Chinook helicopter downed in Iraq; at least 13 dead

Better still, set fire to the short yellow one he rides every weekday (of couse, let the driver and all the other kids off first).

 

Michael, what the flying *#*#*#*# is that thing???

 

You have no idea how evil I can be and your still to stupid to watch what you say.

Ok then

 

It's a straw man, in response to Bitchie's whiny post.

 

This is what I'm getting at, Doyle. I don't feel anything like satisfaction and I don't think there's much of anyone 'on the left' who does. I feel helpless and angry and most of all, incredibly sad seeing these things happen every day. When I saw a magazine article simply showing pictures and backgrounds of the first wave of soldiers killed during 'major combat operations' along with where and how they were killed, man, I thought I was just about to cry - dozens of guys and girls my age or (mostly) younger, done. And - of course, this is my POV - they've given up their lives for nothing. It really bothered me to look through all that then, never mind now, months later and many more dead.

Speaking for myself, if the Bush administration's plan all went off perfectly and Iraq was latched down tight and people on both sides weren't getting killed needlessly and Dubya rode 80% approval ratings right through till '08, I'd take that in a heartbeat. This is NOT a political thing, not for me and I'm sure not for most others, either. I honestly wish we could be talking about the Iraqis throwing laying flowers on the tanks rolling through Baghdad and calling us liberators. I wouldn't begrudge Bush that, if that were the case - no one needs to be that inflexible.

It's therefore offensive to me when someone says that 'liberals' (god, I hate pigeonholing) are getting all giddy over American deaths - it's just as wrong as it would be for me to say that a 'conservative' is celebrating if he talks up stories of paroled repeat offenders killing or raping someone, because such stories throw a bad light on 'soft on crime' 'liberal' policies. To use a particularly convoluted analogy.

 

i suppose by the same logic, i could say that you are more upset by message board attacks on W than RPG attacks on our troops

 

Are you really saying that you don't see this as THE primary reason we are in this war? I mean, even if you accept all the other goals as secondary or tertiary, don't you have to admit that we're not even having this conversation without Iraqi (Arabian, in general) oil reserves and their importance to global capitalism?

I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so intentionally obtuse.

 

I gathered that much, but literally what the hell is it? Does it have an extra nipple where its belly button should be or 2 extra belly buttons where its nipples should be? Why is it wearing a skirt? And don't the dreadlocks--Rastafarianism purporting to be about peace and all--kind of conflict with the sword? Who is it going to fight against--who would dare try to provoke this wonderful creation into an act of violence??

 

The "War for Oil" excuse was brough out during the First Gulf War as well. The claim it was oil grab has failed to materialize as the Arabs were allowed to continue to sell their oil to whoever they wished.

The fact that anti-war protestors can't come up with any arguments more logical than the stupid "war for oil" argument shows a lack of grasp of reality for them.

 

Any of you know where those soldiers were going when this happened? Someone told me there is a possibility that they were going on a 20 day leave back to the US.

 

Let me know when you can go back in time and change things. Last time i checked we have two options;leave or stay. And all the blubbering in the world can't change that. Welcome to reality Dorothy.

 

Sucks to be you. From the WaPo archives:

Mark Potts Washington Post Staff Writer
January 23, 1991
Page c10

For oil companies, it is a political and public relations problem of the first magnitude. There is war amid the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. Demonstrators carry picket signs saying "No Blood For Oil." Gasoline prices don't seem to be tumbling as quickly as the price of crude oil. And this week, most of the major petroleum companies will report sharp increases in profit in the just-ended fourth quarter. Yesterday, Fairfax-based Mobil Corp. said its fourth-quarter earnings rose 46 percent from a year ago, to $651 million, on greatly improved profits from both its oil producing and refining and marketing operations. Another oil giant, Amoco Corp., already has announced a 69 percent rise in fourth-quarter profit, to $538 million, while Chevron Corp. has estimated that it earned $700 million in the quarter, compared with a loss a year ago. Overall, industry analysts expect the profit increases among the major oil companies to average 70 percent for the fourth quarter. The seven biggest companies are expected to earn a total of $5.8 billion in the quarter, according to an estimate by First Boston Corp. -- a 145 percent increase from last year.

 

Was the first Gulf War about oil? No it wasn't.

 

You see, the problem with understanding the oil argument for people like you is that you see the world so simplistically that you can't even consider long-term (and long standing) U.S. policy. Even Bush has made it clear in specific language: this region is considered "vital" to U.S. interests. The interests he's talking about are OIL. What do you think he's talking about?

This goes back decades, ever since the world realized how much oil was there in the region. Kissinger once said something to the effect of "Mid East oil is too important to leave it up to the Arabs."

It's amazing to me that anyone even has minor doubts that oil is the overarching reason for why we are in this mess, let alone dismiss it as you do. Ignorance is bliss indeed.

 

CURRENT US Policy states for the nation to reduce it's reliance on energy from overseas.

And how is taking Iraqi oil going to achieve that?

 

Doyle, surely you are not trying to say that oil is about to become inconsequential to the U.S. economy, whether we "reduce" our dependency slightly or not. Pretty flimsy.

Regardless of how many fuel cell cars Ford produces 15 years from now, our economy, and the economies of China, the EU, and South America, are all going to be hugely dependent on oil for the forseeable future. And it's pretty clear to everyone that this future includes the drying up of much of the world's oil wells. Whoever has "influence" (not necessarily direct control) over Iraqi oil in the coming decades is going to have a major geopolitical leg up on the others. The whole neocon project is based on this type of long term economic planning with America as the lone superpower. There's no way we remain the World Kingpin that the neocons envision without major influence over Saudi and Iraqi oil. They know this, and they're pretty open about it if you bother to read their papers. It's amazing you would try to dispute this.

Without this underlyng reason, what else even comes close to explaining why this war happened?

 

Oil prices went up temporarily which helped oil companies, but any "war for oil" argument has to be about longer-term issues. Nobody could suggest that we went to war to help oil companies increase profits for a few quarters.

 

The reality ain't pretty. I can see us taking the "leave" option at some point in the not too distant future.

 

do you even remember why i responded to you in the first place? you claimed that i said we should leave - check your dictionary: reality does not mean the words you put in other people's mouths to justify your catterwalling

 

I wonder what the daily death, wounded and captured rate by us against the enemy?

I don't seem to be able to get these figures anywhere.

 

Right. When Iraq is ready to govern itself.