Poetic Justice? Former Navy Seal Publicity-Seeking Sniper Chris Kyle Shot Dead

Gatling · 04-02-2013 04:18AM

Our country wasn't under threat of invasion from the Germans

04-02-2013 04:22AM

Gatling wrote: »

Our country wasn't under threat of invasion from the Germans

Pretty sure it would have fallen in a week if they conquered the UK.

Gatling · 04-02-2013 04:26AM

Well on that quote we Irish conquered the known world without firing a shot in anger ,we can travel to any country in the world and greeted with open arms and treated with respect now can you say that

Witcher · 04-02-2013 04:44AM

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the first time I've ever heard about ww2 being romanticized into a save the jews campaign. There was undeniable cause for fighting and that was legitimately defending your country from nazi invasion. Possibly the last war a prominent western power has been involved in where that risk existed?

Read some articles on the war and the changing views on it, I must have read about 20 on WW2 in the past 3 years, look at the attention given to the Wehrmacht's actions after the war meanwhile Allied atrocities were hushed up. There was a clear line drawn at the end of the war in popular history between the angelic Allies and the demonic Axis powers. America wasn't under threat from Nazi invasion in 1942 so why were the men going to fight? It's because as I said at the start..they were told to..those at the top decided Germany was the enemy and young men were sent to bleed in Europe as their fathers had before them, there was a greater danger of Japanese invasion than German, the latter couldn't even get across the English Channel. Well you could argue the Vietnam War was fought to stop an 'invasion' of sorts...fight to stop the global spread of Communism and Soviet influence.

All I'm arguing in the thread is that enlisted men don't decide where, who and how they fight, the Paul Valery quote I posted earlier explains exactly what I mean..the brass choose who and why the next war will be against not the guys who go to fight it. Siegfried Sassoon's poem 'Base Details' displays the divide between those who decide and those who die.

Seaneh · 04-02-2013 04:44AM

Blay wrote: »

I notice the question I posed in that post wasn't answered.

Do you think the US/Uk etc. leaving Saddam alone to rule the country as he liked and then passing the torch to his angelic progeny Uday or Qusay was preferable to the Iraq War? Yes or no..no bleating on about 'illegal war' and other sh1te.

They ****ing put them there, or does it just suit you to ignore that part of history?

The US and Britain gove not a single **** about the "freedom" of Iraqi civilians, that war has nothing to do with "freeing" iraqi's and anyone who actually thinks it is, is a ****ing idiot.

That war was started so that corporations like Haliburton and BAE systems and Lockheedmartin and mercaneries like BlackWater could make billions while raping the Iraqi's of all of their natural resources and replacing one despot (put there by the west) with another despot who will be put there by the west.

The US Funded The Ba'ath Party, just like the funded Mubarak and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and The Taliban and Al ****ing Qeada and countless other depots around the world and countless other shady organisations, and you actually ****ing believe the bull**** being peddled at you that it's about "freedom" or "democracy"?

Mali was a democracy until recently when, dun dun dun, the west funded an Islamic military coup to overthrow the government.

Iran was a democracy until the CIA and MI5 funded the Shah's followers to overthrow Mossadegh's government, which lead to the islamic revolution and the current state of Iran.

Congo was a deomcracy until the US and Belgium paid for a military coup and had Lumumba murdered without trial.

Chile was a deomcracy until The US funded Pinochet's coup which ousted Allende and lead to decades of psychotic rule, all backed by the US and Britain.

So don't give me this **** that Iraqi people are better off now, with their infrastructure destroyed, their cities destroyed and contaminated with depleted uranium and white phosphorus, over a million of them dead needlessly and having lost ownership of their oil, gas and pipelines while foreign companies who have insane amounts of sway in US and UK policy making suck their country dry.

The war in Iraq was ilegal, that is a ****ing fact, and it serves nobody besides the military industrial complex ****ing controls almost every aspect of American politics.

Read a book or something and stop getting your "opinions" from ****ty TV news sources.

