Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Captain Virgil Hilts on November 15, 2006, 05:56:52 PM
-
Was looking around at various sites and news blurbs and saw this:don't debate Bush over the war, cut off the funds and force the issue (http://kucinich.us/)
Not only do we already have the first Democrat suggesting that funds for Iraq be immediately cut off, but also suggesting that the Democrats not even attempt to work with Bush. Then there's the bunch who have decided that George McGovern is one of the best qualified to create a new "exit strategy". Which I suppose they'll call "redeployment" as opposed to RETREAT.
One week and one day. It didn't take long for obstructionism and cut and run to come to the forefront, I don't think we'll have to wait for the inquisition for every Republican remotely involved in the war (the head "investigator" for the Democrats has said his biggest problem will be having so many things to investigate), the socialist healthcare plan, and the rampant tax increases. Not to mention an increase in the refusal to even consider judicial appointments.
Boy, I'm stunned. NOT!
-
Yeah, I think I saw where some republican guy was saying "stay the course" after Bush said he never said it. Who's the bigger idiot?
-
Hilts, no one is stopping you from donating your money to pay for the occupation.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Way to go guys, you prove that age old rule: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance................... ............"
Not that I'd expect anything different.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Hilts, no one is stopping you from donating your money to pay for the occupation.
we have to pay for the liberals to occupy the USA? oh yeah , the tax increase, i forgot.
-
Maybe it's just me, but I think the $300+ Billion spent in Iraq could have been better spent here at home or maybe not spent at all.
-
Heh...
I'd much rather be fighting terrorists and enemies abroad than right here in our own backyard.
Oh joy, a Democratic House and Senate. Anyone else want to bet that within 24 months we have another major terrorist attack upon the US within its boarders, since our enemies can be sure the new leftist congress will not have the cojones to santion forceful retaliation? Wanna bet we pull a Clinton and do nothing about it except appeal to the UN for sanctions and a damp towl to cry in?
Hey, at least North Korea can safely develop longer range delivery mechanisms for their nukes now. Oh happy days, the Democrats finally won.
24 months. I'll bump this post when it happens.
-
Isn't it strange the conservatives want to spend us into the poor house and the liberals want to balance the books?
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
Heh...
I'd much rather be fighting terrorists and enemies abroad than right here in our own backyard.
Oh joy, a Democratic House and Senate. Anyone else want to bet that within 24 months we have another major terrorist attack upon the US within its boarders, since our enemies can be sure the new leftist congress will not have the cojones to santion forceful retaliation? Wanna bet we pull a Clinton and do nothing about it except appeal to the UN for sanctions and a damp towl to cry in?
Hey, at least North Korea can safely develop longer range delivery mechanisms for their nukes now. Oh happy days, the Democrats finally won.
24 months. I'll bump this post when it happens.
Keep playing the fear card.
It's been working well so far.
-
Many have been saying we fight them there or we fight them here. If/when we cut and run I guess we'll see who's right and who's not.
-
I'd much rather be fighting terrorists and enemies abroad than right here in our own backyard.
...and the war in Iraq didn't create more terrorists than ever.
-
i think it would be better to fight them in the USA, then our troops can stay home and fight.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Way to go guys, you prove that age old rule: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance................... ............"
Not that I'd expect anything different.
I understand, you want to force other people to pay for a occupation that you agree with regardless of whether or not they agree with it. Typical socialism.
Not that I'd expect anything different.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i think it would be better to fight them in the USA, then our troops can stay home and fight.
Might eliminate a few thousand liberals too. ;)
-
I guess the economy was going along too good, too many jobs were being created along with all time high tax revenues.Now it's gonna get fixed right!
Higher taxes, cut and run from Iraq, and giving terrorists rights and all the good stuff that normal humans need when they are simply misunderstood. Lots of love and understanding.
That's a great message the voters sent to those Rebublicans! The message was: we think everything is going too good and we want to pay higher taxes, kill the economy and make everyone in the world love us by becoming sensitive to the plight of the poor people who just want to kill us.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Might eliminate a few thousand liberals too. ;)
Hahahahaha! Gosh that's funny. You know who else wishes for the death of American citizens?
...that's right Rip, terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Might eliminate a few thousand liberals too. ;)
You must be joking they would all run to Canada first, worried about
being drafted...
:D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Might eliminate a few thousand liberals too. ;)
San Francisco gets my vote. Might change some attitudes regarding the military and ROTC. Noticed on news tonight that SF has voted to eliminate JROTC from their public schools.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Was looking around at various sites and news blurbs and saw this:don't debate Bush over the war, cut off the funds and force the issue
yep, we're france... just a matter of a little time (http://kucinich.us/)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Maybe it's just me, but I think the $300+ Billion spent in Iraq could have been better spent here at home or maybe not spent at all.
Funny, I was thinking something similar.
I was thinking that the 300 billion dollars should not have been stolen from us at gun point.
-
Just some random thoughts:
At no time, to my knowledge, has an American President seen his party lose control of Congress during time of war. The election of 2006 was a first.
The war in which this happened is one of the longest yet least bloody in the nation's history.
The casualty rate for the worst months in Vietnam was ten times as large as the worst month in Iraq.
If the Congress begins an immediate pullout of Iraq, our enemies there will have demonstrated to all the sundrie that it is not necessary to defeat our military; one need only survive, dish out a relatively small number of casualties, and the support of the American people for the struggle will evaporate.
Even greater dividends can be achieved if one is patient; with luck...the greatest proponents of military action within the U.S. might be voted out of power.
For, as some have said, Americans no longer possess the capacity for sustained struggle; unless it is for acrimonious and vitriolic political warfare.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
If the Congress begins an immediate pullout of Iraq, our enemies there will have demonstrated to all the sundrie that it is not necessary to defeat our military; one need only survive, dish out a relatively small number of casualties, and the support of the American people for the struggle will evaporate.
Even greater dividends can be achieved if one is patient; with luck...the greatest proponents of military action within the U.S. might be voted out of power.
For, as some have said, Americans no longer possess the capacity for sustained struggle; unless it is for acrimonious and vitriolic political warfare.
Our enemies? Seems to me that our enemies are the people that were supposed to greet us as liberators.
I suspect that the Americans do indeed possess the capacity for struggle but only if that cause is a just and righteous one.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Our enemies? Seems to me that our enemies are the people that were supposed to greet us as liberators.
I suspect that the Americans do indeed possess the capacity for struggle but only if that cause is a just and righteous one.
Just and righteous cause? For example?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I suspect that the Americans do indeed possess the capacity for struggle but only if that cause is a just and righteous one.
I'm pretty sure the irony of this will strike you in 4 days, 8 hours and 13 minutes. You'll laugh pretty hard when it does hit you.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Just and righteous cause? For example?
WWII.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
WWII.
Very many did not want to take up that cause but I was asking what would you consider a just and righteous cause now or in the future?
-
The US should never go into a war without using it's full force and power needed for the job to get done. We should never lose a war and there is no reason why we should not have secured Iraq by now.
Overkill is what we should always plan for when we decide to go to war.
-
We won the war in Iraq. The government was overthrown and the army was scattered to the wind.
There is nothing left to win.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
We won the war in Iraq. The government was overthrown and the army was scattered to the wind.
There is nothing left to win.
We can't just overthrow the government then leave without making damn sure the new government will be able to stand. That's kind of the whole issue.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Isn't it strange the conservatives want to spend us into the poor house and the liberals want to balance the books?
Liberals have no real interest in balancing the books.
They just want to use the money for free handouts to those too lazy to get a job and support their own families LOL
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
We can't just overthrow the government then leave without making damn sure the new government will be able to stand. That's kind of the whole issue.
They'll stand because they have no choice.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Funny, I was thinking something similar.
I was thinking that the 300 billion dollars should not have been stolen from us at gun point.
Curious..
Exactly how much money was personally taken out of your wallet or bank account?
How much more money was taken from you personally that wouldnt have otherwise been taken if there wasnt a war?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Curious..
Exactly how much money was personally taken out of your wallet or bank account?
How much more money was taken from you personally that wouldnt have otherwise been taken if there wasnt a war?
Ahem... Deficit spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They'll stand because they have no choice.
If you say so. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... Deficit spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending).
thats not answering my question.
I'll pose it to you as well
How much less money do you PERSONALLY have then you otherwise would have?
How much more money was taken from you PERSONALLY then otherwise would have?
And Deficit spending is common.
I bet you do it too.
In fact. Anyone with a mortgage is a deficit spender
-
The answer is... ask us again in 30 years. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The answer is... ask us again in 30 years. ;)
LMAO
Funny thing is.
Someone probably had this same question 30 years ago and was given the same answer:aok
-
Travolta had it right in Swordfish;
"Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."
Playing nice with them does not work.
-
thankfully, what Kacinich wants is irrelevant. wiser heads will prevail in both parties.
-
Dred, what you don't understand is we went to war on a credit card. The bill is gonna come due, but in the mean time interest keeps running up.
-
How much more money was taken from you personally that wouldnt have otherwise been taken if there wasnt a war?
I didn't mention anything about the war. You assumed that's what I meant.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Dred, what you don't understand is we went to war on a credit card. The bill is gonna come due, but in the mean time interest keeps running up.
