Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on January 29, 2004, 09:34:52 AM
-
Saw on the news this morning that a top iraqi official said sadam had an extensive program with a highly sofisticated method of hiding them.
Still looking for a link to the story
I still think they're in syria
-
At this point I dont even care.
Saddam needed to go, and the intelligence community caught a whiff of WMD. Post 9/11 everyone was touchy and didnt want another disaster to happen.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
At this point I dont even care.
Saddam needed to go, and the intelligence community caught a whiff of WMD. Post 9/11 everyone was touchy and didnt want another disaster to happen.
The left cares..its all they got to hang onto for their smear campaigns this fall.
-
Rip, you're starting to . Get a new CD.
-
Sponge Bob is gay.
But he's the bomb diggaty!
-
They had WMD. Excellent. I look forward to this Iraqi official revealing exactly where the stuff is since he has intimate knowledge of the processes used to hide it.
-
what a coincidence ! Just as Mr. Kay announced he believes no WMDs are in Iraq....
Me thinks someone went into defensive mode ;)
-
I care.
I doubt I'd be described as a radical leftie or even a leftie at all for that matter.
I'm sorry, but from my point of view the only possible justification for invading another sovereign country..... even one ruled by a despot like Saddam.... is a true threat to US National Security.
Bush and his administration put forward the Iraqi WMD program/stockpiles as the "true threat" that justified sending US combat troops into Iraq to remove said threat.
I admit I accepted their word and their reasoning (I still do accept the reasoning, but the proof is needed.) and supported it.
However, if it turns out they were wrong, there still has to be accountability.
500+ of this nation's finest have given their lives to remove this "true threat".
If it's not there, the buck stops on the CINC's desk. That simple. He's responsible and accountable for this action. He gets the support and adulation if it proves correct, he gets the blame if it was wrong.
Time will tell and it'll be sooner rather than later.
-
really if there were no weapons of mass destruction. It was just an arbitrary invasion of a soverien nation by a world power. Something that moves the world back a centrury. And the invasion itself is backed off course by weapons of mass destruction.
-
I am suprised some of our old stuff hasn't been planted and found.
Seriously, I think todays world situation is similar to that of the lat 1700's to 1800's. The terrorist are the pirates of the 1800's. We have to deal with them and their fellow travelers in a severe force on force manner. Give them aid and/or comfort, you are on the list.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
At this point I dont even care.
Saddam needed to go, and the intelligence community caught a whiff of WMD. Post 9/11 everyone was touchy and didnt want another disaster to happen.
I'm afraid that you'll have to get rid of a few allies:
Country Dictator Dates
Chile Gen. Augusto Pinochet 1973-1990
Argentina Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla 1976-1981
Indonesia Suharto 1965 coup against left-leaning Sukarno, 1975 support of East Timor genocide, etc.
Guatemala Armas, Fuentes, Montt 1954-
Iran The Shah of Iran
Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s in Paris
Egypt Sadat, Mubarak 1978-today
Iraq Saddam Hussein
Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979
Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout (state.gov says US has supported Paraguayan development since 1942) ($142M between 1962 and 1975) 1954-1989
Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-
Angola Jonas Savimbi/UNITA (didn't actually win his revolution, but killed or displaced millions) 1975-1989
Zaire Mobutu
Saudi Arabia Saud family
Kuwait a monarchy
Morocco
Tunisia
Algeria
Jordan
Panama Noriega was US-supported for years
Haiti Papa Doc, Baby Doc
Dominican Republic Belaguer 1965
Honduras
El Salvador 1980s
Nepal monarchy since 1948
Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro
Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support 1965-67
-
Me thinks words are worthless, show me da money! Maybe the Bush administration is just holding off on actually finding them til just about a month before election to show the lefties how "Dumb" Bush really is!? ;)
Iraq Minister Says Saddam's WMD Carefully Hidden
Thu January 29, 2004 10:17 AM ET
By Anna Mudeva
SOFIA, Bulgaria (Reuters) - Iraqi foreign minister Hoshiyar Zebari said Thursday Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction had been carefully hidden, but he was confident they could be discovered.
"I have every belief that some of these weapons could be found as we move forward," Zebari, an Iraqi Kurd, told a news conference in Sofia. "They have been hidden in certain areas. The system of hiding was very sophisticated."
The United States and Britain cited Iraq's possession of chemical and biological arms as their main reason for invading the country in March and toppling Saddam. But no such weapons have so far come to light despite intensive searches.
Former chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay said Wednesday "we were almost all wrong" about the issue and it was "highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons" in Iraq.
But Zebari, on a visit to Bulgaria, said: "We as Iraqis have seen Saddam Hussein develop, manufacture and use these weapons of mass destruction against us. He hasn't denied that."
Zebari was apparently referring to the use of chemical weapons by Saddam's forces against Iraqi Kurdish villages in the late 1980s.
He reiterated the position of Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council that Saddam, accused of sending thousands of Iraqis to mass graves, should be tried by an Iraqi court.
The former Iraqi president was captured in December near his home town of Tikrit, after evaded U.S. forces for months.
Zebari said Saddam's trial should be fair and transparent because it would be a test for Iraq's new rulers to prove their adherence to the supremacy of law.
Asked to comment on Turkey's fears Iraqi Kurds might seek a breakaway state, Zebari said there were no plans to divide Iraq.
"We have proved over the last nine months that all the Iraqis from the North to the South are committed to the national unity. ... No group, no party has any plans to undermine Iraq's unity or territorial integrity," he said.
President Bush said Wednesday he was also committed to a "territorially intact" Iraq.
The Kurds, who fought alongside U.S. forces to topple Saddam, are one of Iraq's best organized ethnic groups after enjoying U.S-protected autonomy since the 1991 Gulf War. They have presented a plan to the Iraqi Governing Council that grants significant autonomy to the Kurdish region.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Any copying, re-publication or re-distribution of Reuters content or of any content used on this site, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without prior written consent of Reuters.
Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not intended for trading purposes. Reuters, the members of its Group and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
I'm afraid that you'll have to get rid of a few allies:
Country Dictator Dates
Chile Gen. Augusto Pinochet 1973-1990
Argentina Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla 1976-1981
Indonesia Suharto 1965 coup against left-leaning Sukarno, 1975 support of East Timor genocide, etc.
Guatemala Armas, Fuentes, Montt 1954-
Iran The Shah of Iran
Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s in Paris
Egypt Sadat, Mubarak 1978-today
Iraq Saddam Hussein
Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979
Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout (state.gov says US has supported Paraguayan development since 1942) ($142M between 1962 and 1975) 1954-1989
Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-
Angola Jonas Savimbi/UNITA (didn't actually win his revolution, but killed or displaced millions) 1975-1989
Zaire Mobutu
Saudi Arabia Saud family
Kuwait a monarchy
Morocco
Tunisia
Algeria
Jordan
Panama Noriega was US-supported for years
Haiti Papa Doc, Baby Doc
Dominican Republic Belaguer 1965
Honduras
El Salvador 1980s
Nepal monarchy since 1948
Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro
Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support 1965-67
History is an interesting thing is'nt it.
I suppose that YOU being the proud owner of the Vichy govenment puts you right up there with the best,,, eh ?
-
TY rip. Was looking but guess I didnt look hard enough
-
Milo I must object to your use of the term "eh ?"
That is distinctly Canadian and as such is not to be used lightly.
I hereby request that you remove it and replace it with something more to your geographical region.
Thanx.
-
Too funny, Milo.
Time for another lunch, I'm thinking. Next Friday maybe?
-
Originally posted by Ping
Milo I must object to your use of the term "eh ?"
That is distinctly Canadian and as such is not to be used lightly.
I hereby request that you remove it and replace it with something more to your geographical region.
Thanx.
Ok, I will put my best arrogent bastartized French accent on it
"La eh ?"
-
Originally posted by Toad
Too funny, Milo.
Time for another lunch, I'm thinking. Next Friday maybe?
Sure, Rude talked about it last nite. The markets have been screaming but I will try to make it.
-
Can someone fill me in on this "Syrian connection" which keeps getting referred to?
If the missing WMD are in Syria:
(a) How is it that U.S. intelligence didn't see them being moved out across the border?
(b) If they are there, how come no one is kicking in doors in Damascus? Is Assad suddenly a "good" dictator?
-
Thats acceptable, but only because Im not French :)
-
Leading up to the war there was a lot of traffick back and forth between Iraq and Syria.
The lack of weapons in Iraq is causing some to state they were moved into Syria to hide them.
Thats it in a nutshell.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Leading up to the war there was a lot of traffick back and forth between Iraq and Syria.
The lack of weapons in Iraq is causing some to state they were moved into Syria to hide them.
Thats it in a nutshell.
My question to that would be:
We have satellites that can see corn in your poop, even how hot that corn is...why couldn't we see the WMD being transported across the border?"
-
I believe that a decade, give or take a year or two, will have to pass before the overthrow of Saddam can be judged as the truly right thing to do or as a terrible mistake. The short term results seem so transient. It will take years for me to make a definitive call. WMDs? Liberation? Regional and Global transformation towards human rights and self determination? 9/11 vrs Islam vrs Arab religious militant fanatacism?? Saudi Arabia, Hatred of all things western (Christian) for generations? Wtf??
Without those many years having passed my gut instinct tells me removing Hussein was the right thing to do, at the right time.
5 Americans?
500 Americans?
5,000 Americans?
50,000 Americans?
500,000 Americans?
5,000,000 Amercians?
50,000,000 Amercians
When do we want to call it quits?
-
Originally posted by Ping
Leading up to the war there was a lot of traffick back and forth between Iraq and Syria.
The lack of weapons in Iraq is causing some to state they were moved into Syria to hide them.
Thats it in a nutshell.
That still doesn't answer the question. Assuming the traffic was the moving of all the WMD, how come the Marines aren't kicking butt in Syria?
And does this theory also assume that the Israelis are OK with having WMD right next door?
Of course, the lack of WMD in Iraq has many, many explanations.........
-
Yeager:
5 Americans?
500 Americans?
5,000 Americans?
50,000 Americans?
500,000 Americans?
5,000,000 Amercians?
50,000,000 Amercians
When do we want to call it quits?
What do these numbers mean yeager? The number of lives its ok to lose to remove SH?? When do we quit?? Quit what??
-
Hey Im not arguing validity here. Just the story as I understand it.
If you want sources I will look them up.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Hey Im not arguing validity here. Just the story as I understand it.
If you want sources I will look them up.
Thanks for the offer on the sources, but don't worry about it. I just find it a bit far fetched. I remember hearing the "traffic to Syria" story, but since no one kept hammering it home (particularly Dubya), I just chalked it up to uncertain information at the time and nothing that anyone was taking too seriously.
I mean Syria didn't even make the "Axis of Evil" list :D
-
So they managed to hide thousands of liters of chemical weapons and yet saddam hussain was living in a dirt hole in the ground and was found ?
-
I guess I was thinking along two lines:
1) If a thing is worth one life or 5 to defend or accomplish, why is it not worth 50? if its worth 500 why would it not be worth 5000? and on and on....
2) At what point would a person, or a nation, decide to surrender to avoid complete destruction?
-
Nah, ping, I was just reiterating what I said when that story first broke.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I care.
Bush and his administration put forward the Iraqi WMD program/stockpiles as the "true threat" that justified sending US combat troops into Iraq to remove said threat.
However, if it turns out they were wrong, there still has to be accountability.
500+ of this nation's finest have given their lives to remove this "true threat".
If it's not there, the buck stops on the CINC's desk. That simple. He's responsible and accountable for this action. He gets the support and adulation if it proves correct, he gets the blame if it was wrong.
Time will tell and it'll be sooner rather than later.
You've come to the dark side!
Welcome Young Skywalker!
It's not just 500 dead... it's 9,000 wounded and maimed... and 20,000 plus Iraqi's dead military and civilian who had nothing to do with Saddam except they were conscripts in his army.