Seaneh · 04-02-2013 04:46AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty sure it would have fallen in a week if they conquered the UK.

They had no interest in invading us, we served no threat or purpose to them.

Gatling · 04-02-2013 04:47AM

Conspiracy theories a-z on that post

Seaneh · 04-02-2013 04:50AM

Gatling wrote: »

Conspiracy theories a-z on that post

Historical ****ing facts, buddy.

Witcher · 04-02-2013 04:51AM

Seaneh wrote: »

They ****ing put them there, or does it just suit you to ignore that part of history?

<Snip>

I'm not even engaging with that...try losing the foul language, it doesn't help your argument.

Seaneh · 04-02-2013 04:52AM

Blay wrote: »

I'm not even engaging with that...try losing the abusive language, it doesn't help your argument.

I wasn't making an argument, I was just calling you on your bull****.

Chuck Stone · 04-02-2013 04:53AM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

And if that was a war for oil, explain why most Iraqi oil contracts didn't go US companies

Five of the six major fields .. went to European, Russian and Asian oil companies. It looked as though not much was going to companies from the United States, the country that took the leading role in the war.

The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger already won lucrative drilling subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more in one of the world’s richest markets for companies that drill oil wells. These days, that is not the oil majors..... ...roughly half of the expected $150 billion the international majors will spend in capital outlays at Iraqi oil fields over the next decade will go to drilling subcontractors, most of them American. Rather than scaling back as the U.S. military pulls out, Halliburton is planning to expand.

nytimes.com

And the fact that war put the US in debt to the sum of trillions

The ****wits who pushed for the war thought it was going to cost a few tens of billions.

Witcher · 04-02-2013 05:05AM

Seaneh wrote: »

I wasn't making an argument, I was just calling you on your bull****.

Did I ever claim Saddam didn't enjoy Western support at one time? Did I ever deny the US were hypocrites? Did I say the sole purpose of the war was to bring freedom to the Iraqis? No, so pull your horns in.

I never said the war wasn't about oil, I said that is the cynical view..I didn't say it was the wrong one. I never said it wasn't about gaining a foothold in the ME either. I posed a question of whether decades from now..if the Iraqis and their state are better off will it have been worth it? It wasn't a loaded question..I wasn't saying that it will have been worth it..I was throwing it out there for the floor to debate..that's the point of a forum.

I told the poster I quoted to 'stop bleating on about an illegal war' so he would answer the question straight out with a yes/no, I never said it wasn't an illegal war. Your entire post was putting words in my mouth.

I realise I said;

Blay wrote: »

The aim was to depose Saddam and he was

I obviously should have said 'stated aim' but alas I didn't.

--Kaiser-- · 04-02-2013 10:51AM

Gyalist wrote: »

Kyle's Facebook status after the 2012 elections:

Oh well, then he definitely deserved to be shot

--Kaiser-- · 04-02-2013 10:58AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The ****wits who pushed for the war thought it was going to cost a few tens of billions.

I'm not sure what you meant with your post. Was that an attempt at a refutal of my points? The sentence above is just speculation

donegal_road · 04-02-2013 12:39PM

Blay wrote: »

I notice the question I posed in that post wasn't answered.

Do you think the US/Uk etc. leaving Saddam alone to rule the country as he liked and then passing the torch to his angelic progeny Uday or Qusay was preferable to the Iraq War? Yes or no..no bleating on about 'illegal war' and other sh1te.

yes, I think Saddam should have been left to run Iraq as he liked. As barbaric as he was, it was certainly a better alternative than the US military blowing the place to pieces, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process.
Imprisoning and torturing others in Abu Garab, the US were no better than Saddam in their treatment of Iraqi civilians. But dont take my word for it.. here is an interview with an Iraq war vet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdn3bIfP7fk

suicide_circus · 04-02-2013 01:14PM

LivelineDipso wrote: »

I can't say I am neither surprised or saddened. This guy made an industry of the fact he killed 160 people.

He is typical of the gung-ho, trigger-happy Yank whom Americans adore as a defender of 'Freedum' and then they wonder why their country is essentially a psychiatric outpatient clinc.