We've run a (Budget) deficit since before WWII
Exactly when is this bill going to come due? And to whom? Ourselves?
As that is where the largest portion of our deficit is.
All the more reason to privatize SS.
So the Government cant borrow from it.
-
I don't think the war in Iraq "created" any more terrorists than where allready there or elsewhere. Many of the insurgants in Iraq have been FOREIGN FIGHTERS....not Iraqis. This fueld by help from Iran and Syria. The truth is we've killed a heck of alot more of them then they have of us. All that does though is get spun to make us the monsters.
"Little abdula was such a good boy, he could never have been a terrorists" That's all their media has to report and then there is sympothy towards the plight of him thinking the US killed an innocent kid. This not knowing that he might have strapped a bomb to himself and planned on blowing up a market full of woman and children. Our enemys have done a better job than us fighting the media/propaganda war. IMHO it's not our actions that have fueld the insurgancy but our inactions. It doesn't help that the US media is a bunch of tools easily duped by anyone that shares their political leanings.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I didn't mention anything about the war. You assumed that's what I meant.
Here is exactly what was said in the post I posed the question about
_____________________________ _____________________________ __
Originally posted by Sandman
Maybe it's just me, but I think the $300+ Billion spent in Iraq could have been better spent here at home or maybe not spent at all.
QUOTE]Originally posted by lasersailor184
Funny, I was thinking something similar.
I was thinking that the 300 billion dollars should not have been stolen from us at gun point. [/QUOTE]
_____________________________ _____________________________ __
In that context its kinda hard to assume anything else.
But ok
Omit the war and insert whatever it is your talking about.
whatever that may be.
Exactly how much money was taken from you personally that otherwise would not have been taken?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
We've run a (Budget) deficit since before WWII
Exactly when is this bill going to come due? And to whom? Ourselves?
You need to read up on this
-
We've run a (Budget) deficit since before WWII
Exactly when is this bill going to come due? And to whom? Ourselves?
As that is where the largest portion of our deficit is.
The interest payments come due all the time. They amounted to something over $400 billion last year (about $1,300 dollars for every man woman and child in the US)
As to who they are paid to, the US government has been borrowing very heavily abroad in recent years. According to official figures, the US government borrowed about $500 billion from overseas in 2004 and 2005, taking the total amount of US government debt held abroad to about $2.25 trillion. (about $7,500 for every man woman and child in the US)
I don't think the war in Iraq "created" any more terrorists than where allready there or elsewhere. Many of the insurgants in Iraq have been FOREIGN FIGHTERS....not Iraqis. This fueld by help from Iran and Syria.
It's a remarkable coincidence they all decided to become terrorists at the same time the US decided to invade Iraq. Because they certainly don't seem to have been very active prior to that.
The truth is, like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq has motivated a huge number of Muslims to become actively involved. The biggest worry is that Iraq will follow the same pattern as Afghanistan, and that once victorious there, they will seek to continue the fight elsewhere.
This fueld by help from Iran and Syria. The truth is we've killed a heck of alot more of them then they have of us. All that does though is get spun to make us the monsters.
All that does is recruit even more of them. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims, and most Muslim countries have a very high birth rate. Thankfully, the percentage of them actively involved in terrorism is tiny, but thanks to Iraq it's growing.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The interest payments come due all the time. They amounted to something over $400 billion last year (about $1,300 dollars for every man woman and child in the US)
As to who they are paid to, the US government has been borrowing very heavily abroad in recent years. According to official figures, the US government borrowed about $500 billion from overseas in 2004 and 2005, taking the total amount of US government debt held abroad to about $2.25 trillion. (about $7,500 for every man woman and child in the US)
It's a remarkable coincidence they all decided to become terrorists at the same time the US decided to invade Iraq. Because they certainly don't seem to have been very active prior to that.
The truth is, like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq has motivated a huge number of Muslims to become actively involved. The biggest worry is that Iraq will follow the same pattern as Afghanistan, and that once victorious there, they will seek to continue the fight elsewhere.
All that does is recruit even more of them. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims, and most Muslim countries have a very high birth rate. Thankfully, the percentage of them actively involved in terrorism is tiny, but thanks to Iraq it's growing.
The National Debt (http://zfacts.com/p/461.html)
Prior to 9/11 over 800 americans were killed by islamic extremists.
And countless maimed and injured.
And that doesnt include those kidnapped such as the Iran hostage situation
Hardly what I'd call suddenly or "at the same time"
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The interest payments come due all the time. They amounted to something over $400 billion last year (about $1,300 dollars for every man woman and child in the US)
As to who they are paid to, the US government has been borrowing very heavily abroad in recent years. According to official figures, the US government borrowed about $500 billion from overseas in 2004 and 2005, taking the total amount of US government debt held abroad to about $2.25 trillion. (about $7,500 for every man woman and child in the US)
I believe we owe Japan 700 billion alone. Also, alot of pensions are invested in our debt.
I'll add that the fear is as the debt gets out of control the value of the dollar will decrease. When this happens countries that use the dollar for stability will dump it, not to mention oil producers will stop trading with it. Inflation will then take off
-
Originally posted by jigsaw
Travolta had it right in Swordfish;
"Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."
Playing nice with them does not work.
In other words... Gabriel Shear would not have let Osama Bin Laden get away.
-
Iran released a declaration stating they were happy their party won, several terrorist organizations stated the same in news releases.
Shocking?? No...... Amazing?? Yes....
Democrats are way out there...... Republicans are now the old Democrats... no conservatives, sad situation.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I'll add that the fear is as the debt gets out of control the value of the dollar will decrease. When this happens countries that use the dollar for stability will dump it, not to mention oil producers will stop trading with it. Inflation will then take off
The Administration pisses and moans that the media is causing the public to believe that the US economy is in the toilet when really it isn't. While I agree that unemployment is very low and inflation is in check, I think many Americans are waking up to the fact that the federal debt is something that can no longer be ignored. And while the Administration and Congress continue to spend money like drunken sailors, many will not share in their enthusiasm of the economy.
-
Originally posted by jigsaw
Travolta had it right in Swordfish;
"Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."
Playing nice with them does not work.
I agree. You cannot fight an unconventional war conventionally. The problem is that the U.S. is too PC to do that. We should have learned that from previous conflicts we were engaged in, the first of which was the American Revolution. If we don't have the stomach for it we might as well find a way to disengage rather than wasting our blood and treasure. We could defeat Islamic terrorism if we truly wanted. We don't have the will to do what it takes to do so. We're too afraid of offending someone.
As far as the mindless constant conservative vs. liberal babble that goes on here and elsewhere there is a vast part of the American electorate that is neither. I'm one of them. I tend to be a little more right of center but that's beside the point. I have always and will always refuse to blindly align myself with one party or the other no matter what they do. Far too many people appear to do just that letting themselves be led around by the nose by wordsmith talk show hosts while the politicians stampede them towards a cliff. The moderates spoke on November 7 and tipped the balance. In this state, Virginia, I voted for Webb for senate. For one he's a combat veteran. There are many more reasons. George Allen on the other hand is a political hack that rubber stamped virtually everything Bush wanted. We tossed him.
In my opinion the war in Afghanistan was just and righteous. Iraq? I don't think so. It was and is a costly diversion from the true war on terror. It struck me in the middle of 2002 that George Bush must have thought he'd received some divine message from a burning bush or something and thereupon started the drumbeat for war. The orchestration for that was pretty transparent at the time. Today the terrorists in Iraq are 98% homegrown. We created them. Iraq is a quagmire as I always believed it would be.
I doubt it but hopefully the Republican and Democratic parties will learn from this election and come back closer to the center where I firmly believe most Americans reside. We'll see.
Just my $.02
-
the terrorists won the last election - they are still dancing with joy
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
The Administration pisses and moans that the media is causing the public to believe that the US economy is in the toilet when really it isn't. While I agree that unemployment is very low and inflation is in check, I think many Americans are waking up to the fact that the federal debt is something that can no longer be ignored. And while the Administration and Congress continue to spend money like drunken sailors, many will not share in their enthusiasm of the economy.
And unfortunately, most are waking up never even considering that they know nothing about basic economics. You included.
Btw Dred, I did that intentionally. All taxes are theft. You just went ahead and assumed I meant for the war. But I did catch you in it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Many of the insurgants in Iraq have been FOREIGN FIGHTERS....not Iraqis.
People keep on repeating this but I have never seen it backed up with any data. Time and time again the US government/military and other assessments have shown that foreign fighters make up a small minority of the insurrectionists.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1003/p03s03-woiq.html
-
Tell me again what the republican plan for Iraq is?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Tell me again what the republican plan for Iraq is?
simple , kill terrorists
-
Originally posted by Silat
Tell me again what the republican plan for Iraq is?
Stay the course.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Btw Dred, I did that intentionally. All taxes are theft. You just went ahead and assumed I meant for the war. But I did catch you in it.
Well then you certainly used a well disguised bait sir LOL
I agree that most if not all taxes are theft.
Thought I prefer to use the term "Legalised extortoin" ;)
-
Originally posted by john9001
simple , kill terrorists
wow, that is simple. What terrorists? What terrorists were in Iraq before the war?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Stay the course.
That phrase is misused. Staying the course is actually not a bad idea.
