High oil prices and a socialist government.
High oil prices and a socialist government.
"The newspapers and interviews BEFORE the war said there could be upwards of 5000-7000 casualties by the end of it. EVERYONE knew there would be, and EVERYONE was thankful that there are so many fewer dead soldiers in modern warfare than at any time in the past. I live not to far from a battlefield where 5 times as many soldiers lost their lives in ONE DAY'S FIGHTING.
So let's knock of the bleeding heart, OMG, PEOPLE DIED IN THE WAR crap."
Dude, an unusually intelligent post you got going there. And if you will remember, THE ONLY PERSON that called it right 8 years ago was Dick Cheney: "A cakewalk". Now that we are safe from saddam's weapons of mass destruction, have been greeted as liberators with open arms and dancing, have neutralized Iran, are enjoying favorable oil pricing, stopped osama bin laden from sending videos every other week, installed pro U.S.A. governments in Iraq and Afganistan, and let loose a pent up tide of democracy that is spreading across the middle east like a grassfire across the Texas plains into Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt- we can finally admit it. It was a well planed and executed war, and the Neo Cons (or Chickenhawks as the socialist pansies call them) were right. A few years from now, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Gonzales, Yoo, and of course Dick Cheney will be honored by the people of Iraq with an invitation to come back for even more dancing in the streets..
ignorant wrote:http://www.icasualties.org/ There have been 4386 US deaths in Iraq to date... Ask their mothers if they miss him..
This photo has been linked out of context so many times it ain't funny.
The very first paragraph of the speech he gave at that time:
Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
Notice that NOWHERE does he say the whole thing is over. Only the initial stage. But of course you gona say he was claiming the war was over.
So let's go to Paragraph 6:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
At least he had the balls to say yes, this is only the first step.
He also had this to say:
"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive. " Works for me.
In an interview, he also gave an honest answer to a question about the War on Terror libbies like to jeer at so much: 'we do not know how long it will go on or if it is 'winnable' in conventional terms'. He found out real quick that 'truthiness' don't go far with libbies. Had he smoothly lied the way WJC could at the drop of a hat he'd have had a lot fewer problems 'cuz that's what libbies want from their Prez: lies and assurances they will be taken care of cradle to grave, the way the O is planning to do health care.
In reply to Jensenman:
Well over 95% of U.S. casualties occurred after that speech given on may 1 2003. The second gulf war is not yet over.
That picture is from the period of time that W was letting the rabidly idealistic, idiotically optimistic, and ultimately utterly incompetent neo cons run his presidency, the war, and our country into the muck. Our military, their family's, us, and people of Iraq have paid a price much much too high because these Idiots (Runmfield, Richard Pearl, Cheney, Wolfowitz,.. all the Neo Con jackassez) absolutely ignored the standing military doctrine that worked so well in the first gulf war "The Powell Doctrine" and went with this half assed lightweight shock and awe crap, ran by the enemy to Baghdad securing nothing along the way and arrived with no plan for the occupation except to get a photo op. As George F Will ask's, "For what?". The drivel Bush delivered on the carrier that day was vapid in the face of the reality since then. Very very much to W's credit, he fired those shiny happy people, told Cheney to STFU, hired and listened to professional military men (Gates, Petrius) who suggested he send a bunch more troops (what a brilliant idea!) which he did. He listened to his new secretary of state (Rice) and let he do her job by protecting her from Cheney who had done nothing but undermine Powell. W pulled the mess out of the ditch in his second term, but his first term, and the maggots he put around him will not be smiled on by history. That picture is the poster for that period of brainless hubris, and always will be. Good luck defending it. I doubt W will ever get the credit he deserves for his second term.
