Surge may be working, says Dem analysts

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Convince me that there wouldn't be horrendous effects going on the people if we weren't there and I could be persuaded I want us out.

Saddam was an evil, you are absolutely right ,but it was your government who kept proping him up and supporting him at alll his horrifying deeds...wasn't it? so if there was an honest concern to rescuer people from tyrant ,you shouldnot have been his suger dady for so many years while he was busy doing evil.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

Saddam was an evil, you are absolutely right ,but it was your government who kept proping him up and supporting him at alll his horrifying deeds...wasn't it? so if there was an honest concern to rescuer people from tyrant ,you shouldnot have been his suger dady for so many years while he was busy doing evil.

Yes, but he was fighting Iran.

So that balanced things out.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

Saddam was an evil, you are absolutely right ,but it was your government who kept proping him up and supporting him at alll his horrifying deeds...wasn't it? so if there was an honest concern to rescuer people from tyrant ,you shouldnot have been his suger dady for so many years while he was busy doing evil.

I didn't necessarily agree with the realpolitik of the day, but it's pretty damned easy to cluck-cluck in hindsight, mindful. It was the best decision our leaders could make in the day, given that both Iran and Iraq were complete disasters.

If you've got it all figured out, go fix your own countries and keep your terrorists out of mine.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not familiar with exactly where Afghanistan and Pakistan get their money, but Osama bin Laden (who took advantage of the former's hospitality pre-9/11, and the latter's ineptitude post-9/11), is funded by Saudi oil money.

i am struggling to figure it out ..if Bin laden was a close ally of president Bush and then due to some hostility he got funded by saudi arabia to attack america ,so WHERE is Iran role in spending oil on terrorism ?

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes, but he was fighting Iran.

So that balanced things out.

oh ,yeah.. so lets forget about all "Democracy" thing.. case closed!

[Tex]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

i am struggling to figure it out ..if Bin laden was a close ally of president Bush and then due to some hostility he got funded by saudi arabia to attack america ,so WHERE is Iran role in spending oil on terrorism ?

I think this is a complete mischaracterization of the Iraq-US relationship, but it's tangential to the discussion.

I didn't say Iran was involved in in 9/11 ... in fact, I explictly said otherwise. But Iran is currently funding terrorism in Iraq, and has assisted in funding terrorism in Lebanon via Syria.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I didn't necessarily agree with the realpolitik of the day, but it's pretty damned easy to cluck-cluck in hindsight, mindful. It was the best decision our leaders could make in the day, given that both Iran and Iraq were complete disasters.

If you've got it all figured out, go fix your own countries and keep your terrorists out of mine.

The best decision would have been encountring the real terrorists and then the whole world would be accompanying you .

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

i am struggling to figure it out ..if Bin laden was a close ally of president Bush and then due to some hostility he got funded by saudi arabia to attack america ,so WHERE is Iran role in spending oil on terrorism ?

Bin Laden was never an ally of the US; that is an urban legen, a myth as it were.

Iran supports Hezbollah, terroist organizations in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. It's most in oil and warfare technology.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not familiar with exactly where Afghanistan and Pakistan get their money, but Osama bin Laden (who took advantage of the former's hospitality pre-9/11, and the latter's ineptitude post-9/11), is funded by Saudi oil money.



The supposed oil bust is a red herring. I worked for Exxon for a brief time, and there's plenty of oil for the forseeable future. Not all of it has been harvested or refined, but it's there.

Nonetheless, you won't get me to argue that more reliance on domestic oil resources is a bad thing. Will you support opening ANWR? The Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf?

Alternative fuels show promise, but until something is as efficient as oil, no amount of research will force change. It has to be economically viable and we can't ignore our defense needs in the meantime. Even were a miracle energy source discovered tomorrow, the transition would be gargantuan, on an order one can barely wrap one's head around.

Moreover, it would not necessarily solve the rest of the world's oil dependency.

In short, while a potential loooong term solution, it does nothing to solve our interim problems, with Iran or with anyone else. Putting your head in the sand will not make foreign terrorists go away.

I would support domestic drilling if we scaled back foreign oil by the same amount of oil we get from domestic sources.

The oil solution will ultimately be consumer driven. Bush should go on the news and offer 500 Billion dollars to the person or company that solves the energy problem. It would be solved quickly. The problem is too few people are working on it because the financial incentive is not strong enough.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think this is a complete mischaracterization of the Iraq-US relationship, but it's tangential to the discussion.

I didn't say Iran was involved in in 9/11 ... in fact, I explictly said otherwise. But Iran is currently funding terrorism in Iraq, and has assisted in funding terrorism in Lebanon via Syria.

how many times your own general commanders have renounced iran arm shipping to iraq saying there is No convincing evidence about that ??
i guess i had the link somewhere ....