The plan has been to train the Iraqis and place more and more Iraqi units into operation and in control of Iraq so we can eventually leave. That's the plan.
The Dems have a better idea?
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
Hey, at least North Korea can safely develop longer range delivery mechanisms for their nukes now. Oh happy days, the Democrats finally won.
Yeah, the Bush administration and a Republican controlled legislature really did a great job in keeping North Korea in check. :rofl
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by lukster
Many have been saying we fight them there or we fight them here. If/when we cut and run I guess we'll see who's right and who's not.
How is occupying Iraq making this country safer against terrorism?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Yeah, the Bush administration and a Republican controlled legislature really did a great job in keeping North Korea in check. :rofl
ack-ack
I agree, but what could anyone do to stop NK from getting nukes, short of war?
The Dems actually trusted NK and gave them what they needed to help them build a nuke. At least Bush called them for what they are.
Bush was correct and is correct on his stance with NK, imo. We should never reward them for their threats and we should never trust them.
-
Originally posted by john9001
simple , kill terrorists
I think we should kill tax evaders as well.
shamus
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
wow, that is simple. What terrorists? What terrorists were in Iraq before the war?
Sounds like you want a list of names. Save yourself some work: make a list of people in Iraq that aren't terrorists. Get back to us.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
wow, that is simple. What terrorists? What terrorists were in Iraq before the war?
ever hear of Uday and Qusay Hussein?
One of them ran this thing called the fedaian
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
ever hear of Uday and Qusay Hussein?
One of them ran this thing called the fedaian
The Fedayeen Saddam were Ba'athist regime loyalists.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The Fedayeen Saddam were Ba'athist regime loyalists.
and guess who their leader was?
-
The Feyadeen aren't a subnational group and therefore aren't terrorists by the US government's definition.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Thought I prefer to use the term "Legalised extortoin" ;)
Why sugar coat it?
-
Those who are outraged over the fact that the U.S. government is fighting the war in Iraq with borrowed money evidently have not studies their history.
EVERY war our nation has engaged in has been financed with foreign loans and/or massive deficit spending.
Also, the amount we are spending to rebuild Iraq cannot begin to compare, in real value, to the amount we spent to rebuild Japan, or Western Europe under the Marshall Plan.
The U.S. has always spent vast quantities of tax dollars rebuilding allied and enemy nations after a modern war. Why would you expect the Iraqi War to be any different?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Liberals have no real interest in balancing the books.
They just want to use the money for free handouts to those too lazy to get a job and support their own families LOL
More Republican mantra from a repfanboi.
But giving the money to those in need seems better than giving tax breaks to the 1% uppercrust and the corporations.
Google yourself some facts on the handful of American corps making 10's of billions during the war................ If Moms give their children for the phoney war then the damn corps can suffer less profits...........
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Those who are outraged over the fact that the U.S. government is fighting the war in Iraq with borrowed money evidently have not studies their history.
EVERY war our nation has engaged in has been financed with foreign loans and/or massive deficit spending.
Also, the amount we are spending to rebuild Iraq cannot begin to compare, in real value, to the amount we spent to rebuild Japan, or Western Europe under the Marshall Plan.
The U.S. has always spent vast quantities of tax dollars rebuilding allied and enemy nations after a modern war. Why would you expect the Iraqi War to be any different?
NO war ever saw the lowering of Taxes for the rich during a time of war. Nowhere ever..................
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Hilts, no one is stopping you from donating your money to pay for the occupation.
Or donating one of his own family to the front lines.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
I agree, but what could anyone do to stop NK from getting nukes, short of war?
The Dems actually trusted NK and gave them what they needed to help them build a nuke. At least Bush called them for what they are.
Bush was correct and is correct on his stance with NK, imo. We should never reward them for their threats and we should never trust them.
Ya know what's worse, making threats you have no intension of carrying out. Never pull a gun unless you're gonna use it. What hunk of crap that was...."don't or we'll make you fall and it's really gonna hurt",.."no this time I mean it"....... "No I mean it now",.... "ok right now I mean it right now, no wait,.. now,..... wait...now...".... "damn they didn't beleive me".
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
wow, that is simple. What terrorists? What terrorists were in Iraq before the war?
The terrorist Saddam was holding down and fell out of the wood work when he left. Those terorist, combined with AQ who was there very shortly after 911.
We were just stupid enough to open the flood gates, and say blue light special in Isle 4. :)
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
That phrase is misused. Staying the course is actually not a bad idea.
The plan has been to train the Iraqis and place more and more Iraqi units into operation and in control of Iraq so we can eventually leave. That's the plan.
The Dems have a better idea?
Helk yes, put in enough troops to do it right or don't touch it :) BTW there was never once a plan to get out, there's isn't now either.
A plan consist of 3 things, How to get in, what to do when you get there, and how to get out.
Stay the course, in their own definition, is not a plan, it's goal. Put how to get out on the end of that and you may have a plan. What's the sign that says we're done anyway?
-
Originally posted by john9001
simple , kill terrorists
That's not a plan that's a hobby. :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the terrorists won the last election - they are still dancing with joy
IMO th emedia won the election, the dems didn't win, the reps lost.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Sounds like you want a list of names. Save yourself some work: make a list of people in Iraq that aren't terrorists. Get back to us.
Well, I checked. I couldnt find one terrorist organization in iraq under saddams rule. he simply didnt tolerate them. Now, put down your Rush pipe and answer the question. In fact, there arent any there now either. There are a group of freedom fighters battling an occupying force.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
There are a group of freedom fighters battling an occupying force.
yes, the term "freedom fighter" is correct, the freedom fighters are fighting against freedom for Iraq.
if your freedom fighters would stop blowing up women and childern the evil americans would go home. Tell them that next time your on their website.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
In fact, there arent any there now either. There are a group of freedom fighters battling an occupying force.
That statement qualifies you as the human equivalent of a bidet. It really does.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Well, I checked. I couldnt find one terrorist organization in iraq under saddams rule. he simply didnt tolerate them. Now, put down your Rush pipe and answer the question. In fact, there arent any there now either. There are a group of freedom fighters battling an occupying force.
Hey genius, if they're "freedom fighters", then howcome they're killing Iraqis? You know, when the Sunnis are blowing up Shi'ittes and shooting up their bakeries, how is that "fighting the occupiers"?
Saddam didn't tolerate terrorists? Do you know who Abu Nidal was? How about Abu Abbas? How about Ramzi Yousef?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Well, I checked. I couldnt find one terrorist organization in iraq under saddams rule. he simply didnt tolerate them. Now, put down your Rush pipe and answer the question. In fact, there arent any there now either. There are a group of freedom fighters battling an occupying force.
Rush pipe? :rofl
Oh, the error of my ways!! Oh, the agony!!
Terrorists and fanatics aren't created in that part of the world, old bean. They were always there and will always be there. They don't have to come in groups and give themselves a name, although that does make it a little easier to find them en masse.
-
America speaks but no one listens. The media decides what the vote was all about and politicians jump on the media boat. This election had NOTHING to do with war or any of that stuff, it had to do with 3 dollar a gallon gasoline while oil companies made millions and the "oil" men in office stood by and claimed they could do nothing. It had to do with good paying jobs leaving the country and being replaced with McDonald's type jobs.
I.E. this country votes its personal wallet and always has, what puzzles me is how BOTH the winners and the losers can and have missed the point.
-
If everyone missed the point, it might not have been the point.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
There are a group of freedom fighters battling an occupying force.
freedom from what, for what? freedom to kill each other?
yep - mean ole US of A the bad guy again ..
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Well, I checked. I couldnt find one terrorist organization in iraq under saddams rule. he simply didnt tolerate them. Now, put down your Rush pipe and answer the question. In fact, there arent any there now either. There are a group of freedom fighters battling an occupying force.
Are you assuming that a terrorist organization can't exist unless it registers with the local govt. first?
You are right about one thing, once we remove our freedom fighters the occupying force will have it's way........ :p
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
America speaks but no one listens. The media decides what the vote was all about and politicians jump on the media boat. This election had NOTHING to do with war or any of that stuff, it had to do with 3 dollar a gallon gasoline while oil companies made millions and the "oil" men in office stood by and claimed they could do nothing. It had to do with good paying jobs leaving the country and being replaced with McDonald's type jobs.
I.E. this country votes its personal wallet and always has, what puzzles me is how BOTH the winners and the losers can and have missed the point.
...and somehow America thought that kicking the Republicans out could change the price of gas.
Now that is a stretch.
-
Sandy,
It very well could and can change the price of gas. The direction is another matter however and only if you assume the govt. has had a lock on prices in a free market economy in the past few years.
Of course it must be the feeelthy repubs fault that the price of oil in the ME is over $60.00 a barrel............ :huh :noid
-
I don't believe for a second that the U.S. government can control the price of gasoline.
-
I figured that too, I was aiming my comments at others than you.
-
Guess neither of you has heard of alternative fuels, put alittle government money into those projects and see where oil prices go....
I find it VERY funny that just before the election ALL of a sudden we have a glut of oil and the price drops......here come all the know it all pundits to explain how that happened.....well guess what the average american didn't buy it.
You guys are like the rest of the so called "smart people" you just don't get it and never will.....the average american judges politics by his OWN wallet and could care less about explanations or agenda's.....only his perception counts not anything else.
