Wrong. The only person here, that's spouting the party line, is you. Except, you are not spouting a Republican or Democrat party line, you're spouting the conspiracy whack job party line. You people like to fart flap your lips about "corporate control" or "New World order" or "the illuminati," or some other entity that allegedly takes our rights away and is controlling things from the background.
You people mistake these misperceptions, and your emotional rants frenzies, as the "truth." You people don't realize that what you think is the "truth" is pure nonsense. You people are gullible. Dale Gribble, of King of the Hill, is a perfect representation of you guys. How the audience sees him is how the population sees you people.
Lots of Iraq Veterans agree with you? BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA! Good one! You're funnier than that guy that came here threatening people with a lawsuit for libel. 
I combat deployed to Iraq with an entire brigade. Every single last soldier that I came across, and that brigade, agreed with me about the Iraq war, as well as the concepts that argued on this thread. Many of them came up with those conclusions as well. There were a handful of soldiers that questioned why we were there; however, after a series of questioning, it turned out that they were really saying that if they were not on the deployment, they would've been home doing one thing or another. Even those soldiers came around to seeing the very concepts that I argued on this thread.
The vast majority of the Iraq war veteran that I've came across, outside of those that have deployed with, have also argued the same concepts that I've argued on this thread. I post in the comments section of a military blog. None of the Iraq war veterans there agree with you, or those alleged Iraq vets that agree with you. The common trend, that you would hear, is very similar to what I argued here. The White House fumbled it, and that we should've stayed there. That conclusion is consistent, even among those who were civilians before who had argued that we should not have gone into Iraq. These guys had subsequently argued that we should've stayed there once we went in until the job was truly done.
Again, the majority of the Iraq war veterans will argue the same concepts that I'm arguing on this thread. IF "many" Iraq Veteran "agree" with you, they are part of the minority that I talk about. I guarantee you that if I were to meet them face-to-face, and ask a series of questions, I'll get their actual positions.
Yes, we had to go into Iraq given the asymmetrical warfare threat that it, under Saddam posed to us. Being there was our business. Being in Vietnam was also our business. In both cases, it was up to Democrats to facilitate the victory that we made possible.
Our failure to invade Iraq would've made Afghanistan bloodier. Our entry into Iraq forced the majority of the terrorists to divert to Iraq. Why is that important? Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires, and rightfully so. Afghanistan's terrain is effective in neutralizing the advantage that our war machine has over there.
Iraq? Flat terrain, perfect for bringing the majority of our war machine to bear in a battle. It was in this terrain that the terrorists brought their main fight to. Thanks to that, we pulverized them in Iraq while the US led coalition stood up the Afghan army in Afghanistan. By the time it became evident that they were not going to achieve their objectives in Iraq, the terrorists started trickling back to Afghanistan. By the time the terrorist momentum in Afghanistan picked up, they were not just fighting a US-led coalition. They were also fighting a fledgling Afghan army.
Considering that your lack of a military experience, and knowledge, painfully shows in your replies, it's evident that you would not see that. It explains why you don't understand, or even see, the concepts that I'm arguing here.
Only a fool, with no understanding of world history, geostrategic and geopolitical realities, would argue that we could just focus on what's happening in the US. If only we would just "stay out" of the rest the world. That's idiotic. If we did that, it would make it easier for the terrorists to bring the fight to us on a larger scale. History is littered with examples of civilizations that "just focused on the Homeland, to hell with the rest the world." That attitude did not bode well for them.
Again, energies and resources that the enemy utilizes for defense are energies and resources they cannot use an offense. By withdrawing to the United States, and just focusing on the United States, we remove that pressure on the enemy. Thus, making it easier for them to go on the offensive and take the fight to us. You don't win a war by adopting a "defense only" stance. That's outright stupid, and that's what you're asking for if you insist that we should disengage with the world.
Every country in the world is going to pursue its interests. Guaranteed, if we were to pull out of the world, another country will step in and do precisely what we are doing. We're simply setting ourselves up, in your scenario, to have other powers meddle in our business. History has proven that over and over again.
The information that I am presenting here is based on my own conclusions, based on my own extensive research on what I'm arguing about, and on my own firsthand experiences. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think. I'm too stubborn for that. These conclusions that I've argued, are based on my own analysis based on the facts that I researched. Other people, in the military, have independently came to very similar conclusions that I've came too.
Again, corporations are not out and about presenting the arguments that I'm arguing here. That's not their job to come up with such arguments. These corporations are competing against each other for increased customer share. That's where the vast majority of their energies and resources are going.
The cold hard reality is that I'm not full of "corporate propaganda." You're full of conspiracy whack job nonsense.
Also, I'm not typing these responses. You, of all people, should know that I'm using speech to text. I even told you which speech to text program I was using a few years ago. I'm using Version 13 of the same program.
Now STFU and be retarded elsewhere.
Originally Posted by herfacechair
HerrGoebbelsChair, you're a propagandist for the Military Industrial Complex. You're what Ike warned us about. Use all the blue and red you want, it's still bullshit. Look behind the curtain, asshole, and learn the truth. Your arguments are lame. You probably copy and past from Wiki like others on here. Nothing new, nothing original, all party line statism. Along with a few ill thought out
ad hominem attacks. You're wasting time, and bandwidth. No one thinks you're smart, you're just a blowhard who thinks the longest post wins the argument. Wrong.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
It might still reek of BS. If he did serve, I have an idea, based on his psychological profile and on his conduct here, how it may have gone. Also, if he has the Waco Kid on ignore, perhaps you could show woomby those puss in boots in the glory hole stalls posts. 