Nevertheless, the US is now in control of the second largest known oil reserve - I'm sure that has nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq - even though plans for divying up who controls the pumping stations were finished before any plan of Iraqi reconstruction and self rule were thought about!
I do know that the professionals in the Intel Business don't express official opinion about a target unless there is corroberated and cedible "Raw" data to back it up... that would be photos, SIGINT, and/or HUMINT.
Kay's accusations that the intel was faulty is a lie. And he will be proven wrong.... just like so many other "truths" out of the Administration have already been exposed as "untruths".
The Intell from the CIA/NSA/DIA/etc has ALWAYS contradicted the White House's WMD position. This will come out shortly.
The White House Stove piped and groomed the information they wanted Congress to see and the world to believe.
For example... The WMD mobile weapon lab CAD drawings which Powel showed to the UN as "THE" evidence of WMD - those were created at the White House by a White House AIDE! The story has already been debunked... now that they are starting to investigate the sources of the stories and asking why... the truth will come out as to who created them!
Here's a clue for you... They all originated from the White House.
The intell community does a very good job at keeping track of paper - you know reports sent to senior officials detailing what we know and why.
Now why would a senior White House official want to expose and ruin the cover of a CIA operative? You know the wife of former Embassador Wilson - Remember Embassador Wilson who refuted the White House's position on the Niger-Iraq Nuke connection - simply because it was a blatant and patent untruth. Even after the CIA sent a 55+ page memo no less than 4 times to the White House to inform them of this... and expressly told them not to give this story credit in the State of the Union address - yet Bush did any way?
Why would the White House (Americans) intentionally commit a felonly - against US national security interests?
Who knows! But they did. That's why they are being investigated by a special prosecutor.
Oh and there's more... so much more!
The truth will come out.
No worries...
It's not a leftist or liberal thing - or a we hate BUSH thing - like the small brains would think.
Time will tell and it'll be sooner rather than later
It sure will and it has already started.
There are patterns... unmistakeble patterns... if you just pay attention.
Is Bush just stupid and evil... no.
He's just not open about his agenda. No President or government ever is, and in this case... they can't be!
LOL
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
My question to that would be:
We have satellites that can see corn in your poop, even how hot that corn is...why couldn't we see the WMD being transported across the border?"
Shhhh!!!
We can... and we have computer tenchology which can analyze the difference between imagines to draw attention to movement and other activity - oh such as trucks and facilities being built or dismantled.
Shhhh!!
The WMD believers don't know this... they only know that liberals are evil and they hate Bush!
Let them believe stock piles can be buried in the sand with out any one ever knowing about it... or transported to another country... in a war zone... with U2, SR-71, predator, and all other kinds of Intel gathering planes are flying over head.
oh it gets even better... even through Kurdish territory... remember.. where the kurds live... Saddam would have had to drive all this WMD "stuff" through his enemies territory.
Oh I belive Syria has all the WMD now!!! Yeah right!
Just hope Israel doesn't learn this... Syria will be a parking lot if they found out!
-
Originally posted by ygsmilo
History is an interesting thing is'nt it.
I suppose that YOU being the proud owner of the Vichy govenment puts you right up there with the best,,, eh ?
Dear ygsmilo, half of these countries are still sponsored by the US. Some are missing, such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc...
The difference between us and you, is that when we support a dictatorship for our national interest, we don't deny it.
You accused us for the post 1991 Iraq when it was wrong...After all, I don't have any problem with it, 90% of the world opinion was behind us. And the world opinion is more important than the opinion from chicken hawks who didn't even made their military duty, or rednecks watching fauxnews.
-
Just wondering, is the US going to wage war on anybody that could possibly posess some arms that might possibly remotely be used against them?
Saddam was definately trying to develop WMD's, but I guess he never got that far.
But with the evidence for it so far, the US could easily justify a military action anywhere, and anytime.
Wag the dog :D
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
You've come to the dark side!
No, this is what I said pre-invasion. The difference, I think, between you and I is that I gave them the benefit of the doubt from the beginning. I believed them.
But I always said they were going to have to find the WMD they talked about to justify it. There's no change in my position.
Originally posted by Nakhui
It's not just 500 dead... it's 9,000 wounded and maimed
Sources please? I've seen ~3000 wounded but you're stating 3X that figure.
Originally posted by Nakhui
even though plans for divying up who controls the pumping stations were finished before any plan of Iraqi reconstruction
Source for this fact?
Originally posted by Nakhui
the professionals in the Intel Business don't express official opinion about a target
It's been my experience that they don't express "official" opinion at all. They let the civilian politicians in the government do that. Moreover, I KNOW that often times "known" facts are not released in order to protect/conceal the sources/methods of gathering the info.
Originally posted by Nakhui
Kay's accusations that the intel was faulty is a lie
Fact or more opinion? Lie is a pretty big charge. Source?
As for the rest, you're a bit too "black helicopter" for me. Sorry. We'll just have to see if tin foil hats were/are warranted at some later date.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As for the rest, you're a bit too "black helicopter" for me. Sorry. We'll just have to see if tin foil hats were/are warranted at some later date.
LOL - posting sources to this board is pointless. Even when those sources come from the US Government.
You'll read what you want to read and draw the conclusions you want to beleive.
The math to the maimed and wounded include every one who's been wounded and maimed, including non-US since the start of the war.
NOT just US soldiers!
You know it's possible to do statistical modeling on the lies that come out of the White House. LOL
Look at what they said was true and then look at what turned out to be true.
Does any one even wonder what that number would be.
They've said a hell of a lot of crap that's not true.
Someone has actually counted them all... and put the statistics together with original source... so you can verify - if you choose to know the truth.
Do you want the link?... no wait.. it's just another we-hate-bush site - not really, but since it's not pro-bush... it must be anti-Bush -and therefore a liberal OpEd site.
Ok never mind then.
In any case, the facts will be in the Justice department investigation of the CIA operative leak and the ISC report on 9/11, as well as the investigation Kay is calling for.