I worked for Gulf Oil years ago and if you think the big oil companies don't worry about the government you are just wrong. In fact oil companies are colusive and always have been, now they have developed a new wrinkle where they devide all the processes into seprate companies and add a profit at every level (of course all the companies actully belong to one Big company).
I will be interested to see where this goes in congress with the new changes.
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
You guys are like the rest of the so called "smart people" you just don't get it and never will.....the average american judges politics by his OWN wallet and could care less about explanations or agenda's.....only his perception counts not anything else.
Well, there you have it. Maverick and I are obviously above average. :aok
-
I accept your surrender :D
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Hey genius, if they're "freedom fighters", then howcome they're killing Iraqis? You know, when the Sunnis are blowing up Shi'ittes and shooting up their bakeries, how is that "fighting the occupiers"?
Saddam didn't tolerate terrorists? Do you know who Abu Nidal was? How about Abu Abbas? How about Ramzi Yousef?
they were all kicked out of Iraq by Saddam because they were trying to continue their activities while in Iraq.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Hey genius, if they're "freedom fighters", then howcome they're killing Iraqis? You know, when the Sunnis are blowing up Shi'ittes and shooting up their bakeries, how is that "fighting the occupiers"?
Whats the latest death toll for US troops? Whose killing them? Call them terrorists if it makes you feel better, but the US govt called them freedom fighters when they were battling for afghanistan in the 80s and again in chechnya in the 90's. How is this different?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Saddam didn't tolerate terrorists? Do you know who Abu Nidal was? How about Abu Abbas? How about Ramzi Yousef?
Saddam had abu nidal murdered, if i am not mistaken. I'll get back to you about the others. Now, you tell me about Osama Bin Laden, al queada and Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq before the war.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
they were all kicked out of Iraq by Saddam because they were trying to continue their activities while in Iraq.
ack-ack
Wrong. But then you knew that. Although eventually Saddam did have Abu Nidal killed, not long before the invasion.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Whats the latest death toll for US troops? Whose killing them? Call them terrorists if it makes you feel better, but the US govt called them freedom fighters when they were battling for afghanistan in the 80s and again in chechnya in the 90's. How is this different?
So you know for a fact that the same people who were in Afghanistan and Chechnya are now in Iraq? And you know this how? I'm sure the intelligence community who would be delighted to pay you for your services. So, if you know exactly who it is planting the IED's and equipping the snipers, by all means step up to the plate and make millions.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
freedom from what, for what? freedom to kill each other?
yep - mean ole US of A the bad guy again ..
THEY WERENT KILLING EACH OTHER BEFORE WE WENT IN, EINSTIEN!!!
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
So you know for a fact that the same people who were in Afghanistan and Chechnya are now in Iraq? And you know this how? I'm sure the intelligence community who would be delighted to pay you for your services. So, if you know exactly who it is planting the IED's and equipping the snipers, by all means step up to the plate and make millions.
Ummm, you dont even know the difference between a terrorist organization and a rebel army, do you? good grief. Terorist dont attackoccupying armys, they hijack airplanes and cruise liners and make political statements via terror. O forget it.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
THEY WERENT KILLING EACH OTHER BEFORE WE WENT IN, EINSTIEN!!!
no they where getting killed by the thousands and then placed in mass graves all nice and neat like.
not for the feint of heart (http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/)
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Saddam had abu nidal murdered, if i am not mistaken. I'll get back to you about the others. Now, you tell me about Osama Bin Laden, al queada and Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq before the war.
yes because we all know that Al Queada is the ONLY terrorist group we need to look after.
EDIT:
and help me out here whithawk cause i'm confused....
according to your logic, they don't have to be Iraqi but if they attack Americans they are freedom fighters.
But, If they attack fellow Iraqis because they are shi'ites and blow up a market full of civilians and/or blow up lets say the golden mosque (you know because they are trying to insite....terror)......does that make them terrorists?
If so do they lose their terrorist label when they go back to fighting Americans and become freedom fighters again or does the whole terrorist thing kinda stick to them?
Can they be terrorists one day and freedom fighters the next or does it not flip flop like that?
If they are a terrorist who fights for freedom by killing there own civilians does it make them "super terror freedom fighters"?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
THEY WERENT KILLING EACH OTHER BEFORE WE WENT IN, EINSTIEN!!!
that's because they didn't have the freedom to do so.
not our fault we are dealing with humans one half step above animals ... most any other place would love for the US to rebuild its country to modern day standards ... but keep thinking its bad ole USA's fault .. many seem to believe your delusion.
ps
Albert Einstein was slightly smarter than I and way, way smarter than you ...
-
I love this rethoric that Sadam didn't tolerate terrorism.
It was common knowledge that during the late 90s he promised and sent money to the familys of palistinian mass murderers (read suicide bombers)
and then there's this little quip of english most forgot about:
Saddam Hussein offered asylum
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Oops I forgot is CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/) a good enough source still?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
not our fault we are dealing with humans one half step above animals ...
Actually, Yes it is.....we CHOSE to invade.
-
Originally posted by rpm
... the liberals want to balance the books?
Now that's funny.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I love this rethoric that Sadam didn't tolerate terrorism.
It was common knowledge that during the late 90s he promised and sent money to the familys of palistinian mass murderers (read suicide bombers)
and then there's this little quip of english most forgot about:
Oops I forgot is CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/) a good enough source still?
I'm sorry, I missed the actual AQ/Iraq link in that article. Can you underline the part that said Bin Laden actually met with Saddam or was even housed in Iraq?
-
Hey comon!
We KNEW they had WMD... We still have the receipts.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I'm sorry, I missed the actual AQ/Iraq link in that article. Can you underline the part that said Bin Laden actually met with Saddam or was even housed in Iraq?
It wouldn't matter. You wouldn't believe it.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I'm sorry, I missed the actual AQ/Iraq link in that article. Can you underline the part that said Bin Laden actually met with Saddam or was even housed in Iraq?
well I don't remember being able to write in anything other than english but the post was pretty self explainatory.
Sadam not only tolerated terrorism he was a philanthrper (SP) of it.
-
Originally posted by VOR
It wouldn't matter. You wouldn't believe it.
How many political people in the know, including the president, does it take to make the point that everything we intially went there for was unfounded? I don't understand why people hang on to something proven wrong over and over and over and over until it so redundant, that ya just can't listen anymore. Also there IS a report from the senate that states several times, that it was all false. Now, if you need further convincing, I would be glad to post a link any American can find in 5 minutes. If you could please tell us all how many times it takes so we can just jump to that number.
Just sayin:)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes because we all know that Al Queada is the ONLY terrorist group we need to look after.
EDIT:
and help me out here whithawk cause i'm confused....
according to your logic, they don't have to be Iraqi but if they attack Americans they are freedom fighters.
But, If they attack fellow Iraqis because they are shi'ites and blow up a market full of civilians and/or blow up lets say the golden mosque (you know because they are trying to insite....terror)......does that make them terrorists?
If so do they lose their terrorist label when they go back to fighting Americans and become freedom fighters again or does the whole terrorist thing kinda stick to them?
Can they be terrorists one day and freedom fighters the next or does it not flip flop like that?
If they are a terrorist who fights for freedom by killing there own civilians does it make them "super terror freedom fighters"?
First of all, there is a civil war ragin in iraq. Sunnis vs Shi'ites. These are the peopel killing each other. There is also a rebel army fighting the invading hoard of americans. This army is funded by Iran and Syria with Russian aid. You will notice, if you quit listening to master heroine addict Rush, that the rebel army does not use suicide bombers to carry out its attacks, they use IED's and Snipers as Hilts eluded to. 2 different wars and tactics. NO TERRORISTS WHATSOEVER ANYWHERE!!! Quit listening to heroine addict Rush and use your own brain. This is war for oil.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well I don't remember being able to write in anything other than english but the post was pretty self explainatory.
Sadam not only tolerated terrorism he was a philanthrper (SP) of it.
Step up to the plate. Why did we go into iraq? why are we there now? Answer the question please. dont parrot Rush limboauhs latest hoerine hallucination.
-
Originally posted by VOR
It wouldn't matter. You wouldn't believe it.
Thats nice VOR. You have inside info that even the CIA couldnt come up with, try as they might. Go ahead and link us to the blessed event. Humor us skeptics. Put your money where your mouth is, for once.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I love this rethoric that Sadam didn't tolerate terrorism.
It was common knowledge that during the late 90s he promised and sent money to the familys of palistinian mass murderers (read suicide bombers)
and then there's this little quip of english most forgot about:
Oops I forgot is CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/) a good enough source still?
Once again, Isreal is an occupying force. They are occupying arab land and strangling the palestinian people. It is not terrorism to stand up and fight like a man. Is it?
-
Well, at least you can spell Rush correctly. That's pretty much it though.
When you get past your fixation on Rush Limbaugh and heroin, let us know. At that point you might develop a coherent argument. But before you do anything else, read this: Saddam Hussein never sponsored terror (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)?
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
How many political people in the know, including the president, does it take to make the point that everything we intially went there for was unfounded?