Edit: I thought the Iraq war was a strategic mistake, we were not done in Afghanistan, and still are not. The engagement in that theater was grossly underestimated as well, was and is the war that related to 9-11. The Iraq war was political theology: America's "manifest destiny to democratize the world", a view held by the neo cons, Woodrow Wilson, and hopefully no one else ever again. W deserves credit for having the intestinal fortitude for getting us out of the nosedive his administration put us into, which is very very important. But it should have never happed, we had very little immediate national interest in Iraq other than the containment of the weak regime, and whatever influence we wanted to have on Iraq was best left until we secured and stabilized Afghanistan anyway- a view held by the a "Paleo Cons", whom I agree with on this point. Pakistan was and is a country with much bigger national interest issues. The WMD thing was always sleazy paper thin neo con political spin, what they were after was executing what could be considered the noble notion of spreading of democracy across the middle east and gaining the byproduct influence US installed democracy would have in the region. It was a REALLY BIG PLAY. And, in my view, the whole thing was best left in the think tank it came out of. Liberals are not the only ones that sometimes want to play loose with government power, our lives, and our money.
Of course he won't. No one ever credits the janitor with anything. 
I still think it's hilarious (or it would be if it weren't so serious) how a bunch of the Dems in Congress fell all over each other trying to distance themselves from the war they initially scrambled all over the place to approve. Don't take my word for it; go see what such luminaries as the Clintons had to say back then.
Another damn good reason for term limits.
No, the Second Gulf war isn't over. It probably won't be over in my lifetime; it will drop below the surface, then bubble up under a different name in a few years. It's not even the Second Gulf War. It's a continuance of the unrest and hatred that's been a fact of life around there since Biblical times, just under a different name.
Jensenman wrote: I still think it's hilarious (or it would be if it weren't so serious) how a bunch of the Dems in Congress fell all over each other trying to distance themselves from the war they initially scrambled all over the place to approve. Don't take my word for it; go see what such luminaries as the Clintons had to say back then.
What Clinton had to say? He talked about his Iraqi Liberation Act that he signed into law in 1998 saying basically Saddam needed to be removed from power with any means necessary.
To stand here now and say that the Iraq war was merely the Shrub's way of getting back at Saddam for his daddy or some other Republican maneuvering is forgetting what actually went on even before Bush got into office. From Saddam ignoring 14 UN resolutions, violating the cease fire (remember, the Iraq war is not a second war or an invasion of a peaceful country, but a resuming of the Gulf war due to that violation of the cease fire), as well as Iraq's massing on the Kuwaiti border yet again while we were busy with Afghanistan.
I agree we should have dealt with Afghanistan and Pakistan first, and actually finished with Osama, and not let the media focus on the possibility of nukes (especially considering his chemical warfare stuff was actually the WMDs that he already used).
But again, before going into it, everyone on all sides of the issue knew that there would be at least 5k American casualties and were resigned to that, and glad that modern warfare meant that you didn't lose 5-10k soldiers a DAY anymore. So bringing up how many are dead NOW, especially when it's still under the "accepted" number from the beginning, is petty and well, ignorant.
No, no one wants ANYONE to die in war. But whether we were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or just training in jet fighters during peacetime, military personnel were/are going to die. Just be glad we've managed to reduce the numbers to a trickle in comparison with real combat over the centuries.
ignorant wrote: Yes Really.. They died in service to our country... To defend us from ?? What? What where they defending us from?
If you don't know, you're living up to your user name.
Jensenman wrote: Of course he won't. No one ever credits the janitor with anything.
Now I've got that Junior Brown song in my head. 
Jensenman wrote: Of course he won't. No one ever credits the janitor with anything.
The reasonable debate I paid attention to, which was dead serious in tone, was carried out by informed citizens deeply concerned with their country's governance. If one listens to Brommer or Pelosi sound bites on t.v. at night it all looks stupid. Democrat and Republican politicians run around in front of the media like chickens with their heads cut off all day long every day, insulting their constituents intelligence (one hopes).
Under the diaper commercials, celebrity gossip, and political posing, real work goes on.
This is a story of immense importance that will go un noted by the adrenalineated politics as theology people. In the real world, what China does with it's (grossly manipulated) currency affects everyone on the planet. Our relationship with China is of absolutely paramount national interest. If they let their currency float, we and whole bunch of the world can go back to work.
