Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSchultz0956

I guess 2000 soldiers isn't a worthy sacrifice to save the millions of people in Iraq.

---

I missed that assinine idea earlier. My answer to that is NO its not! ONE AMERICAN soldier isn't a worthy sacrifice to save millions of Iraqs. If the Iraqi people wanted to be "saved", they should have risen up against Hussein. It is not the US's job or responsibility to save people who are not our allies.

For whatever reason history tells us that iraq or whatever it was called thousands of years ago has been invaded and occupied every thirty or forty years regardless the reasons.the region has always been coveted by turks assyrian babalonians peresians anybody who could raise an army.even the pope raised money to "capture the holyland" a thousand years ago.(the crusades)there was no oil then just dumbasses who wanted power or wealth and didn't care who died as long as they got what they wanted.Even when oil was discovered in the 1920.s the british took over casting the population aside to get at the oil putting in a friendly regime to facilitate them lining their pockets.they eventually get kicked out and with the french germans and the rest of the euro guys and guess who fills the void?yep goood ole U S of A. so you think it ain't about getting rich?it.s always about the money.puppet regimes and all .if you grew up poor as the masses over there and watched the bully boys come to your hood for thousands of years and take everything worth something how wuold you feel? George bush is only doing what comes natural repeating history cause there's oil in them hills and he is an oilman damn the iraqis and the terroists it's all about the money(oil)

Hi,
ScottGem seems to be getting personal. It doesn't matter who I voted for.
The fact is, Americans and others are being killed in Iraq and surrounding countries.
We should either send enough troops to do the job, or get out.
Reasons were not the same for the VietNam war, and comparisons may not be the same, but the fact is, we made a mistake in being there, with tens of thousands of American lives lost.
I agree that sending troops there in the first place was an "ego" thing, on the part of the President of the US, maybe more so than the information he received at the time about WMD's. Evidently, from the latest CNN poll yesterday, the majority of Americans polled believe the President knew their were no WMD's, and "stretched the truth" about them.
As stated in another post, most of the oil and gas used by American does not come from our own country! This, in retrospect, is one of the problems. We rely too much on other countries for a product that is major to Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fredg

Hi,
ScottGem seems to be getting personal. It doesn't matter who I voted for.
The fact is, Americans and others are being killed in Iraq and surrounding countries.
We should either send enough troops to do the job, or get out.
Reasons were not the same for the VietNam war, and comparisons may not be the same, but the fact is, we made a mistake in being there, with tens of thousands of American lives lost.
I agree that sending troops there in the first place was an "ego" thing, on the part of the President of the US, maybe more so than the information he received at the time about WMD's. Evidently, from the latest CNN poll yesterday, the majority of Americans polled believe the President knew their were no WMD's, and "stretched the truth" about them.
As stated in another post, most of the oil and gas used by American does not come from our own country! This, in retrospect, is one of the problems. We rely too much on other countries for a product that is major to Americans.

---

First, I don't agree that I'm getting personal or that who you voted for is irrelevant. You are complaining bitterly about the current administration and you have a good deal of justificiation for it. But if you voted for this current administration (I did not), then it matters that you have now changed your tune.

Second, I agree with you that the Iraqi war was a mistake for many reasons. True the reasons for being there are different from Nam. But there are many similarties in the conduct of the war. I also agree with you that this country has too much dependency on foreign energy sources (not just oil).

But I totally disagree that we should pull out. Maybe it would be a good idea to "send enough troops to do the job", but I'm not sure whether we have the resources to commit. We are stretched preety thin militarily as it is. As much as I am against starting the war in the first place, I strongly believe that since we are now committed we have to see it through.

Scott<>

Life is to important to be thrown away like this

We are not getting any free oil from Iraq. I think we actually should, the US should be getting paid back for all the money we are spending there.
They could perhaps even have funds for our soldiers that die or are seroiusly wounded.

To fight the war and spend millions ( billions?) but yet a very rich nation not be paying for the expense does not make since.