Just sayin:)
Don't confuse yourself. I don't think OBL is in Iraq or ever was. If someone did happen to find him in a hole in the ground, I'd believe it at that point unlike some people around here.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Once again, Isreal is an occupying force. They are occupying arab land and strangling the palestinian people. It is not terrorism to stand up and fight like a man. Is it?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Well, at least you can spell Rush correctly. That's pretty much it though.
When you get past your fixation on Rush Limbaugh and heroin, let us know. At that point you might develop a coherent argument. But before you do anything else, read this: Saddam Hussein never sponsored terror (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)?
http://theinsurgent.net/index.php?volnum=13.2&article=usterror
OK, good points. I cant spell and you CAN do research. go to the above link since you seem to be SHOCKED at state sponsered terroism exists.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Thats nice VOR. You have inside info that even the CIA couldnt come up with, try as they might.
So is the CIA reliable now? Were they reliable back in the "Iraq has WMD" days? Which is it?
I'm satisfied with the fact that Saddam offered asylum to OBL. That makes him enough of an enemy and threat to put the dogs to him. Anyway, not trying to change your mind about anything. I'm just telling you what's on mine.
-
Whitehawk: on second thought, after reading a few of your posts in this thread, nevermind. Have a nice day :)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well I don't remember being able to write in anything other than english but the post was pretty self explainatory.
Sadam not only tolerated terrorism he was a philanthrper (SP) of it.
I thought you were trying to potray some very very weak link between Saddam and Bin Laden....my bad.
So we are agreed that Saddam had no links to Bin Laden and AQ.
-
Originally posted by Silat
More Republican mantra from a repfanboi.
But giving the money to those in need seems better than giving tax breaks to the 1% uppercrust and the corporations.
Google yourself some facts on the handful of American corps making 10's of billions during the war................ If Moms give their children for the phoney war then the damn corps can suffer less profits...........
First of all I'm neither Republican nor Democrat.
inferring I am either is highly insulting. LMAO
I wouldn't lower myself to being either
though I am technically registered as a Democrat
that is only because that's where my finger stopped when I went eanie meanie miney mo when it came time to choose how I would register.
Some views on some issues I share with the right. Some views I share with the left. And some I share with neither.
Unless 7% somehow became smaller then 3%
the top 1% didn't get the bulk of the tax breaks.
Not to mention the amount of people that were taken off the tax rolls altogether.
I agree those in the lower classes need more help
. But they need help in learning to help themselves rather then have money just thrown at them
I don't think anyone should be "given" anything
When you start giving things away consistently
The receivers have less of a inclination to do any better.
Why should they if they can get something for nothing?
What I would be for is helping he poor help themselves. Either by giving them work in exchange for money (such as all those low paying jobs that the illegal's are scooping up) Or in training them do to something.
During the Carter administration if he did nothing else right he had training programs for pay. whereas you went and learned how to do something and got paid for it.
In my area it was called a CETA program. I was once in one. Actually I ended up being in a couple of different programs of the same type. And that provided the basis of enabling me to get where I am today.
Standing on my own two feet and pulling my own weight like everyone should
These were good programs. They didn't just GIVE anything. You had to show up and actually work for it. You Earned it.
This is far better then just sending someone out a welfare check and food stamps every month
Problem when you start GIVING to the poor is they get lazy. and irresponsible and they start believing that its somehow owed to them. I know. I've lived among them. I've seen it first hand.
But. they still want and often get everything those better off then them can have through hard work.
Go to just abut any poor neighborhood and you will see a bunch of BMWs these days.
Hmmmm can afford to drive a BMW or a Lincoln SUV and have a cell phone . and you can bet the farm ost of them have the latest greatest gaming system and $100 shoes
But they need a handout from the government
Seems we had alot more people succeeding in this country BEFORE the government started handing out money then after.
Probably because they had no other choice then to bust their butts and earn a living.
I know for my grandparents and great grandparents there were no government programs for then when they arrived here.
They had two choices. Work and eek out a living for themselves doing whatever kind of work they could find. Or Starve.
Starvation is a great motivator.
I can understand the desire to help. And it is a very noble thought.
But the way the left wants to help is doing more to hurt, then help.
The top income earners already pay by far the very vast majority and disproportionate amount of the taxes.
According to the IRS. in released data for 2003
They show that the top 25% percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 83.9 percent of all federal income taxes that year.
That's paid taxes. After deductions.
Somehow I think the rest of us should be able to carry the load for the other 16.1%
What I am for is simplifying the tax code to 6 simple words. "Everyone pays 25% of their income"
Doesn't matter if you make 1 dollar or 100 billion dollars. You pay 25%
No tax brackets, no writeoffs. The only deduction you would be allowed is by how much you give to charity. That would be taken off your gross income
Then Everyone pulls their own weight equally
And I do not see how taxing them any more will help.
Here is what happens.
the amount the rich have to pay goes up.
Well they aren't going to just eat that cost. They are going to pass it on.
that's what I do. and I'm nowhere near rich. Just fortunate enough to be in a position to charge more for my services as my costs go up for whatever reason.
The rich own and run the companies. As well they should they are after all rich enough to buy or own them and I've never heard of a pauper owning a billion dollar corporation.
They in turn raise the prices on the goods and services they sell to make up for the lost revenue. Which in turn the little guy buys and now increased prices.
In the end the little guy now has more money to buy goods. And it looks good on paper because on paper he has more money.
The problem is he cant buy any more with it then he could before.
So..How has that "Helped" him?
It helps the people who sponcer such nonsense because on paper it looks great. They can all pat themselves on the back and say "Look what we have done for the little guy! He now has more money for his pocket then he did before." And everyone cheers and applauds and says Yayy!"
On paper this is true.
But in reality he is no better off then he was before.
As for the soldiers. The mothers didn't Give them. They volunteered.
They weren't picked and dragged into joining. They chose to do so.
And when you choose to join. You join for better or worse. You go and fight wherever your told for whatever reason your told.
I have the greatest respect for anyone who has joined the military and anyone in the military. It is among our most noble vocations.
But I do not feel a whole lot of sympathy for those who would complain about where they are sent or why or what they are told to do.
They knew the score when they signed the dotted line.
Now. Yes Corporations do make money during the war and from the war.
they always have and always will.
Now if you had said those companies should do more for the Vets of war. I would agree
But
That does NOT mean the poor are entitled to a share of those profits.
The poor aren't entitled to anything more then they are willing to work for.
nor should they be.
I cannot understand how so many fail to see this concept.
If you go into the wild they always tell you "Don't feed the wildlife"
Why? Because eventually the wildlife will do nothing more then keep looking for the easy handout and will loose their survival skills
This is the same concept. By giving out handouts your not helping those that need it, your hurting them.
because eventually they start feeling entitled to the handout.
As opposed to doing for themselves
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I thought you were trying to potray some very very weak link between Saddam and Bin Laden....my bad.
So we are agreed that Saddam had no links to Bin Laden and AQ.
no we don't agree that he had no links. It was well proven and well documented in teh 9/11 commission report that Sadams intelligence service met several times with AQ operatives and according to CNN offered Bin Laden refuge as well.
Does that justify the invasion, no that's not what I'm trying to do here. To say the above is healthy evidence is to say that Sadam didn't tolerate terrorism...both of wich are wrong.
Again i'm not justifying or linking anyone here. My principles are well documented on this board.
I beleive that to think that the only terrorists we have to look out for are AQ types is retarded at best.
To think Sadam was a good person or Iraq was better off with him is equally retarded
To think that Sadam never had weapons of mass destruction is also retarded
To think that we havn't been fighting him continually since 1991 is also retarded.
And last but not least, if you think Islam is a peacfull religion and that there arent muslims out there setting the steps in place to create a global caliphat and that these people can live peacable with everyone else side by side.....I got some ocean front property in arizona to sell you.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
freedom from what, for what? freedom to kill each other?
yep - mean ole US of A the bad guy again ..
Nevermind. Too many wouldnt take the humor in the way it was intended
-
Originally posted by VOR
I'm satisfied with the fact that Saddam offered asylum to OBL.
\
And he lives in pakistan. So tell me VOR, why are in Iraq again?
-
I never said anything about Islam.
The above isn't even life support evidence.
Now....AQ attacked the US, not "other" terrorists.
Saddam did not have WMD's and we invaded for THAT reason. He did have them at one time...we should know..we supplied them to him.
I don't give two ****s whether Saddam was evil or Mother Theresa. He was not a threat to the US, and if he brutalized his people that is not our business to waste American lives on.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Whitehawk: on second thought, after reading a few of your posts in this thread, nevermind. Have a nice day :)
Humor me. Im confused.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
\
And he lives in pakistan. So tell me VOR, why are in Iraq again?
Oil and plastic.
Both absolutely vital to our national interests
If you can think of a better reason. Lemme know ;)
-
WOW! what have I missed the last 4 years away from AH?
Some of you folks are talking in circles, trying to win arguments instead of
gathering ideas, and real sure information.
WOT follows, basically because I'm bored and have the time to hog bandwidth
:) SO if ya don't want to read a WOT stop here. Besides I limit
myself to 40,000 characters. Folks from BW are turning and running as I
speak LOL.
The REAL war, which has NOT erupted yet, is all about Iran controlling the
whole ME then the whole world. Afghanistan (was done rightfully so) and Iraq
are just pecking points on the trail to Iran. Cutting off Iran by consuming
Iraq and Afghanistan territory. Whether this is a plan or a vision it will
come into play later on. Iran is the steeple of terrorism, research it, and
I don't mean skim documents for what you want to hear to make a party point
that's irrelivant.