Normal veterns tend to not want to talk about their combat experiences. He gloried in it and the attention he sought. His helping PTS troops always seemed like his phony 'good guy' angle. He spent the rest of his time training people to be as psychopathic as he was.

He was a bible nut too. (of course)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/03/sniper-chris-kyle-shot-dead

Have you ever served in an infantry unit, son? Ever served in a forward area? We live in a world with walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? Deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall!!
I'm a fair guy but all this ****ing heat is making me absolutely crazy...

Chuck Stone · 04-02-2013 02:45PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I'm not sure what you meant with your post. Was that an attempt at a refutal of my points?

I was showing that US companies will reap huge sums from the extraction of Iraqi oil and related services. To imagine that oil played no part in the decision to invade Iraq is daft - at the very least it was postulated that the cost of rebuilding Iraq after wrecking the place and its oil infrastructure would be paid for by Iraq's abundance of hydrocarbons. The invasion also insured the privatising of oil extraction.

The sentence above is just speculation

Nope.

MR. RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t say that, Tim. There are estimates out there. It’s important, though, to recognize that we’ve got a different set of circumstances than we’ve had in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan you’ve got a nation without significant resources. In Iraq you’ve got a nation that’s got the second-largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly three million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near future. And that flow of resources, obviously, belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people and that will be one of our major objectives.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm

--Kaiser-- · 04-02-2013 03:08PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I was showing that US companies will reap huge sums from the extraction of Iraqi oil and related services. To imagine that oil played no part in the decision to invade Iraq is daft - at the very least it was postulated that the cost of rebuilding Iraq after wrecking the place and its oil infrastructure would be paid for by Iraq's abundance of hydrocarbons. The invasion also insured the privatising of oil extraction.

Nope.

Well, it was originally referred to as a 'war for oil' which I proved incorrect (because they didn't get much oil from it).

To think that the US waged a 7 year war at the cost of around a trillion dollars to get a smattering a contracts for US companies is far beyond daft

Seaneh · 04-02-2013 03:12PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

To think that the US waged a 7 year war at the cost of around a trillion dollars to get a smattering a contracts for US companies is far beyond daft

To think otherwise is beyond daft when you realise that the official reasons are a crock of **** and how much sway the companies who are gaining have in american politics thank to the lobbing system.

--Kaiser-- · 04-02-2013 03:21PM

Seaneh wrote: »

To think otherwise is beyond daft when you realise that the official reasons are a crock of **** and how much sway the companies who are gaining have in american politics thank to the lobbing system.

<puts on tinfoil hat>Yes, and the guy who owned the twin towers blew them up for insurance money. It's all starting to make sense know

IM0 · 04-02-2013 03:23PM

why is it always the good ones

:mad:

Seaneh · 04-02-2013 03:25PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

<puts on tinfoil hat>Yes, and the guy who owned the twin towers blew them up for insurance money. It's all starting to make sense know

Ah yes, because america just want to bring freedom and democracy to the world. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy theorist.

Cop on.

Seriously, are you that naive?

IM0 · 04-02-2013 03:28PM

governments dont have permanent friends or permanent enemies, but temporary interests

--Kaiser-- · 04-02-2013 03:32PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Ah yes, because america just want to bring freedom and democracy to the world. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy theorist.

Cop on.

Seriously, are you that naive?

The logic is lacking in this one.

Just because I don't believe the US invaded Iraq for financial reasons means I believe the official reasons for the invasion. And, indeed, I never thought it was a bright idea, given that Iraq was one of the most advanced and secular of Arab states (though obviously not perfect) with a government which prevented Shi'ites and Sunnis from bombing the ****e out of each other. I remember a period during the war where 3,000 Iraqis were being killed (mostly by each other) every month

Seaneh · 04-02-2013 03:48PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The logic is lacking in this one.