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/02/china_and_america_sitting_in_a_
Dr. Hess wrote:Strizzo wrote: Even if we were to open up drilling everywhere today, it would likely be 8-12 years before any of that saw the gas pump. ...I lived in Texas for 18 years. It works like this: Empty field. Drill rig pulls in with a bunch of rather tough guys hauling beer cans and smut mags in dirty pickup trucks. Less than six months later (+/-), drill rig leaves and oil trucks start showing up to haul the oil off. How do you get 12 years out of that?
I would also bet that a lot of the 'exploration' has already been done or could be done relatively quickly with a lot more accuracy. News flash: We are not doing things the way they were done 40 years ago.
That's also true with drilling and environmental safety. All the enviroweenies want to remember are the Santa Barbara spills that happened in 1969. They don't want to remember the extinguishing,cleanup and remediation that happened after Gulf War I (retreating Iraqi Army set fire to the Kuwait oil rigs) that was supposed to take years and took, what, weeks? Oh, by the way, done by Americans.
Chris_V wrote:ignorant wrote: Yes Really.. They died in service to our country... To defend us from ?? What? What where they defending us from?If you don't know, you're living up to your user name.
That was harsh, Chris.
Ig knows the facts; he just espouses a "truth" that contradicts documented history.
In reply to Chris_V:
" in comparison with real combat over the centuries."
That is interesting. I had not thought of service in Iraq like that; somehow "not real". What war do you think was the realest?
Jensenman wrote:ignorant wrote:This photo has been linked out of context so many times it ain't funny.
I'll bet that's not the first or last time that that particular "Mission Accomplished" banner has been used. Most units returning from an overseas deployment have a similar recognition, whether they're returning from a Westpac or Med cruise or from combat. They just don't have the Commander-in Chief aboard.
shadetree30 wrote:Jensenman wrote:I'll bet that's not the first or last time that that particular "Mission Accomplished" banner has been used. Most units returning from an overseas deployment have a similar recognition, whether they're returning from a Westpac or Med cruise or from combat. They just don't have the Commander-in Chief aboard.ignorant wrote:This photo has been linked out of context so many times it ain't funny.
The banner stating "Mission Accomplished" was a focal point of controversy and criticism. Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying "It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew."[6] The White House claimed that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship, who did not have the facilities for producing such a banner. Afterwards, the administration and naval sources stated that the banner was the Navy's idea, White House staff members made the banner, and it was hung by the U.S. Navy personnel. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN "We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."[7] According to John Dickerson of Time magazine, the White House later conceded that they actually hung the banner but still insists it had been done at the request of the crew members.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished
Chris_V wrote:ignorant wrote: Yes Really.. They died in service to our country... To defend us from ?? What? What where they defending us from?If you don't know, you're living up to your user name.
from WMD's that weren't found? or a non existant link to Al Qeada? Tell me ohh mighty smarty pants.
oldsaw wrote:Chris_V wrote:That was harsh, Chris. Ig knows the facts; he just espouses a "truth" that contradicts documented history.ignorant wrote: Yes Really.. They died in service to our country... To defend us from ?? What? What where they defending us from?If you don't know, you're living up to your user name.
Really? WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE IRAQ WAR? TELL ME!!!!!!!
cause you know what.. I can't find a good one.
^^^ So Wiki proves me wrong in this case! However, we had a banner on my ship returning to NAVSTA NORVA from the Med in June 1980, "USS SAVANNAH AOR-4 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" May not have been quite that nicely done, however...