There's also an investigation going on at GCHQ which will bring more information to light about this entire fiasco.
Once those become open source - you'll have all the proof you need. :aok
-
Lets see some numbers of how many iraqis died under sadam. Would the number be greater or lower since the invasion?
-
That makes roughly 1000 per month.
Hmm, somewhat humble compared to Saddam's score...?
-
Satellites can be avoided as I'm sure many already know. Chess games have been played for years against satellite recon by many nations.
If this weren't the case then many top secret bases around the world wouldn't be so top secret anymore. Adjusting movements based on a satellites orbit can be done. Hiding planes, equipment and personel movements all fall under this.
We may be able to read the numbers off a dime from a satellite as some may think but timing is everything.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I care.
I doubt I'd be described as a radical leftie or even a leftie at all for that matter.
I'm sorry, but from my point of view the only possible justification for invading another sovereign country..... even one ruled by a despot like Saddam.... is a true threat to US National Security.
Bush and his administration put forward the Iraqi WMD program/stockpiles as the "true threat" that justified sending US combat troops into Iraq to remove said threat.
I admit I accepted their word and their reasoning (I still do accept the reasoning, but the proof is needed.) and supported it.
However, if it turns out they were wrong, there still has to be accountability.
500+ of this nation's finest have given their lives to remove this "true threat".
If it's not there, the buck stops on the CINC's desk. That simple. He's responsible and accountable for this action. He gets the support and adulation if it proves correct, he gets the blame if it was wrong.
Time will tell and it'll be sooner rather than later.
Well said. This should not be a partisian issue. BOTH sides should want to know the truth.
If you don't want to know the truth, you've got your priorities severely messed up.
yowser
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Once those become open source - you'll have all the proof you need.
But until then we have to just accept your unsupported claims?
rolleyesthingie
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I do know that in the 10 months after the invasion between 8059 and 9896 civilians have been killed, and 625 Coalition servicemen.
Source please? Is it the IBC site?
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
You've come to the dark side!
Welcome Young Skywalker!
It's not just 500 dead... it's 9,000 wounded and maimed... and 20,000 plus Iraqi's dead military and civilian who had nothing to do with Saddam except they were conscripts in his army.
Nevertheless, the US is now in control of the second largest known oil reserve - I'm sure that has nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq - even though plans for divying up who controls the pumping stations were finished before any plan of Iraqi reconstruction and self rule were thought about!
I do know that the professionals in the Intel Business don't express official opinion about a target unless there is corroberated and cedible "Raw" data to back it up... that would be photos, SIGINT, and/or HUMINT.
Kay's accusations that the intel was faulty is a lie. And he will be proven wrong.... just like so many other "truths" out of the Administration have already been exposed as "untruths".
The Intell from the CIA/NSA/DIA/etc has ALWAYS contradicted the White House's WMD position. This will come out shortly.
The White House Stove piped and groomed the information they wanted Congress to see and the world to believe.
For example... The WMD mobile weapon lab CAD drawings which Powel showed to the UN as "THE" evidence of WMD - those were created at the White House by a White House AIDE! The story has already been debunked... now that they are starting to investigate the sources of the stories and asking why... the truth will come out as to who created them!
Here's a clue for you... They all originated from the White House.
The intell community does a very good job at keeping track of paper - you know reports sent to senior officials detailing what we know and why.
Now why would a senior White House official want to expose and ruin the cover of a CIA operative? You know the wife of former Embassador Wilson - Remember Embassador Wilson who refuted the White House's position on the Niger-Iraq Nuke connection - simply because it was a blatant and patent untruth. Even after the CIA sent a 55+ page memo no less than 4 times to the White House to inform them of this... and expressly told them not to give this story credit in the State of the Union address - yet Bush did any way?
Why would the White House (Americans) intentionally commit a felonly - against US national security interests?
Who knows! But they did. That's why they are being investigated by a special prosecutor.
Oh and there's more... so much more!
The truth will come out.
No worries...
It's not a leftist or liberal thing - or a we hate BUSH thing - like the small brains would think.
Time will tell and it'll be sooner rather than later
It sure will and it has already started.
There are patterns... unmistakeble patterns... if you just pay attention.
Is Bush just stupid and evil... no.
He's just not open about his agenda. No President or government ever is, and in this case... they can't be!
LOL
ya got it all figured out ..eh bud:cool:
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
I'm afraid that you'll have to get rid of a few allies:
Country Dictator Dates
Chile Gen. Augusto Pinochet 1973-1990
Argentina Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla 1976-1981
Indonesia Suharto 1965 coup against left-leaning Sukarno, 1975 support of East Timor genocide, etc.
Guatemala Armas, Fuentes, Montt 1954-
Iran The Shah of Iran
Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s in Paris
Egypt Sadat, Mubarak 1978-today
Iraq Saddam Hussein
Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979
Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout (state.gov says US has supported Paraguayan development since 1942) ($142M between 1962 and 1975) 1954-1989
Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-
Angola Jonas Savimbi/UNITA (didn't actually win his revolution, but killed or displaced millions) 1975-1989
Zaire Mobutu
Saudi Arabia Saud family
Kuwait a monarchy
Morocco
Tunisia
Algeria
Jordan
Panama Noriega was US-supported for years
Haiti Papa Doc, Baby Doc
Dominican Republic Belaguer 1965
Honduras
El Salvador 1980s
Nepal monarchy since 1948
Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro
Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support 1965-67
Welcome to the United States of Hypocrisy the best foreign policy money can buy.
-
Syria was brought on side by the British in the last couple of years. I think there have been genuine moves to slowly build friendly relations between the West and the country.
BTW, British and Australian SAS were covering the Western roads out of Iraq which lead to Syria, ostensibly to catch fleeing Iraqi hierarchy after invasion, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they didn't have some presence prior to the conflict.
The whole "well they moved it to Syria" argument just sounds desperate.
-
Or it could have just been a move to setup reasons for another invasion.
