservative seeing how his First Amenment rights were denied when he performed! |
Yeah. Why not? I thought it was a poignant comment on liberal hypocrisy and it's right on the mark, especially in this forum. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Yeah. Why not? I thought it was a poignant comment on liberal hypocrisy and it's right on the mark, especially in this forum. |
It wasn't liberals who prosecuted him. Now what is your point? |
|
|
| spankysxxx |
| I wonder how much this is going to cost each U.S. citizen in tax dollars? |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by spankysxxx
I wonder how much this is going to cost each U.S. citizen in tax dollars? |
One thing is for sure - it's costing a hell of a lot more than we were told it would.
Another lie in a long series of them. |
|
|
| fastfingersfunk |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
One thing is for sure - it's costing a hell of a lot more than we were told it would.
Another lie in a long series of them. |
they never gave a hard number, they said more likely more than 60 billion, which was the 1991 cost. that's all. another false accusation by you. unless you can show me what number the white house office of management and budget gave to you.
in fact the white house office of management and budget said "It is impossible to know what any military campaign would ultimately cost. The only cost estimate we know of in this arena is the Persian Gulf War, and that was a $60 billion event." |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
they never gave a hard number, they said more likely more than 60 billion, which was the 1991 cost. that's all. another false accusation by you. unless you can show me what number the white house office of management and budget gave to you.
in fact the white house office of management and budget said "It is impossible to know what any military campaign would ultimately cost. The only cost estimate we know of in this arena is the Persian Gulf War, and that was a $60 billion event." |
In 2002, White House economic advisor, Lawrence B. Lindsey said that the war in Iraq would probably cost as much as $200 billion.
He was then fired.
That was about the time they released the $60 billion bullshit you just posted.
The cost of it so far is about $550 billion and counting.
Oopsy!!! |
|
|
| fastfingersfunk |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
In 2002, White House economic advisor, Lawrence B. Lindsey said that the war in Iraq would probably cost as much as $200 billion.
He was then fired.
That was about the time they released the $60 billion bullshit you just posted.
The cost of it so far is about $550 billion and counting.
Oopsy!!! |
"probably cost as much as $200 billion."
OK, so where is the lie that you accused them of ("Another lie in a long series of them")?
let me break it down. PROBABLY means "most likely" and AS MUCH AS means "this much or more". WHERE IS THE LIE?
and btw, $60 billion was what 1991 cost, they said it would be at least as much as that since that's all they had to go on. nobody ever said that's how much it would cost.
no nevermind. they lied. they knew it was going to cost $500 billion, they had their crystal ball out and it said $500 billion and then they told us it would ONLY cost $200 billion. case closed. LMFAO.
|
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
"probably cost as much as $200 billion."
White House economic advisor's number - not mine.
OK, so where is the lie that you accused them of ("Another lie in a long series of them")?
let me break it down. PROBABLY means "most likely" and AS MUCH AS means "this much or more". WHERE IS THE LIE?
They fired him and released the 60 billion dollar bullshit you just posted. Am I not typing in english, or something?
and btw, $60 billion was what 1991 cost, they said it would be at least as much as that since that's all they had to go on.
Except for the figure from thier economic advisor.
nobody ever said that's how much it would cost.
Paul Wolfowitz said it would probably be a lot less, actually - I believe he said it would pay for itself - that means "free", for all of you conservatives out there.
|
|
|
|
| fastfingersfunk |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
"probably cost as much as $200 billion."
White House economic advisor's number - not mine.
STILL DON'T SEE A LIE.
OK, so where is the lie that you accused them of ("Another lie in a long series of them")?
let me break it down. PROBABLY means "most likely" and AS MUCH AS means "this much or more". WHERE IS THE LIE?
They fired him and released the 60 billion dollar bullshit you just posted. Am I not typing in english, or something?
BUT WHERE IS THE LIE ABOUT HOW MUCH THE WAR WOULD COST? I SEE ONLY ESTIMATES.
and btw, $60 billion was what 1991 cost, they said it would be at least as much as that since that's all they had to go on.
Except for the figure from thier economic advisor.
BUT WHERE IS THE LIE?
nobody ever said that's how much it would cost.
Paul Wolfowitz said it would probably be a lot less, actually - I believe he said it would pay for itself - that means "free", for all of you conservatives out there.
|
an estimate is not a lie. you can be wrong, but it's not a lie. a lie is more like "we will stop the war if it the cost goes over 200 billion". THAT'S A LIE.
btw, wolfowitz said that "oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war". he never said the war would pay for itself or anything like it. |
|
|
| fastfingersfunk |
"Congressional Democrats estimated the cost of a military attack against Iraq around $93 billion."
LIARS!!! lmao. |
|
|
| acefree |
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
an estimate is not a lie. you can be wrong, but it's not a lie. a lie is more like "we will stop the war if it the cost goes over 200 billion". THAT'S A LIE. |
an estimate can be used to mislead.
if u get 20 estimates, and 19 of them say one trillion, and the other estimate says 80 billion, and u only present the 80 billion one to congress and pretend the other 19 dont exist, thats misleading.
u are purposely steering people to make a false conclusion, a conclusion u want them to reach.
they did the same thing with the intelligence estimates also. sure they presented facts, buts its the facts they did not present that made it misleading.
the most effective propoganda is done with true facts. |
|
|
| fastfingersfunk |
Quote: Originally posted by acefree
an estimate can be used to mislead.
if u get 20 estimates, and 19 of them say one trillion, and the other estimate says 80 billion, and u only present the 80 billion one to congress and pretend the other 19 dont exist, thats misleading.
u are purposely steering people to make a false conclusion, a conclusion u want them to reach.
they did the same thing with the intelligence estimates also. sure they presented facts, buts its the facts they did not present that made it misleading.
the most effective propoganda is done with true facts. |
one guy said his estimate was $60-80 billion. another said his was $100-200 billion. they both said that there is no way to know exactly. nothing was misleading, they are estimates and they both said as much. the congressional democrats estimated $93 billion. THEY WERE ALL WRONG. nobody mislead, nobody lied, they gave their opinions. NOBODY put it at over $200 billion because nobody knew the resistence would be as great as it was.
your scenario of 20 estimates doesnt even come into play here because that is suggesting that you know that these people were given multiple estimates by different groups and then gave us the low ones.
i think if the war was done correctly, with the right amount of troops to begin with, then it would not have cost as much (in dollars and lives). so yes im upset at that. but to sit here and say you were lied to (as SaintJimmy did) as if they gave him a solid number and told him that the estimate was the cap, is absurd. because that is simply NOT what happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