When Iran is gone a LOT of these ME terrorist orgs will fade and some small
groups will remain who are stand-alone items. But the majority of the terror
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel are funded by Iran. I have NO idea where
someone is getting that Russia is funding ANYTHING, IMO that is a misspoken
fallacy grasping at straws. Russia is so unlikely to contribute to terrorism
because they have a BIG problem there with local terrorist groups, remember
the school kids?. China, maybe, I highly doubt it. If anyone is getting
support from either Russia or China it's NK.
You will NOT be able to deal with Iran once they have nukes, but they will
never win what they think they will, they will be annihilated. Russia and
China and MAYBE even Korea yes, you can get somewhere with them because they
are not suicidal, they KNOW if they destroy us we destroy them. Iran OTOH
and the delusional Muslims\Mullahs\Islam who follow them ARE suicidal. In
fact, and theory, they believe MILLIONS of them and others MUST die for
Mohammed to return. Therefore, they will obtain and fire nukes with no
remorse either way. EVEN IF they fire one or two and we evaporate them,
their goal is death to others *and themselves*. If some live those will meet
Mohammod. The colossal nuke suicide bombers for the good of their own.
What we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is tiny nibbles of what we need to
do to Iran, like NOW. We just need the reason to do it, so it may take
waiting for the first nuke because we are just too moral, too PC, and too
worried about being politcally correct, that alone may kill us. The ONLY way
to punish Iran will come to vast distruction via nukes or massive bombing on
scales we have not seen yet without worry of collateral damage. Cutting Iran
off by controlling Afghanistan and Iraq will only help, or is just a
temporary Band-Aid. We can not handle Iran like we are Afgan and Iraq, to
think so would be a horrible mistake, they need to be eliminated, period,
however rediculus, just like Hitler. Remember a lot of their plans mirror
WWII, Hitler and how to control us by history of VN.
Millions will probably have to die before we catch on that we need to
eliminate Iran completely. When we finally wake up and smack the life out of
Iran a LOT of the ME problems will fade. AQ, Hamas and Hezbollah will lose
money support, and N. Korea will sit down and shut up. Going after what's
left will remain tiny insignificant wars in comparison, like killing a LA
street gang punks. But that's what it would be like.
My point being, and it's not an insult, IMO it's harsh reality. Some of you
are so fixated on Iraq and slimmy USA politics, that you're not thinking
outside the box and missing the big picture. You want to focus on something
much more important then Iraq, become fixated on Iran. The heart must be
removed from the body to kill it. if we don't pay attension to it, then
we'll sit by and watch NYC, LA and maybe Chicago be evaporated.
And remember, the so called good leaders of the musilms\islam have given
religious permission to kill no more then 10 million people for the cause.
The way they get full permission to do this is to ask us to join their
religion first, and Warn us of death if we don't join islam, both already
done by both Iran and AQ. They now have full permission to kill upto 10
million for the cause to convert the world to islam.
Call me stupid if you must, it's ok. But please folks, lets not talk in
circles with half-baked facts\falacies based winning an cheap argument for
your fav party view point. Some people have taken the party thing way over
board, consumed and eaten up with protecting your party instead of actually
studying hardcore facts and accepting them with an open mind. When you stick
to any one party you have just limited your thinking and understanding by
50%. Stop that crap, get real. (you all know who you are on both sides, so
don't play innocent stupid with me. ) If you want to be real you have to
think real.
next sermon at 11:00 :)
I'd say 2 cents, but that was more like 200 cents. Now if you all don't mind I need to get back to reconstructing my X45.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
no we don't agree that he had no links. It was well proven and well documented in teh 9/11 commission report that Sadams intelligence service met several times with AQ operatives and according to CNN offered Bin Laden refuge as well.
According to the reports, the links were no more than just talk.
source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)
In fact, the 911 Commission Report says:
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. page 66
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative... But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. page 66
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Now....AQ attacked the US, not "other" terrorists.
got it....so it's just AQ that's bad, all those other Islamo fascist advocating the downfall of the great satin should just be ignored completely.
-
The REAL war, which has NOT erupted yet, is all about Iran controlling the
whole ME then the whole world.
Ya know I seem to recall seeing much the same thing regarding saddumb and Iraq just a few years back. Iraq trying to tie up the entire ME under saddumb. A unified Arab coalition instead of a seperated feuding mass of conflicting pathological intertribal squabbles. It was reported that saddumb thought himself the "modern man" capable of uniting all of the Arab world, under his terms of course.
There won't be any "war" with Iran by the US. Not now and not for some time, if ever. If, or when for the sake of discussion, we did go to war with Iran we'd be in the same situation we are in now with Iraq and for the same good intentions that you are alluding to. Soon afterward the usual power play politics in the US will win out and we will walk away from Iran as much as we will be walking away from Iraq. There is no more fight in the US at this time. The will is gone to actually do something as it is far easier to merely make sound bites and trite phrase instead of honest commitments. The mililtary is still just as capable, willing and able to function but it's the backing from home that is no longer there for a job not yet finished.
It wasn't taken by any enemy, it was simply lost by virtue of loss of identity, purpose, ideals and all the sniping of the rest of the global "community" who would rather b**ch and moan about anyone doing anything rather than get involved in them selves. The country is tired of trying to be the Police Man of the globe and has learned that the world does not want to be saved. It would rather just criticise the ones doing something instead. It's easier and there's no risk to them involved.
Soon the isolationist frame of mind will assert itself. As long as we aren't being threatened directly on our shores we should just stay out of the worlds messes. It's already been stated here on the bbs. The big problem with isolationism and stagnation of global activity is the innitiative shifts to anyone willing to do something. That shift in innitiative will end up biting the country big time.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
So you know for a fact that the same people who were in Afghanistan and Chechnya are now in Iraq? And you know this how?
Well, if you know bin laden is hiding in a cave...
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
snip
Now here is a man who gets it.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Oil and plastic.
Both absolutely vital to our national interests
If you can think of a better reason. Lemme know ;)
Not that i disagree but are you saying we were intentionally lied to about why we needed to go into Iraq to begin with?
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
The REAL war, which has NOT erupted yet, is all about Iran controlling the
whole ME then the whole world. Afghanistan (was done rightfully so) and Iraq
are just pecking points on the trail to Iran. Cutting off Iran by consuming
Iraq and Afghanistan territory.
You will NOT be able to deal with Iran once they have nukes, but they will
never win what they think they will, they will be annihilated.
What we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is tiny nibbles of what we need to
do to Iran, like NOW.
My point being, and it's not an insult, IMO it's harsh reality. Some of you
are so fixated on Iraq and slimmy USA politics, that you're not thinking
outside the box and missing the big picture.
I
Ya know what, peopel dont really read more than 2 or 3 sentences in these forums.:D . And by the way, we eliminated the Taliban and Saddam, Irans enemies, making Iran the super power in the middle east.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Ya know what, peopel dont really read more than 2 or 3 sentences in these forums.:D . And by the way, we eliminated the Taliban and Saddam, Irans enemies, making Iran the super power in the middle east.
Yes and guess who's army is on either side of them? Do you play chess?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
got it....so it's just AQ that's bad, all those other Islamo fascist advocating the downfall of the great satin should just be ignored completely.
I'm sorry, which other ones planned and carried out 9/11, USS Stark, etc.
So no, you do not "get it".
I never said any other boogey man of the moment (according to the Admin) shouldn't be ignored, but invading the wrong country sure isn't the answer, now is it?
It squanders our Power and Prestige, and on that I know you agree.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Not that i disagree but are you saying we were intentionally lied to about why we needed to go into Iraq to begin with?
Actually no I don't.
but to go into this in depth may take a bit.
Please bear with me
I believe and see it as rather obvious that everyone from the Bush Sr administration through the Clinton Administration. And obviously into the current one, all believed he had them
Or at the very least the very vast majority of people in both parties firmly believed he had them.
There is certainly enough evidence in the form of direct quotes from these people to support this.
And people seem to forget. Or plain do not want to remember it wasn't only our government who claimed he indeed had them.
Just about every other intel agency from just about every major country also claimed he had them.
the question wasn't if he had them. but what to do about it.
So if Bush lied. then so did a lot of other people both here and abroad
As such. And even without WMDs It has been widely reported by just about every news media throughout the years that Saddams goal was to dominate and control the middle east.
He had already shown he had no problem in attacking his neighbors.
As such he was a threat so long as he remained in power
Now while the sanctions were in full effect and fully being enforced by all countries. that threat was seriously diminished.
But. the Sanctions were beginning to break down. It was only a matter of time before they became irrelevant and Saddam would once again become a threat.
Now back to the WMDs. for a moment.
I do believe he had a NBC program (WMDs)
Most countries with any kind of money these days do have them. Including our own
I also believe that after gulf war 1 he had dispersed and hidden this program in such a way that it would be difficult if not impossible to prove he had them.
As far as his Chemical and Bio programs are concerned.
Most people just don't understand how his programs worked.
They expect to find stockpiles of shells filled with the stuff and that's just not how it worked.