-
They are in Syria. Most intelligence agencies even know where they are. Its just not that easy to get them without sending the entire region into a gigantic conflict.
Nizar Najoef, a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq’s WMD are kept. The storage places are:
1. Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.
2. The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian airforce camp. Vital parts of Iraq’s WMD are stored there.
3. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of the city Homs.
Najoef writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein’s Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad’s cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.
-
So you take journalists seriously when it suits... where's the news?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So you take journalists seriously when it suits... where's the news?
That journalist is only one of many sources putting the WMDs in Syria. But, like I said...this is not news... Everyone knows where the Iraqi WMD's are. They've been there since early Feb 03, before the war in other words.
-
Alright, why isn't US already invading Syria if its so sure?
Seems like US intelligence is lagging behind the press :rofl
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Alright, why isn't US already invading Syria if its so sure?
Gee I wonder why...
Anyway, wait until after the 04-elections.
-
Everyone knows where the Iraqi WMD's are. They've been there since early Feb 03, before the war in other words.
Ah i see, everyone knew BEFORE the war that the WMD´s was in Syria and not in Iraq?
So what was the reason for the Invasion of Iraq again?
Cheeezus what an friggin joke! this is getting silly.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Saw on the news this morning that a top iraqi official said sadam had an extensive program with a highly sofisticated method of hiding them.
Still looking for a link to the story
I still think they're in syria
(http://www.blottertest.com/ah/Iwanttobelieve.gif)
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Ah i see, everyone knew BEFORE the war that the WMD´s was in Syria and not in Iraq?
[/b]
Nope.
So what was the reason for the Invasion of Iraq again?
Rid the world of Saddam (you DO remember him...right? The insane terrorist supporting genocidal dictator) and his WMDs.
-
out Inteligency agency say, that WMD has been chopped and everybody hide a small piece at home
you will reconize them, coz its hidden in pork meal in every home in iraq.
-
Originally posted by maslo
out Inteligency agency say, that WMD has been chopped and everybody hide small piece of it
you will reconize them, coz its hidden in pork meal in every home in iraq.
Yeah, thats about what Id expect from an old communist block intelligence agency...
-
ooohh yeah our BIS simply rock
anyway last week some journalist reported, that US did employ some hardcore nazi after WW2
few vicims survived and confirmed his Identity
That guy ordered to annihilate few villages. Of course he assist as well.
After war he used to work for CIA, now he live in Berlin
viva eemeerrika, viva justice, viva freedom
-
Originally posted by maslo
viva eemeerrika, viva justice, viva freedom
viva irrelevant sidetracks to the current topic...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Rid the world of Saddam (you DO remember him...right? The insane terrorist supporting genocidal dictator) and his WMDs.
you probably exchanged SH and Bush didnt you ?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
viva irrelevant sidetracks to the current topic...
ohh sorry i forgot that US didnt invade to iraq because of terrorists but because of invisible WMD ..
-
Originally posted by maslo
ohh sorry i forgot that US didnt invade to iraq because of terrorists but because of invisible WMD ..
And even if this was the topic, how would ww2 nazis living in Berlin be relevant to that discussion?
-
Originally posted by maslo
you probably exchanged SH and Bush didnt you ?
Nope, you are just a victim of the anti-US propaganda.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what was the reason for the Invasion of Iraq again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rid the world of Saddam (you DO remember him...right?
Only problem Hort, is that Bush used the WMD card to convince the Congress to authorize sustained military action against Iraq. Without the WMD, it is unlikely that the Congress would have voted to get rid of Saddam just because he was a bad man...there are a lot of baddies out there and it is just a matter of practicality that the US can't take them all.
Without the WMD, Bush may be guilty of misleading the Congress, which is a felony in this country, especially if testimony from the intel community indicates that Bush did not use reasonable caution when interpreting the evidence (such as the yellow cake comments in the State of the Union) or if the Administration pressured the US intel community to come to pre-determined conclusions.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Only problem Hort, is that Bush used the WMD card to convince the Congress to authorize sustained military action against Iraq. Without the WMD, it is unlikely that the Congress would have voted to get rid of Saddam just because he was a bad man...there are a lot of baddies out there and it is just a matter of practicality that the US can't take them all.
Without the WMD, Bush may be guilty of misleading the Congress, which is a felony in this country, especially if testimony from the intel community indicates that Bush did not use reasonable caution when interpreting the evidence (such as the yellow cake comments in the State of the Union) or if the Administration pressured the US intel community to come to pre-determined conclusions.
For it to be a felony, you'd still have to show intent. If Bush KNEW that there were no WMD's in Iraq, AND this information was proven false, then and only then would he be guilty of willfully missleading congress.
However, I think you will be hard pressed to make such a case because
a) there are/were WMD's in Iraq,
b) the best US intel at the time said that there were WMDs in Iraq at the time, and
c) good luck proving that the only reason congress authorized war against Iraq was WMD
-
there are/were WMD's in Iraq
You can't lump 'are' and 'were' together. We knew there were WMD in Iraq in the past, the question was whether there was any remaining to justify an invasion. At the moment, the answer is no.
-
We all know the Bush family deeply hates Saddam and we all should also know it's always someone elses fault when something isn't true and they were misleading the president.
yawn... getting old & repeative, when does the people learn. :rolleyes:
So boringly naive already.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You can't lump 'are' and 'were' together. We knew there were WMD in Iraq in the past, the question was whether there was any remaining to justify an invasion.
[/b]
The are/were was referring to at the time of the speech to congress. There are WMDs in Iraq now, there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the speech...better?
At the moment, the answer is no.
No, at the moment, you have no idea whatsoever what the answer is. You like to pretend that you do though...because it fits your agenda.
-
Have they found WMD which satisfies the Bush administrations own criteria? Nope. At the moment, and until it is found, the invasion is unjustified... better?
-
Hort .. may be you should not watch sci-fi movies so often
and clean up your glasses at least once a year please
:p
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Have they found WMD which satisfies the Bush administrations own criteria? Nope. At the moment, and until it is found, the invasion is unjustified... better?
