"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

I am omniscient compared with American retards. Did I not predict the
failure of the Iraq war a few of years back?

Gee Harry, I chastised Chet for his insulting style. Now it's your turn.
Insulting people won't make them see the truth, it will only harden their
opposition. "Retards" is offensive in many dimensions. Why not try taking
the high road? I realize you're the butt of many a joke, but you do tend to
invite them. It makes it hard to agree with you, even when you're right.
You may have noticed such a fall-off if you're paying attention.

Giggle. The world has proved the opposite of your prediction.

OMG! Heybubbing Alert! WHAT!!??? Do *you* think that Iraq was a success?
By what measures? We won two entire world wars in far less time, one
against two enemies at once. Is Al-Qaeda tougher than Tojo and Hitler
combined that it's taking so long with so few victories?

The likelihood is that all the people who helped us as translators and such
in Iraqi will be killed with power drills and hammers once we leave because
we can't even stop their murders with a full military occupation force. Our
mission was to find WMD's and we did not. We failed to accomplish the one
single goal on which the whole disaster was founded upon. That's not a win
in any military sense that I know about.

Not only did we fail in that goal, we've failed in a number of other
dimensions. We wasted ENORMOUS amounts of our tax dollars helping Muslims.
That's an odd thing to do considering what their fanatics did to us on 9/11,
don't you think? Why are we building THEM new dams, power plants and
schools when our own people go without? If that's winning, what does losing
look like?

"The official Commission on Wartime contracting released a comprehensive
report on the ways 200,000 contractors--an unprecedented number--have been
used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and found that tens of billions of dollars
have been wasted. "Criminal behavior and blatant corruption sap dollars from
what could otherwise be successful project outcomes and, more disturbingly,
contribute to a climate in which huge amounts of waste are accepted as the
norm," said this early version"

source: http://mit.edu/humancostiraq/

There's a mountain of evidence that says we haven't changed the lives of
Iraqis for the better. Their access to electricity and clean water has yet
to match the levels available before we invaded. No matter what the claims
of hawks, the average Iraqi was MUCH better off under Saddam. Sectarian
violence was close to non-existent and the country had a functioning
infrastructure which although crippled by sanctions, has yet to be restored.
Colin Powell said it best to Bush: "You break it, you OWN it." And we broke
it, good. Now, we're stuck paying for a broken down pseudo-democratic state
that will likely go back to sectarian warfare once our payments to the
militias stop.

For the official report see:

http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/do...rt2-lowres.pdf

and

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL31339.pdf

Think of how worked up WE got when Saudi Arabian terrorists brought down the
WTC and killed 3,000 people, many of them Americans. We went ballistic and
many Americans remain that way, especially folks like "my Daddy never loved
me so I curse at everyone" Chet aka Trader. They are still revenge-driven
to kill even MORE people than we already have to avenge 9/11.

What stuns me is how so many people are unable to fathom that our killing
100,000 or more (some say way, way more) innocent Iraqis after we invaded
could create 100's of thousands of relatives bent on revenge. We've spent
four trillion dollars pursuing revenge, sending thousand more soldiers than
Americans were killed to their deaths. That's very bad math. What makes
any sane person believe that the Iraqis will just "forgive and forget?" In
the article that Higgs posted, the Iraqi attitude is clear: "You killed my
son and you give me this tree?" Does anyone know an Armenian? They STILL
despise (quite viciously) the Turks for events that occurred nearly 100
years ago. They make Chet look like the original flower child their hatred
is still so intense.

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/young_turks.html

We've done exactly what most Americans (except the defense contractors)
didn't want to do: we've guaranteed the continued existence of terror for
decades to come. We not only failed to quell terrorism, we've nurtured an
entire new generation of people filled with hatred for America for punishing
them for what mostly Saudi Arabians (but no Iraqis) did on 9/11. Heckuva a
job, Bush. The worst part? The big con job that's going on where the party
that pushed for those bankrupting wars wants to throw the blame somewhere
else for our fiscal woes. On teachers. On unions. On students that can't
find jobs. On poor people. I don't think it's going to fly anymore.
People are realizing what party pushed hard for the wars that have emptied
our treasury.

The Republicans *almost* got away with passing the buck, but as they so
often do, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Like Newt, they
pushed too hard, believing a small majority constitutes an absolute mandate.
When it comes time to face a Muslim country that really does have WMD's,
we'll either be too broke or too tired of war to do anything about it. The
sorry tale of the boy who cried wolf. That's why a lot of military and
civilian DoD types are quietly saying that we're worse off, militarily, for
having fought these two wars. Many believe that the big cuts being proposed
are aimed at the forces that fight *credible* enemies that can wage
relentless, devastating war on us. Not just the occasional spectacular
terrorist attack.

China has reached military buildup goals *years* ahead of schedule. Taiwan
is building anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles of their own now that we've
banned the sale of the F16 C/D's. Lots of missiles to counter the new
Chinese aircraft carriers that they have now but DoD thought were ten years
out.

When last this was discussed, someone noted (I think it was you, Heyb) that
we would not be likely to attack a country that has so much US investment in
it. So I started researching and found that's not only not true, the
reverse is true. We have often entered countries we had heavy investments
in to PROTECT those investments. Having factories, plantations, oil wells
or mines in other countries LEADS to conflict, especially when the leaders
of those countries talk of nationalization of foreign investments or leaning
toward trade with our many enemies.

--
Bobby G.