For whatever he was. Saddam was a paranoid and didn't trust many people
As such he didn't keep stockpiles of the stuff laying around to be used at a moments notice where it could be used by just anyone who had a mind to. Possibly against him.
When they were to be used. they were mixed or put together on site.
where he would have people mix and/or add these things to the shells just prior to firing them
As far as the chemical weapons go. Most of the chemical weapons were probably made up of duel use chemicals.
Meaning there were other legitimate uses for these chemicals besides weaponry.
As a very basic example
Most homes have such dual use chemicals.
Most people have both bleach and ammonia.
Now in and of themselves and when used properly for cleaning there is no problem and they serve a legitimate purpose which would be hard for anyone to complain about.
But. if you mix the two together. You get a poison gas. Viola you just created a chemical weapon.
As far as his Bio program is concerned.
With Bio weapons you don't need tons and tons of the stuff. A little dab will do ya.
A teaspoon of Anthrax for example can kill a whole lot of people
From everything I've read. the amount of material he is supposed to have you could fit into a common garage.
Now imagine hiding the contents of a common garage in an area the size of Texas. And having 10 years to do it in.
Not exactly the hardest thing in the world to do.
Then there is the still unresolved case of the missing nuclear material.
I believe he had them yes. But he had them in a way that would be difficult if not impossible to prove. So it doesn't surprise me that we haven't been able to find much..
Now. Back to the reasons for war.
Again. I see it as rather obvious that both parties firmly believed he had that capability. I don't believe anyone was intentionally lied to by any administration or party about his capabilities.
Diplomatic solutions were failing. As I said. Sanctions were starting to fall apart.
Secret deals with France. Germany, and Russia were being developed for the full lifting of sanctions.
We know this from the Dilfer report
Once the sanctions were gone. It would be harder and harder to legitimize the reasons for use being there and enforcing anything.
And Saddam again would be completely free to do as he pleased. And again be a threat to the region. And probably be a pretty pissed off one at his neighbors at that. Saddam wasn't real big on forgive and forget.
With him as a threat to the region. we would be a threat to our national interests. That being. the flow of oil from the ME
As I have stated many times here on these boards.
"Oil isn't just in our national interest. it IS our national interest"
And it would be kinda hard for anyone to dispute that
Wars since the beginning of time have been fought to protect or acquire what is the countries interests from trade routes to gold, to sugar and tea.
None were more vital to a countries way of life then oil.
And we must protect and fight for what is in our vital national interests.
Now we knew that Saddam at least HAD a NBC program. It would be downright foolish to assume he either didn't still have them or wouldn't start them up again once sanctions were lifted. Which again as the Dilfer report points out was exactly his intentions once sanctions were lifted
Now. with that in mind we had some choices to make.
We could do nothing and hope Saddam would decide he was going to suddenly change his stripes and play nice nice.
Which was possible. It was unlikely as hell. But it was possible.
We could attack now while he was at his weakest.
Or we could wait and attack later when he has re gathered his strength.
Problem is if by attacking now. We run the risk of looking like fools if nothing was found.
Yet if we wait until later when something does happen.
The potential cost would be much much higher and more difficult
And people would be screaming why something wasn't done before
when we had the chance.
Damned if ya do. Damned if ya don't
Sanctions are a good short term solution to persuade countries on smaller issues.
They are a poor long term solution as they only work if everyone fully and completely participates in them in the long term.
Which rarely if ever happens.
Sanctions wouldn't do the job. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the problems the world now has with North Korea, and Iran and see how well sanctions work in the long term.
Eventually you have to deal with the problem.
IT seems to me foolish to wait to deal with a problem when it has gained strength. And prudent to deal with it when it is at it weakest
You don't wait for a tumor to become cancerous before you deal with it
And you don't wait for a known cancer to spread before you deal with it
You don't leave a loose shingle on the roof un repaired on the off chance it will never cause a leak.
Do I think we were intentionally lied to? No
There were more then enough people on both sides that thought so dating back to well before GW to give that claim any kind of legitimacy
The question was to deal with the situation now. Or later.
To deal with it later just means your passing it off onto someone else
Oil was and is the end game though. No question about it.
Its the reason to be concerned about the WMDs and Saddam trying to dominate the ME. While I don't believe he was a direct threat to us. He was a threat to the ME. and as such he was an indirect threat to us by way of our national interests
And its not just about gas
Plastic being one of the leading byproducts of the oil industry is also absolutely vital to our national interests.
All one without even leaving their seats needs to do is look around them and see how important plastic has become.
Oil, gas and plastic aren't just mere wants. They are at the point of absolute needs. As literally everything comes to a screeching halt without them.
And they will continue to be so well into the foreseeable future
To the point where we cannot tolerate threats to those needs any more then we could tolerate threats to our food supply.
I have said all along I was and are in favor of the actions in Iraq.
The only reason I needed to be given was "Because its Tuesday"
I would have supported it no matter who was in office. Be it Bush,or Clinton
Or Gore. Or if Barbara Streisand were president for that matter.
The way I see people on these boards are however. Had Clinton done it Or had Gore been elected and done it.
Most of the current nay sayers would be in favor of it and most of the current supporters would be whining about it. (note I said most. Not ALL)
Not through any kind of critical thinking though.
though points can be made in either direction through critical thinking
That type of thinking is rarely used here.
But purely out of politics and the bias that comes with it
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes and guess who's army is on either side of them? Do you play chess?
It was always better to fight Iran by proxy....as we had Saddam do in the '80's and he would have done again...
That's chess......Bush, et al, are playing dumb bellybutton checkers.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
It was always better to fight Iran by proxy....as we had Saddam do in the '80's and he would have done again...
That's chess......Bush, et al, are playing dumb bellybutton checkers.
I have to disagree with ya. Choosing the battleground is strategerlic.
-
ask the Kurds if saddam had WMD.
-
Originally posted by john9001
ask the Kurds if saddam had WMD.
(Don't try to ask the dead ones.)
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Ya know what, peopel dont really read more than 2 or 3 sentences in these forums.:D . And by the way, we eliminated the Taliban and Saddam, Irans enemies, making Iran the super power in the middle east.
I agree to a point, maybe 50%
Getting rid of the taliban did not give Iran power, getting rid of Iraq\Saddam DID.
I do not believe that we should not have ever gone to Iraq, what I disagree with is the shallow mentality at which it was carried out and the cheap *excuses* that were used to get us there. Lets face some simple basic facts of life,...The entire world knew Bush was going to come up with reason\excuse to go to Iraq LONG before he even took office, it's not a coincidence.
Should *someone* have toppled Saddam? IMO yes, also in IMO, Bush was the absolute worse person to lead it. Don't make me go there because there are pages of long post why Bush was the absolute wrong man to lead it on many many levels. Most of which are obvious to anyone who wants to actually think about it. It didn't require hind-sight 20/20. The entire event was predictable. To ignore it is just that.
Keep in mind a lot of this is opinion mixed with the facts that are given.
-
Originally posted by john9001
ask the Kurds if saddam had WMD.
We'll the only thing I say to that is that you rearrainging timelines to make your point. That's why we went there in 91. Lets not mix 91 with 03, because the real math doesn't work.
The reason used in 03 was WMDs were still there in 2001-2003 (still present). According to 4 reports from *4* different countries inteligence agencies or studies is there were NOT. I have read all 4 reports. You're trying to mix apples and oranges. Saddam got smacked down for what he did to Kurds in 91. The point was that he get rid of them or get smacked down again. The excuse was that he didn't get rid of them, all available reports say he did or that none were found. All 4 reports call the accusation unfounded. When Saddam screwed up was not allowing them proper access to see if he did. That was the only reason that made the "excuse" workable.
IMO we should have done in Iraq in 91 what we are attempting to do now, then it would have been accepted by many. Notice, no one is complaining about going to or still being in Afganistan. In Afganistan where the real reason is is a tiny force compared to what we have in Iraq based on false information. If you can't see the intent here, then I'm wasting my time.
Nothing personal, just a clash of opinions.
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
I agree to a point, maybe 50%
Getting rid of the taliban did not give Iran power, getting rid of Iraq\Saddam DID.
I do not believe that we should not have ever gone to Iraq, what I disagree with is the shallow mentality at which it was carried out and the cheap *excuses* that were used to get us there. Lets face some simple basic facts of life,...The entire world knew Bush was going to come up with reason\excuse to go to Iraq LONG before he even took office, it's not a coincidence.
Should *someone* have toppled Saddam? IMO yes, also in IMO, Bush was the absolute worse person to lead it. Don't make me go there because there are pages of long post why Bush was the absolute wrong man to lead it on many many levels. Most of which are obvious to anyone who wants to actually think about it. It didn't require hind-sight 20/20. The entire event was predictable. To ignore it is just that.
Keep in mind a lot of this is opinion mixed with the facts that are given.
So now the truth comes out, it isn't the war you disagree with, it's Bush. Thank you for finally being honest about this. So now that we know it makes a difference who it is that steps up and does the right thing, and if the wrong person does the right thing it's now the wrong thing, we know how to deal with the rest of your argument. Dismiss it for the unadulterated bullcrap that it is. Saddam needed to be removed, but because Bush did it, removing him was the wrong thing to do. No wonder I DON'T miss reading your blatant stupidity.