Just because I don't believe the US invaded Iraq for financial reasons means I believe the official reasons for the invasion. And, indeed, I never thought it was a bright idea, given that Iraq was one of the most advanced and secular of Arab states (though obviously not perfect) with a government which prevented Shi'ites and Sunnis from bombing the ****e out of each other. I remember a period during the war where 3,000 Iraqis were being killed (mostly by each other) every month

So you don't think companies like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin who have extremely powerful sway over american politics, who had former board members and current share holders inside the cabinet of the bush administration, who stood to gain billions and billions of dollars per year from "rebuilding" Iraq and supplying the military had any say in the decision to go to war in Iraq? Or that Dick Chaney who in 1998 was promoting the idea of "restablizing" Afghanistan so that American companies could build pipelines through the desert under a "more friendly" ruler, had any sway in the decision to go to war in Afghanistan?

Pull the other one.

It was ONLY about money.

It's the people who run american screwing over the tax payer (who are paying for all of this) to make record profits for themselves and their friends.

Chuck Stone · 04-02-2013 03:49PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

To think that the US waged a 7 year war at the cost of around a trillion dollars to get a smattering a contracts for US companies is far beyond daft

Iraqi oil was not the only reason but it certainly played its part. There were many reasons.

Do you really believe the US and co went to war because Saddam had WMD?

That was the justification at the time.

04-02-2013 03:56PM

Seaneh wrote: »

So you don't think companies like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin who have extremely powerful sway over american politics, who had former board members and current share holders inside the cabinet of the bush administration, who stood to gain billions and billions of dollars per year from "rebuilding" Iraq and supplying the military had any say in the decision to go to war in Iraq? Or that Dick Chaney who in 1998 was promoting the idea of "restablizing" Afghanistan so that American companies could build pipelines through the desert under a "more friendly" ruler, had any sway in the decision to go to war in Afghanistan?

Pull the other one.

It was ONLY about money.

It's the people who run american screwing over the tax payer (who are paying for all of this) to make record profits for themselves and their friends.

I don't think you can rule out the neocon theory of the "American Century," which was most definitely a driving force behind the invasion. Not so much about money, more about the Americans showing us who's boss.

--Kaiser-- · 04-02-2013 03:59PM

Seaneh wrote: »

So you don't think companies like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin who have extremely powerful sway over american politics, who had former board members and current share holders inside the cabinet of the bush administration, who stood to gain billions and billions of dollars per year from "rebuilding" Iraq and supplying the military had any say in the decision to go to war in Iraq? Or that Dick Chaney who in 1998 was promoting the idea of "restablizing" Afghanistan so that American companies could build pipelines through the desert under a "more friendly" ruler, had any sway in the decision to go to war in Afghanistan?

Pull the other one.

It was ONLY about money.

It's the people who run american screwing over the tax payer (who are paying for all of this) to make record profits for themselves and their friends.

Do you have any facts or figures to back up you claims or is this just wild speculation?

Chuck Stone · 04-02-2013 04:15PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I don't think you can rule out the neocon theory of the "American Century," which was most definitely a driving force behind the invasion.

Absolutely.

Not so much about money, more about the Americans showing us who's boss.

But the new American Century was going to be a windfall for the military industrial complex (and others). War has spoils.

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

independent.co.uk

Iraq sits on some of the biggest proven oil reserves in the world. Those who imagine that oil, and more importantly, the control of it, played no part in the invasion are dupes of the corporate media.

Seaneh · 04-02-2013 04:19PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Do you have any facts or figures to back up you claims or is this just wild speculation?

Ok let's look at Bush's Cabinet starting with VP Chaney who until 2000 was CEO and Chairman of Hallibutron who funnily enough were awarded a $7billion per year contract which only they were allowed to bid for... They also received even more money which, under open-ended cost watch contracts don't have to be declared by the DoD until they end, so you can add another few billion to that figure, they also owned several other smaller companies who were awarded contracts in Iraq, like KBR who were awarded the contract for firefighting services at Iraqi wells and refinaries.

And that's just the start.

Poetic Justice? Former Navy Seal Publicity-Seeking Sniper Chris Kyle Shot Dead

Comments