Not really... It should read something like this:
"In my opinion the invasion is unjustified because they have not found the kind of evidence for WMD's that I was expecting"
-
Originally posted by Toad
I care.
I doubt I'd be described as a radical leftie or even a leftie at all for that matter.
I'm sorry, but from my point of view the only possible justification for invading another sovereign country..... even one ruled by a despot like Saddam.... is a true threat to US National Security.
Bush and his administration put forward the Iraqi WMD program/stockpiles as the "true threat" that justified sending US combat troops into Iraq to remove said threat.
I admit I accepted their word and their reasoning (I still do accept the reasoning, but the proof is needed.) and supported it.
However, if it turns out they were wrong, there still has to be accountability.
500+ of this nation's finest have given their lives to remove this "true threat".
If it's not there, the buck stops on the CINC's desk. That simple. He's responsible and accountable for this action. He gets the support and adulation if it proves correct, he gets the blame if it was wrong.
Time will tell and it'll be sooner rather than later.
never thought I'd say this....well said Toad:eek:
only 1 thing though....it was considered an 'IMMINENT THREAT'....not a TRUE THREAT
If it was so 'IMMINENT' logic says you would of found them much much sooner.
-
In which case, Hort, you ought to be saying:
'In my opinion the invasion is justified because there were WMD's [sic] in Iraq just prior to the invasion but these have not yet been found as they are now in Syria'
rather than:
'However, I think you will be hard pressed to make such a case because
a) there are/were WMD's in Iraq'
-
may be SH sent them to Syria on those meteorogical ballons ... :p
Do you remember when Mr. Powell showed world SH`s mobile laboratories ? :D :D :D
Sure im just poor vicim of commie antiUS propaganda :rofl
-
Originally posted by Toad
But until then we have to just accept your unsupported claims?
rolleyesthingie
You dont' have to take my word for anything.
There's plenty of open source information to back up what I say.
But selective reading and tunnel vision won't get you there.
The fact that the CIA sent several reports to the White House about Niger/Iraq has been well documented by governement sources and these sources are available to you. The fact that Bush ignored their recommendation that it was bogus intel is also well documented. Their excuse was to find someone to blame.... now on to other distractions. yet... there's a pattern.
The pattern of intell stove piping and latching on to anything that will justify the Bush Administrations point of view is obvious if you do the math.
Match up what the White House has said and what has been found to be irrefutablely true or false.
Do the math - literally.... Number of True statements and Number of False statements - then follow the patern.
Senior White House officials leaking Wilson's wife's name and breaking the law - Do you believe that happened or not?
Why would an adminsitration with high moral values commit an obvious felony against another American?
As for the Stove Piping of intelligence, do a google you'll find plenty of information. The pattern is there - it's not black helicopter tin hat conspiracy theory... that's nice simplistically thinking.. but that's not what's going on.
It's an agenda, which is well established and well planned.
it's not evil, it's not good... it's just "the" agenda.
It's a matter of which sources you want to believe.
Or just wait until an "official" governement report does all the work comes out and says it.... and then everyone can be reprogrammed with the "new think."
-
You zany euros! You need to get your own righteous|illegal toppling of another country.
-
lol lance could you translate it at least to british english ?
anyway we do not represent euros...
we represent lobotomized HC euro commies :D
you should read more carefully
-
May have already been posted but here's an interesting take:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61949-2004Jan29.html
Scientists were bluffing Hussein. Hussein was bluffing the world. The Iraqis were all bluffing each other. Special Republican Guard commanders had no WMDs, but they told investigators that they were sure other guard units did. It was this internal disinformation that the whole outside world missed.
Congress needs to find out why, with all our resources, we had not a clue that this was going on. But Kay makes clear that President Bush was relying on what the intelligence agencies were telling him. Kay contradicts the reckless Democratic charges that Bush cooked the books. "All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on WMD," says Kay. "Everyone believed that [Iraq] had WMD."
That includes the Clinton administration. Kay told The Post he had found evidence that Hussein had quietly destroyed some biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s -- but never reported it to the United Nations. Which was why President Bill Clinton in 1998 declared with great alarm and great confidence that Hussein had huge stockpiles of biological and chemical arms -- "and some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
You dont' have to take my word for anything.
There's plenty of open source information to back up what I say.
Ah, so you intend for us to go search the internet for proof of your accusations/suspicions/conspiracy statements?
Too tough to post a few links that support your position?
-
Lance said:
You zany euros! You need to get your own righteous|illegal toppling of another country.
Oh Lance!
That's like so 19th Century, man!
Ravs
-
LOL what a BS .... that sentense EVERYONE BELIVED THAT THEY HAD WMD
LOL they did run out of excuse .... LOL
Everyone said that inspectors need more time to check it out ... dont forget that SH accepted inspectors... he were cooperating and now we can read that all did realy belive in WMD LOL LOL
edit .. and ofcourse its all fault of goverment before us
man they are as good as our commies :rofl
-
Another point to consider is the actual combat being encountered is sharpening the overall skill of US commanders and soldiers.
Not to downplay the loss of life and property.......
I always have thought that if you are to have an effective and capable military then you need to kick some bellybutton from time to time.
Hussein certainly deserved it. Many others do as well.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How does a roadside bomb, or sniper fire improve the combat skill of your soldiers and commanders? And btw. they're not any better dealing with the situation now than ten months ago if you go by the death toll.
Any combat experience, even if it is not the traditional large scale pitched battle, should in theory improve a soldier's combat skill, at least in the sense of adapting the the situation and learning how to deal with it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
"All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on WMD," says Kay. "Everyone believed that [Iraq] had WMD."
Read that statement once again carefully, and notice how it's phrased.
He doesn't say he talked to them all. He doesn't even categorize which types of analysts he's talked with.
Perhaps he didn't talk to the onces directly involved in the analysis of the intelligence. Especially the key analysts involved in analyzing the Iraqi WMD program, who were by their own admission before the ISC interviewed by officials from the White House several times. And those White House officials repeatedly tried to persuade them to change their opinions about the intelligence they were analyzing.