Shaun wrote: In reply to Jensenman: Well over 95% of U.S. casualties occurred after that speech given on may 1 2003. The second gulf war is not yet over. That picture is from the period of time that W was letting the rabidly idealistic, idiotically optimistic, and ultimately utterly incompetent neo cons run his presidency, the war, and our country into the muck. Our military, their family's, us, and people of Iraq have paid a price much much too high because these Idiots (Runmfield, Richard Pearl, Cheney, Wolfowitz,.. all the Neo Con jackassez) absolutely ignored the standing military doctrine that worked so well in the first gulf war "The Powell Doctrine" and went with this half assed lightweight shock and awe crap, ran by the enemy to Baghdad securing nothing along the way and arrived with no plan for the occupation except to get a photo op. As George F Will ask's, "For what?". The drivel Bush delivered on the carrier that day was vapid in the face of the reality since then. Very very much to W's credit, he fired those shiny happy people, told Cheney to STFU, hired and listened to professional military men (Gates, Petrius) who suggested he send a bunch more troops (what a brilliant idea!) which he did. He listened to his new secretary of state (Rice) and let he do her job by protecting her from Cheney who had done nothing but undermine Powell. W pulled the mess out of the ditch in his second term, but his first term, and the maggots he put around him will not be smiled on by history. That picture is the poster for that period of brainless hubris, and always will be. Good luck defending it. I doubt W will ever get the credit he deserves for his second term. Edit: I thought the Iraq war was a strategic mistake, we were not done in Afghanistan, and still are not. The engagement in that theater was grossly underestimated as well, was and is the war that related to 9-11. The Iraq war was political theology: America's "manifest destiny to democratize the world", a view held by the neo cons, Woodrow Wilson, and hopefully no one else ever again. W deserves credit for having the intestinal fortitude for getting us out of the nosedive his administration put us into, which is very very important. But it should have never happed, we had very little immediate national interest in Iraq other than the containment of the weak regime, and whatever influence we wanted to have on Iraq was best left until we secured and stabilized Afghanistan anyway- a view held by the a "Paleo Cons", whom I agree with on this point. Pakistan was and is a country with much bigger national interest issues. The WMD thing was always sleazy paper thin neo con political spin, what they were after was executing what could be considered the noble notion of spreading of democracy across the middle east and gaining the byproduct influence US installed democracy would have in the region. It was a REALLY BIG PLAY. And, in my view, the whole thing was best left in the think tank it came out of. Liberals are not the only ones that sometimes want to play loose with government power, our lives, and our money.
I agree, well said....
I fully think the war in Iraq was completely foolish and retarded. I know of 4 seperate soldiers who have never been right since coming back.. whether that means by divorcing their wives or beating them or name your malady they got it. And all for defending our freedom.. Maybe those who are older don't care, but I see many who are my age and were my friends before going over, completely ruined now.
Also to say.. "ZOMG people are going to die in war and get over it." is quiet frankly some of the worst callous talk I have ever heard. To be honest, That is horrible talk. Sure people die in war, but each one has hopes and dreams beyond the war and the fact that they died for effectively nothing is heartbreaking.
ignorant wrote:oldsaw wrote:Really? WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE IRAQ WAR? TELL ME!!!!!!! cause you know what.. I can't find a good one.Chris_V wrote:That was harsh, Chris. Ig knows the facts; he just espouses a "truth" that contradicts documented history.ignorant wrote: Yes Really.. They died in service to our country... To defend us from ?? What? What where they defending us from?If you don't know, you're living up to your user name.
So, what you're saying is that you can't find a reason you agree with.
Good or bad, the decision was made by people who had a lot more intel than yourself. The despicable part is the reversal of support by those who used their "change of heart" for political reasons.
Not unusual for critters within the Beltway, though.
