Supportive actions of the events are not machinations planned by it. Stop with the conspiracy theory BS.

PS. You never took Military Science 101, I did. :D

You could have fooled me. I don't even see evidence of a college degree. But I do see you posting your own pictures and labeling them as me. I guess I was supposed to be honored?

TheMercenary. All joking aside, you demonstrate little grasp of military science. Otherwise you would have seen "Mission Accomplished" in 2002 as the complete fiasco and justified only by lies. Curious that I, using principles from Military Science and repeatedly quoting them, accurately described "Mission Accomplished" in 2002 as unjustified. Where were you when that fiasco was made so obvious by basic military doctrine?

Your grasp of military science seem to correspond to a claim by Pres Cheney. Cheney claims to be a great military leader in the image of Patton, Bill Sherman, and Epaminondas. He also advocated a war that violates basic military principles. Did you see reality back in 2002 or did you also have that minimal grasp of basic military doctrine?

Well if Military Science justified an American invasion, then tell us, what is this military doctrine that justified that war in 2002 or today? Do you also, like Cheney, view yourself with that same grasp? If so, then explain the military doctrine that justified an invasion of Iraq. You haven't. Here is your opportunity to prove you learned Military Science 101. Show us how "Mission Accomplished" is justified by those principles of MS.

Meanwhile, posting big word does not mask one glaring fact. TheMercenary never explains why that political agenda advocated by Project for a New American Century, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfovitz, Feith, etc is somehow separate from their effort to create war. As Isikoff and Corn note, "Mission Accomplished" was justified by lies. But the real agenda was (according to these and other founding members of PNAC) about securing "OUR" oil - and other similar objectives. Why the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad? The American intend in Iraq is that clear. We (George Jr) intended to fix Iraq to our liking.

So do you, TheMercenary, have the same "long view" that Cheney also claimed to have? The same "long view" defined by Project for a New American Century? Or do you continue to post only by criticizing? Based upon everything posted by TheMercenary, you have no military science (officer) training other than what is taught to Privates.

Show me. Show us how "Mission Accomplished" is justified by basic military doctrine. TheMercenary never once has.

I think it would be stupid to rule it out. Also, they are attacking us more for the imperialistic part.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

I don't disagree with what you say - I disagree with what you don't say because you're making an asumption that doesn't consider the international situation. Storage connexes aren't shipped exclusively to the U.S. yet many of those are also "occupied".

Nor do I think so either. However, there are a growing number of Americans who seek permanent residence in other countries around the world. There always have been. The reason they don't make their passage to their country of choice aboard "storage connexes" is because it isn't necesssary.

Again, I'm not critisizing what you say, only what you might presume.


And just WHAT desert are you speaking of? If I weren't so lazy I'd look up how many "people risk their lives in the desert every single day of every single year hoping to make it to" Europe "alive". But again, I'm not critizing what you say - just what you might like for us to assume.

The U.S. can't possibly be the "worst place on earth" to reside and I hope that no-one has said that it is. But what I think you're implying is that it might be the "best" place in the world to reside. That is a very unadvisable thing to assume.

But it could be that I'm entirely wrong and you're not implying anything more than what you've stated. In that case I appologize for my intervention.

I am in no way saying that business has not attempted to take advantage of goberment handouts during the gross dumping of money, any business in position to take such advantage would be stupid not to do so, it is called capitalism. But to imply, as tw has so many times, that we invaded because of business interests is patently ridiculous.

Let's compare your years of active service to mine and then see if I have any legitimate insight into the issue. In fact I have a number of college degrees thank you very much.:D

Ummm, no. It is not ridiculous. Cheney's pre-9-11 Iraq oil map is enough to keep it out of ridiculous teritory.

Not proven, perhaps not even likely, but not ridiculous.

We can't rule out the possibility, or even the probability, that some of the key perpetrators didn't have other agendas. That said, I doubt if the war was the result of a business oriented conspiracy.

I have never seen proof of such a map. I think it is ridiculous because most of the critical comments are drilled down to some large conspiracy theory about oil and Cheney hate and Haliburton and KBR and Bush hate. Every deployment that I ever went on, with a 24 notice, had KBR people on the ground in support. The contracts went way back into the 1990's. There was not a single company who did the specialty work that they did to support deployed troops. Not one. They cornered the markets on it and did so long before Bush. But because of Cheney's associations with the parent corp it gave fuel to the conspiracy theorists little minds. Funny how no one really gives a crap about the hundreds of Congressmen and women who have left office and moved right into a business job where they lobby or work for a business they supported and got earmarks for when they were in office. All the political hacks do it.

No they don't just the republicans - duh!:eyebrow:

About the motivation for invading Iraq, have you ever seen a Chinese tug-of-war?
There are four individuals, each pulling individually toward one of the four points of the compass. That is, all four are pulling in different directions. They are connected by a long rope going around all four in a big square. Each person has a chair about 5 feet beyond their reach from the starting point, which they try to reach and sit on.
It often happens that the group as a whole will move under the influence of TWO pullers, and thus move, eg, north-east, even though nobody was pulling north-east.
This is my favorite metaphor for how many political decisions get made. One lobby group wants to have a war but doesn't care where. Someone else wants to pressure Iraq but doesn't want a war. The result is a war against Iraq.
Multiply the complexity by about a hundred and that's about what happens.

Fascinating analogy zengum. I hadn't heard of that way of doing a tug-of-war before.

I saw it on TV once.
The most interesting thing is that when, say, North gets close to the chair, the angles of the pull mean that East and West will be pulling slightly southwards, thus adding a part of their force to South's efforts against North. Things get harder for North and they may be drawn back a little.
Ever see this happen in politics? One faction gets too far ahead and the others unite to pull them back?

Oh good God, all the time. The old 'my enemy's friend is my friend' attitude. Thing is, just like in the analogy, once you've succeeded in altering the direction of pull, that alliance becomes inconvenient and a new one emerges :P

Tw's slant is consistent. It's so consistent it's monomaniac. Monomaniacs have no friends.

He's not a military genius either, in fact he qualifies as something below a sophos moros in that field owing to want of experience. Yet still, he stubbornly believes we should pay attention to his opinion. What a marvel of denial.

We know better than to listen to you, tw. There is that in our experience and personal development that tells us you're blowing smoke.