You're read news paper articles claiming - no evidence was found that the White House pressured analysts. What's the sources of those stories?
Want the proof? It will be in the ISC report. It's not done yet. It takes time because...
Well...
There are consequences for speaking out against the White House. As the leak of Ambassador Wilson's Wife shows - had she been a handler, people would be dead.
Who ever leaked that information has no regard to US law, US lives or US national security interests, and that person works directly for the President and is still working for the President.
Oddly enough in this time of "terror", the President isn't taking dire measures (like he is with "enemy combatant") to root this renigade out - I'm assuming he/she is a renigade because certainly the President did not authorize their action.
Too tough to post a few links that support your position?
I've said a lot. Specifically, which aspect of my position do you want to know?
The Body Count someone else has provided a link.
What strikes me about your previous comment about 500+ dead... was that just like how most Americans think - your comment was only referening to American soldiers dead.
No mention of any one else's dead, wounded and maimed.
Not even American wounded and maimed. A significant omission.
Were the wounded and other dead even a thought in your mind?Are they even a consideration in any ones calculation of this war as one tries to determine if it's a good/bad/justified war?
It's interesting how "those" numbers are conspicuously absent from the American media.
If they were a daily and prominent figure in everyones mind, I suspect peoples attitude toward this war would be different.
I'm not saying this is a conspiracy - it's not. It's simply an omission of thought. A rather calous approach to other people's suffering.
The problem with the "media"... there's a lot of noise... there's the sensational stories.. that run and regurgitate from one news service to the next, and volume is influences the "non-thinkers" to believe these stories are true. Which volume does not make a story true or fals.
Is Michael Jackson a child molestor? Did OJ Kill Nicole.
Underneath this noise, there are stories that do speak the truth. They don't always get heard... and I'm not talking about UFO either.
Watergate was dismissed - at first.... until it built it's momentum and the truth came out.
Iran/Contra was and it's connection to senior officials was dismissed - at first... until it built it's momentum and the truth came out.
Time has changed... but it is still the same all chit.. just a different day... different administration.... a different agenda.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
There are consequences for speaking out against the White House. As the leak of Ambassador Wilson's Wife shows - had she been a handler, people would be dead.
Who ever leaked that information has no regard to US law, US lives or US national security interests, and that person works directly for the President and is still working for the President.
You have any evidence to support your accusation?
-
Yeah, you've said a lot, supported little. Mostly you post your view without support.
As for the wounded count, etc. I looked at the links. Yes, my focus is on the US dead. Those are the unrecoverable losses. If the war was justified, I'll consider any losses as the cost of removing WMD from a man that would have, IMO, certainly been capable of providing them to terrorists.
Without the WMD, however, the war is unjustified and all losses are unacceptable to me.
You may focus on the omission of the wounded as some other evidence of another administration plot or insensitivity or whatever. I think everyone knows that any war generates both dead and wounded and the same rational just stated applies to wounded as dead.
Civilian casualties? Who amongst us doesn't realize that wars also generate casualties among the civilian population with the same rationale?
Is war terrible? Is that your point?
Yes it is.
There you go.
-
And all this time I thought Hortlund had justifiably disappeared from the BBS because of embarassment over his previous WMD "find".
I guess some people cannot be embarrassed.
yowser
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
For it to be a felony, you'd still have to show intent.
You need to brush up on your US jurisprudence, Hort. Intent is not requisite for a felony charge in the US. For example manslaughter is a felony but does not carry intent.
In the case of the Bush, the Federal definition of perjury does not require intent (Bronston v. U.S). The Administration was aware that the yellow cake allegations were false. They admitted that they knew that it was false, but simply "forgot" when writing the State of the Union address. Intent is irrelevant. It was the truth or it was a known falsehood. If it was false, then by the Federal definition of perjury, Bush is guilty. He is damn lucky that the Congress is controlled by the Reps or he would be facing impeachment right now.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Saw on the news this morning that a top iraqi official said sadam had an extensive program with a highly sofisticated method of hiding them.
Still looking for a link to the story
I still think they're in syria
What about Iran? How come they aren't mentioned, people forget about the 100 Mig-29's that they flew into that country during Operation Desert Storm.
Karaya
-
Response was to Nexus
-
Originally posted by crowMAW You need to brush up on your US jurisprudence, Hort. Intent is not requisite for a felony charge in the US. For example manslaughter is a felony but does not carry intent.
In the case of the Bush, the Federal definition of perjury does not require intent (Bronston v. U.S). The Administration was aware that the yellow cake allegations were false. They admitted that they knew that it was false, but simply "forgot" when writing the State of the Union address. Intent is irrelevant. It was the truth or it was a known falsehood. If it was false, then by the Federal definition of perjury, Bush is guilty. He is damn lucky that the Congress is controlled by the Reps or he would be facing impeachment right now.
Id say back to the law books crow... Your Bronston v US story just proved my point. For it to be perjury, the statement must be false, and Bush would have needed to know that it was false. The highlighted part shows that...asuming that you have quoted the basics of the case correctly that is...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, you've said a lot, supported little. Mostly you post your view without support.
Kind of like all those people here on this BBS who were so positive about WMD in Iraq and they had the web links to prove it and the eloquant and logical arguements to presuade even the least gullable.
So... now... what's the truth?
There's no WMD in Iraq.
And these people who were so smart... are they that really smart... are they really that well informed about the matter?
Oh a few web links here and there.. look proof - See we are right! You're wrong... well because you're a liberal.
Chit is still watermelon no matter how you package it!
Who's proved what to be true, with what evidence?
So now what's the story out of the White House?
Oh Yeah here it is... the several thousand people who've been studying the Iraqi Target for most of their lives.. you know the CIA, NSA, GCHQ... the people who speak the language, know the history, understand the culture...I'm talking hard core intelligence professionals who've pretty much seen it all.. and lived it.