ignorant wrote:Shaun wrote: In reply to Jensenman: Well over 95% of U.S. casualties occurred after that speech given on may 1 2003. The second gulf war is not yet over. That picture is from the period of time that W was letting the rabidly idealistic, idiotically optimistic, and ultimately utterly incompetent neo cons run his presidency, the war, and our country into the muck. Our military, their family's, us, and people of Iraq have paid a price much much too high because these Idiots (Runmfield, Richard Pearl, Cheney, Wolfowitz,.. all the Neo Con jackassez) absolutely ignored the standing military doctrine that worked so well in the first gulf war "The Powell Doctrine" and went with this half assed lightweight shock and awe crap, ran by the enemy to Baghdad securing nothing along the way and arrived with no plan for the occupation except to get a photo op. As George F Will ask's, "For what?". The drivel Bush delivered on the carrier that day was vapid in the face of the reality since then. Very very much to W's credit, he fired those shiny happy people, told Cheney to STFU, hired and listened to professional military men (Gates, Petrius) who suggested he send a bunch more troops (what a brilliant idea!) which he did. He listened to his new secretary of state (Rice) and let he do her job by protecting her from Cheney who had done nothing but undermine Powell. W pulled the mess out of the ditch in his second term, but his first term, and the maggots he put around him will not be smiled on by history. That picture is the poster for that period of brainless hubris, and always will be. Good luck defending it. I doubt W will ever get the credit he deserves for his second term. Edit: I thought the Iraq war was a strategic mistake, we were not done in Afghanistan, and still are not. The engagement in that theater was grossly underestimated as well, was and is the war that related to 9-11. The Iraq war was political theology: America's "manifest destiny to democratize the world", a view held by the neo cons, Woodrow Wilson, and hopefully no one else ever again. W deserves credit for having the intestinal fortitude for getting us out of the nosedive his administration put us into, which is very very important. But it should have never happed, we had very little immediate national interest in Iraq other than the containment of the weak regime, and whatever influence we wanted to have on Iraq was best left until we secured and stabilized Afghanistan anyway- a view held by the a "Paleo Cons", whom I agree with on this point. Pakistan was and is a country with much bigger national interest issues. The WMD thing was always sleazy paper thin neo con political spin, what they were after was executing what could be considered the noble notion of spreading of democracy across the middle east and gaining the byproduct influence US installed democracy would have in the region. It was a REALLY BIG PLAY. And, in my view, the whole thing was best left in the think tank it came out of. Liberals are not the only ones that sometimes want to play loose with government power, our lives, and our money.I agree, well said.... I fully think the war in Iraq was completely foolish and retarded. I know of 4 seperate soldiers who have never been right since coming back.. whether that means by divorcing their wives or beating them or name your malady they got it. And all for defending our freedom.. Maybe those who are older don't care, but I see many who are my age and were my friends before going over, completely ruined now. Also to say.. "ZOMG people are going to die in war and get over it." is quiet frankly some of the worst callous talk I have ever heard. To be honest, That is horrible talk. Sure people die in war, but each one has hopes and dreams beyond the war and the fact that they died for effectively nothing is heartbreaking.
You are gonna hate me for this, but here goes:
People have come back berkeleyed up in the head from combat since the dawn of time. Each war it was called something different; for instance in WWII it was called 'battle fatigue', in Vietnam post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). No one is unchanged by an experience like that, but they are changed in different ways. Not only that, but in no small part it's up to the individual how it turns out.
I have a chopper pilot buddy who did two tours in Vietnam who now owns a helicopter flight service in Columbia. We got completely E36 M3faced one night (he used to get the absolute BEST pot) and he talked about it. He said the things he saw were horrible but you either learned to live with it or you let it destroy you. Most important he said the decision of how to handle it was up to the individual.
My next door neighbor (I think you met him. Wayne, the guy with long salt and pepper hair in a ponytail) has two daughters who have both done tours in Iraq. One of them is doing just fine, she is engaged and they have set a wedding date for July. The other is on long term disability for mental problems which she says are based on her combat experiences. The most telling part is he said they have both been completely different since they were kids and they dealt with their tours basically the same way they have dealt with everything in their lives.
You need to meet Judy, another friend of mine from Columbia. She was raped and beaten in her office one night, she spent three weeks in the hospital. Her reaction? She started a non profit counseling service for other rape victims. No way was she going to let that bring her down. She took what would turn some people into mush and came out the other side stronger.
Yes, people die in wars. Yes, it's terrible. No matter what the war or how stupid you may think its basis, I don't think it's right to say the soldiers who fought it died for nothing. I do think it's an absolutely horrible thing to send men and women to fight and die somewhere then decide to pull out and let things go to pieces, that really cheapens their sacrifice. The best thing we can do in their support is see the mission through to the end.
In reply to Dr. Hess:
Turnaround times would be much faster if the roughnecks could drive their pieckemups to the middle of the gulf of Mexico.
You're also ignoring all of the work that goes on before the guys show up at the site. You have to shhot seismic, have leasing/bidding round, reprocess seismic, work up your prospect, sell it to management, find partner investors if you need them, have someone float a rig out into the gulf, and drill your prospect well.
Then, if you're successful, then you drill a few more prospect wells, then you can send the field to development, who will then try to decide the best way to get the most out of the ground with the fewest wells.