I know the politicians don't want us to look like we are doing war or oil.
We are still paying for the oil just like to all the other nations

The war was first done from some info that was in error but both political parties were given the same bad CIA info, so that was no ones fault, but in general it was done to respond to the terrorist threat and to "get back" at someone for 911.

In fact since it destoyed a lot of oil production, it was bad for the oil companies.

And just referring to the oil profits, they were called in and asked about their 9 percent profits, up from 6 percent.
That is called good business.

I don't see Radio Shack, Walmart or Wendy's being called in about their percentage profits. Our local Wendy's closed because they could not keep a 10 percent profit. If american people think 9 percent profit is too much there are a lot of companies making a large amount more than that.

Well said and very true.

Many years ago I worked in iraq when sadamm hussein was in power.I was totally against america involved in iraq but somehow or other someone had to stop rise/power of dictators in muslim countries and fanaticism,, in iraq at the time I was there RESEARCH was a big thing there in secret laboratorys all around the place be it bi-logical or just agriculture research,.
Besides all the arguments people in the western world do not understand the arabic people , the arabic people in general do not crave or know the meaning of the type of freedom people in the west aspire too,
But who would believe france germany italy britain spain usa japan etconly 50 years ago were in a WORLD WAR as part of some evolution of man,, so how are we in the west able to try and sort out iraq when its not too long since europe was at war and its only very recently television was available in iraq even then it was so censored and full of propaganda it was of no use to anyone but the batthists,, also I wonder about foreign european companys very much involved as well as undercover american corpos in helping saddam and as long as everyone got they were all happy,, remember the BIF BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL FAIR 14 DAYS OF BRILLAINT BUSINESS FOR SO MANY NATIONS,, MIKE FROM IRELAND

Quote:

---

Your Thanksgiving Day editorial was thoughtful and welcome, as I am currently serving in Iraq as part of the state Army National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division. (I try to read your paper every day online from the Internet café here in Baghdad.)
However, your editorial seems to imply that something may be wrong with America remaining "largely free of any calls for rationing or delayed gratification or any other sense of disruption."

I am serving in Iraq so America does not need to again ration, suffer or have a sense of disruption because of our enemies. We are bringing the fight to the enemy before the enemy brings the fight to our soil. America does not need to "sacrifice" because we are at war. America needs to indulge in all the things that makes it such a great country.

I left my family and my prestigious law firm in Colonie so Americans would never again have to suffer or have a sense of disruption, like they did on Sept. 11, 2001. Enjoy your holiday, don't feel bad that I and others are here on the frontlines of freedom when you need to open your pants after stuffing your face with some great home-cooked food.

I love what I am doing, I am proud to be here and I am happy that you are free to indulge yourself.

I also have one more problem with your editorial. You claim, "Another presidential visit would bring what's missing" to service men and women in Iraq. Unless the President is bringing my wife, Kimberly, and my dog, Oslo, on Air Force One with him, let me assure you his visit would not "bring what's missing" for me.

MATHEW B. TULLY

Major, Field Artillery

U.S. Army, Baghdad

[email protected]

---

This is a quote from my local paper. I decided to include this to look at a different view as to why we are there. You can agree or disagree but this is how many soldiers feel. Sorry for the length but I decided to keep everything in as to not have anyone think I cut and pasted to make it look good.

First yea, the 9 or so billion sounds like a lot of money, but look at it in a percentage profit, first the government regulates how they can get the oil, where they can get it, how it is transported and the majority of the cost is in taxes.

So first Walmart made a much higher percentage profit than the oil companies, why not tax them higher, since they are making such high percent profit.

And in general, this was not a forever profit, and they oil companies will need to make profits to invest in more drilling, more refineries and the such.

Many businesses would close if they are restricted to making only 5 or 6 percent profit, if we require the oil companies to make less than 10 percent profit, we should then require all the companies to do the same,

How about the company you work for, restrict them to less than 10 percent profit, and would they be willing to do a lot for things.