All those people were completely stupid, wrong, they lied and mislead the "political" appointees... and out of those thousands of professionals... not one... let me emphasize this... not one of these professionals realized hey there's no intelligence to back up WMD in Iraq... not one.
Well... some the French, Germans, Isarealis... and many other natiosn did... wonder what their intel people were thinking?
So the truth that Tony Blair and G. Bush wants you to believe is that they were mislead by thousands of people... professionals.. and all of these professionals don't know what the hell they are doing.
Yep! the 50 or so people who run the uppper level of government at the White House... you know those elected and political appointees who just 3 years ago were working as business men in the oil and energy industries and as political managers for governemors and syncophants for local government officals. well they some how know a little bit more about what's going on in the world.
To be honest I'm really disappointed with Powel and Rumsfeld - they ought to know better.
GW can say what ever he wants - why? because the people know the truth aren't allowed to speak.
I said there were patterns... pay attention...
Remember GW has already been caught before using debunked intell - that he was TOLD was debunked... by whom? The Professionals... the CIA told the White House several times that the Niger/Iraq information was false... that was why Wilson spoke up in the WSJ!... and what happened to his wife? and by whom?
There was an interesting article in the Washington post on Saturday. It was rather convincing piece of creative writing. It spoke about how Powel got the report from the CIA, and he wanted to pare down the intel to the 10 most "solid" WMD that Iraq has. He wanted to go to the UN and say that the US is absolutely "solid" with these 10 reasons that Iraq has WMD. You know the UAVs, the Hydrogen generators, etc. And there were even quotes from these meetings.
yet, if you read through the story... towards the end... it says the reports came from the CIA, then went to the White House, and when they got back to the state department from the White House they were drastically altered [not by the CIA, but by the White House]...and there was some considerbale time taken to "negotiate" a report that was acceptable.
Now why is the White House altering Intel reports? The White House is not an Intelligence gathering agency - they dont' collect original source intel.
And as to the direct quotes attributed to Powel, in this story... that also seems interesting.. that leads one to believe the meetings were recorded - in great detail... I wonder what did the other people say at those meetings - those quotes are noticible absent and if you think about it, you'll know why. It's a rather detailed story... I'll even venture it was not an investigated story with multiple sources but one that was given to the reporter to print. It paints an interesting picture of Powel as being the one who questioned the intel from the CIA, he was the one that asked the CIA to be sure about it's sources... and then he was assured by the CIA that the information was correct. yet slipped in to this story is that... oh and when we got the report back from the White House it was altered. I sense a little finger pointing going on. ok we'll see, if this is true or not!
Any case now the White House is calling for an independent investigation... Though... no one will remember, at least on this board, that just two weeks ago.. the White House was vehimently opposed to this. Please note the White House is still not co-operating with the 9/11 investigation. And the Supreme Court will be ruling wether Chenny should turn over his notes regarding his meetings with energy executives... [hmmmm I wonder if those notes mention anything about the need for more oil? And where a source of oil might be found?]
Bush is in a corner on this. His own party is not supporting him on the opposition to the investigation. They feel like they were lied too - ok well they were, but then you alrady know that's my point of view - of course with out proof.... but it's coming out every day. LOL
So why now is Bush all for this investigation - he say he wants the truth.
Well... Not really!
Here's a hint... If the White House doesn't co-operate - they don't get to choose the investigator.... if they "pretend" like they are co-operating... they choose the investigator - which Bush is going to do this week. Further more... if they choose the investigator and establish the rules and scope of the investigation... they can lead the investigation off in to many directions.... read today's news.. Bush wants to broaden the investigation to aspects beyond pre-war intel, and instead to look into intel regarding world wide WDM.
Why? because it takes longer! it's more confusing...way too many details to pore through. Why? well, so that it wont be done before the elections.
If the investigation is well focused and the scope is small... bad news at election time! Very bad news Mr. Bush!
Bush only has one more term - with a republican congress, well, he won't get impeached... well.. Hold that thought!
Please recall I said well over a month ago - this was going to happen... it was already in the works... and there's more to come!
You can check my posts... I told you the watermelon was going to hit the fan! This is not it! It hasn't hit it yet... the good stuff hasn't come out yet!
Bush has a history of being incompetent... every business he's ever run he's driven into bankrupcty. He took a surplus and turned it into a hemorraging deficient... he said Iraqi oil would pay for the war reconstruction -well that didnt' happen did it - he said there were WMD in Iraq - well.. there's another falsehood... Now about Haliburton's activities... oh gee they keep stealing millions and getting caught.. not it's over charging for food at a military base. the list goes on.
Count them... Truth vs False!
Be blind to the truth and the patterns. You'll see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe.
To me I see a consistent behavior.. and a behavior consistent with the administration's "agenda".
How many people realize when they look at a river and they see the eddies and flows... that there are really many more undercurrents at play than what they can see on the surface?
And it's the undercurrents which shape the river and determines it's direction.
-
Nakhui, I agree with you.
There is no way that US intelligence is that incompetent.
Even the Canadian intelligence is not that bad.
Why? because it takes longer! it's more confusing...way too many details to pore through. Why? well, so that it wont be done before the elections.
This makes perfect sense, so it might well be true.
-
so i guess what you american haters are saying is that freeing the iraq people was wrong , just like invading normandy to free france was wrong, ya ya blah blah blah....
-
Originally posted by john9001
so i guess what you american haters are saying is that freeing the iraq people was wrong , just like invading normandy to free france was wrong, ya ya blah blah blah....
An interesting but flawed parallel. However it does beg this question: how often did French insurgents attack Allied patrols after their liberation? Would it really be in the region 1.9 deaths a day for almost a year?
-
Amreeka was threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridikulus
-
Well, look who's here! Welcome back Nash. we've been thinking about you. Hope all's going well and we want you back in the game ASAP.
kbman
-
Welcome back Nash, Nice to see ya here.
Lets turn this into a welcome back Nash thread :)
-
NASH!! Mmmm...he brought the boobies back too...oooo boooobbies!:D :aok