The other issue is that then once you've got wells, you need infrastructure to bring it onshore. So, yes, it can be 8+ years before any significant amount of that oil sees market.
The local scandal rag once again showed its schizophrenia by 1) decrying American involvement in overseas affairs and then 2) almost immediately going gaga over the evils of drilling off the Carolina coast. Not stopping to remember that most of the reason for US overseas involvement in anything is due to the need for oil. Dumbasses.
Just where the hell do they think the oil is going to come from?
oldsaw wrote: the decision was made by people who had a lot more intel than yourself.
That is where it falls apart. I have read far too much from former intelligence community officers, or reporters with intelligence community connections that state that Cheney, Rumfield, Pearl, .. all the neo con jackasses invented, twisted, or used unreliable intel to suit their goal of war in Iraq, now, no matter what. These intelligence professionals were and are not "liberals", they, for the most part are highly patriotic Republican hawks who rightly feared the direction the administration was taking the country. It was so bad Cheney would find authors of individual intelligence briefings that he disagreed with track them down and personally bully them into the changes he wanted to see. Obviously the civilian leadership should not do that to intelligence officers who are sworn to unbiased assessments. It is a massive breach of any notion of good governance.
This is an article from 2003 when people were terrified of Cheney. Even though, the author had no trouble finding intelligence community people willing to talk about their concerns with Cheney's manipulation of intelligence. As these folks retire and continue writing books, Cheney and the neo cons are going to be further exposed as idealougs bent on their vision no matter what the reality.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/60579/page/1
It was a sad chapter in this nations history. The neo cons used 9-11 as the opportunity to launch their preconceived democratization of the middle east program, which was a nice theory, but did not match the national interest, or- based on result, our level of preparedness.
Again, I give W a great deal of credit for firing these guys, moving away from Cheney, hiring Gates, moving back to the "realpolitik" of his Dad (who was an Excellent President, perhaps the best of the modern era) and Nixon, and sending more troops to Iraq, which I fully supported then.
His first term was a disaster, this stuff needs to be acknowledged. As the old saying goes "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it".
Here is a article that goes very easy on the neo cons, but it describes their history and ideology. It was published in the New Republic.
http://www.tnr.com/article/identity-crisis-0?page=0,0
"The New Republic (TNR) is an American magazine of politics and the arts. It is published semimonthly and has a circulation of approximately 50,000. The editor-in-chief is Martin Peretz and the current editor is Franklin Foer. The magazine generally supports liberal social and social democratic economic policies, while otherwise taking a hawkish viewpoint on foreign policy, particularly with regard to Israel"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic
I am very much in favor of the new drilling order. Technology has come a long way in terms of spills, and we need time to build nuclear power plants and continue to develop renewable energy. If we burn all the coal we will scramble the climate to god only knows what state, and the shale and tar sands are in comparison energy, money, and environmentally expensive. Coupled with the recent emissions and mileage standards, and the bringing back to life of the EPA's regulatory authority (Nixon's creation!), it is good and consistent energy and environmental policy. So what it pisses off Greenpeace and makes Glenn Beck act weirder.
If China floats its currency, which the world and the Obama administration are leaning on them to do, we could get a real recovery going and sell some shiz to the Chinese for a change.
Jensenman wrote: The best thing we can do in their support is see the mission through to the end.
I don't disagree with you... I don't disagree with anything you wrote and I support the troops 100%. I just shipped off my old cell phones to http://www.cellphonesforsoldiers.com/ instead of selling them on Ebay. I get upity when people think.. "ZOMG he's a liberal he doesn't support the military"
What I do disagree with is the pretense for the war and anyone who tries to defend that pretense. There is no basis for it... None! Anyone who calls me ignorant on the subject, quite frankly should do some reading. This war was 100% crafted. If you believe otherwise, you really need your head examined.
btw.. noone has still answered my question... Why did we go to war there? (well except for Shaun and I agree with him). Comeone you smart people.. Give me the reasons? Or are they illusive like trailers that are used to make chemical weapons...
You'll need to log in to post.