And by the way, I have family AND friends doing multiple tours in the sandbox. THEY believe in it, and I believe in them.
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
We'll the only thing I say to that is that you rearrainging timelines to make your point. That's why we went there in 91. Lets not mix 91 with 03, because the real math doesn't work.
The reason used in 03 was WMDs were still there in 2001-2003 (still present). According to 4 reports from *4* different countries inteligence agencies or studies is there were NOT. I have read all 4 reports. You're trying to mix apples and oranges. Saddam got smacked down for what he did to Kurds in 91. The point was that he get rid of them or get smacked down again. The excuse was that he didn't get rid of them, all available reports say he did or that none were found. All 4 reports call the accusation unfounded. When Saddam screwed up was not allowing them proper access to see if he did. That was the only reason that made the "excuse" workable.
IMO we should have done in Iraq in 91 what we are attempting to do now, then it would have been accepted by many. Notice, no one is complaining about going to or still being in Afganistan. In Afganistan where the real reason is is a tiny force compared to what we have in Iraq based on false information. If you can't see the intent here, then I'm wasting my time.
Nothing personal, just a clash of opinions.
Going in to Iraq in 91 didn't have a damned thing to do with the Kurds, and if you try to sell that you're either a liar or a fool. The SINGLE reason we went to Iraq in 91 is because Saddam invaded Kuwait and was going to invade Saudi Arabia. You know it is the truth. So does everyone else. Saddam didn't get smacked for gassing the Kurds. No one here is stupid enough to buy that line of crap.
The intent here is you hate Bush 41, and you cannot back him even if he does the right thing. That's your intent, and it has been for a long time. Thank you for posting it and admitting it.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
The REAL war, which has NOT erupted yet, is all about Iran controlling the
whole ME then the whole world.
Ya know I seem to recall seeing much the same thing regarding saddumb and Iraq just a few years back. Iraq trying to tie up the entire ME under saddumb. A unified Arab coalition instead of a seperated feuding mass of conflicting pathological intertribal squabbles. It was reported that saddumb thought himself the "modern man" capable of uniting all of the Arab world, under his terms of course.
There won't be any "war" with Iran by the US. Not now and not for some time, if ever. If, or when for the sake of discussion, we did go to war with Iran we'd be in the same situation we are in now with Iraq and for the same good intentions that you are alluding to. Soon afterward the usual power play politics in the US will win out and we will walk away from Iran as much as we will be walking away from Iraq. There is no more fight in the US at this time. The will is gone to actually do something as it is far easier to merely make sound bites and trite phrase instead of honest commitments. The mililtary is still just as capable, willing and able to function but it's the backing from home that is no longer there for a job not yet finished.
It wasn't taken by any enemy, it was simply lost by virtue of loss of identity, purpose, ideals and all the sniping of the rest of the global "community" who would rather b**ch and moan about anyone doing anything rather than get involved in them selves. The country is tired of trying to be the Police Man of the globe and has learned that the world does not want to be saved. It would rather just criticise the ones doing something instead. It's easier and there's no risk to them involved.
Soon the isolationist frame of mind will assert itself. As long as we aren't being threatened directly on our shores we should just stay out of the worlds messes. It's already been stated here on the bbs. The big problem with isolationism and stagnation of global activity is the innitiative shifts to anyone willing to do something. That shift in innitiative will end up biting the country big time.
I agree with portions of that, and I could go much further in explanation, but I won't. I will tackle the Iran war thing though.
IMO, When\IF we go to Iran it won't, and cannot, be the same tactics used on Afghanistan and Iraq, two different worlds even if in the same region. It would have to be full force destruction, ground troops would probably only enter the land for burying of bodies. It will be NOTHING like we are doing in Iraq. It will be done the way we did it in WWII, bomb the living crap out of them. To make this even simpler and cheaper and least effort permission from the world to use nukes would be an option. If Iran uses nukes first, it's an instant no ask reply with nukes they simply become mist. The cost of totally destroying Iran (which is going to be the only way do to it right) would be many billions cheaper then converting Iraq. We are not too worn out to complete destruction, we are worn out converting and keeping peace, which is failing. Isolation is not going to have the same effect on people who have already learned to deal with isolation for thousands of years.
To only use diplomacy as a one and only way to deal with things is for pacifist. People who *hope* it works, verses people who *make* it work. I highly doubt any diplomacy will work on Iran unless you choose to bow to them and give them everything they ask for, and they will probably still try to kill you. The only thing that will please them fully is for the world to convert to islam and them lead it.
IMO the way to fight a war is to get in there and do it until the other guy cannot get up. You don't punch him in the eye and wait for him to get up to return a punch, you make sure he doesn't get up from the first second you start. If we want to fight a street fight like a boxer we'll lose.
-
Animal,
I fully agree with the premise that if you are in combat you bring on any and all force available to end it quickly and decisively. Unfortunately that isn't going to be tollerated by the "world opinion" as it isn't PC or "fair". Warfare isn't a fair fight, that's a great way to take casualties you don't need to lose. Get in, make it very deadly and decisive and move on when the enemy is destroyed.
It doesn't work that way in unconventional warfare, particularly in an urban environment unless you are going to simply do a scorched earth scenario. Very bad for the press, nation building and world opinion.
I'll have to disagree with you on the stand off warfare concept. I don't think it will work quite as well as you state. If you have fixed fortifications and a static concentrated or massed enemy you can do quite a bit of damage that way. The problem is the enemy isn't likely to do that again and will simply fade back into the urban areas and do things unconventionally, again. You don't own the real estate until you put ground forces on it to take possession.
If they decide to meet in open combat, force on force, then you have the option to destro the enemy forces even in an urban environment. A good example is the TET Offensive in Nam. The VC ceased to exist as a combat force due to overwhelmig casualties. The battle is still considered to be a victory for the VC due to the way it was reported in the US. The US military are not the only ones who made a study of the conflict and how things worked out.
Given the current situation in the world I have no doubt that a total destruction of Iran would not be tollerated by the rest of the world. While we just might win that battle, the rest of the "war" would be lost because of it. We had a total war going in WW2 and we still hear how the bad and nasty the US was for using two atomic weapons to end it. I don't think anyone would support our use of a nuke right now even if the US was first attacked with a nuclear weapon even with a confirmation about who used it. Just my opinion but I'd bet ya $5.00 on it. Hopefully we'll never see the scenario play out.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes and guess who's army is on either side of them? Do you play chess?
Could you finish your thoughts there, o wise one? So we have a big army on either side of Iran. Now what?
-
Originally posted by john9001
ask the Kurds if saddam had WMD.
Good grief. Has anybody denied that saddam HAD WMD's. ? The USA sold them to him. We know he had them AT ONE TIME! Man, some of you just require such a simplification that its a damm shame to see your ilk pushing our men into the meat grinder.
-
here, latebreaking news.....
9:42am GMT Tony Blair has conceded on al-Jazeera that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. - Mr Blair's "big mistake in foreign affairs". - Interviewed yesterday on al-Jazeera television's new English-language channel, Mr Blair was challenged by Sir David Frost over the daily murders, bombings and kidnappings.
The kings court is breaking rank.
-
Maverick
This is what I mean by tossing all trivial BS out the window and deal with facts, from the facts you can base an interpretation and or opinion. This is what a lot of these debates are missing on the BB. The "my dad is bigger then your dad" syndrome. Most of which is barely worth a read, too much garbage to sift through.
IMO, I would place a lot of money on the table betting that if we were hit with a nuke, it's NOT going to be that hard to fling back and not get too much riff, and frankly in life preservation I don't think we're going to worry too much what others say. Iran is basing it's plans on exactly what you said about world approval, that's why what they are doing is working. We need to remove that issue from their plate (i.e. "now this is a knife") As I pointed out no one is even bothering to challenge us for being in Afganistan. Why, because 70% of the world condoned it for 911. The world will do the same with anyone hit with a nuke. SO I personally disagree based on my own perception of world events and seemingly set patterns.
Point being, I CAN NOT say you're wrong, nor right, I can only agree or disagree, as both our conclusions are based 50% on fact and the other 50% based on indvidual interpretation of those facts. I think common sense exist in both statements from both of us, just depends on our own POV. What would\will happen remains to be seen. Either way I would not be shocked.
This conversation between you and I is exactly what I was referring to dropping the party childs play and stick to facts with interpretation and common sense and accepting things with an open mind. I personally feel embarrassed for people who get all bent out of shape because someone said something not so pleasing about the party they voted for as if it were a personal attack on them. IMO that's just real shallow and limited thinking, a very narrow window. If the power of suggestion doesn't work, nothing will. :)
So whether we agree or not, salute for sticking to realism and facts. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me.
It's cognative conversations that allow a different POV that may enlighten both from each other to meet in the middle.
When I post things it's usually opinion not to be confused with saying I said it so that makes it true.
Animl
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Going in to Iraq in 91 didn't have a damned thing to do with the Kurds, and if you try to sell that you're either a liar or a fool. The SINGLE reason we went to Iraq in 91 is because Saddam invaded Kuwait and was going to invade Saudi Arabia. You know it is the truth. So does everyone else. Saddam didn't get smacked for gassing the Kurds. No one here is stupid enough to buy that line of crap.
The intent here is you hate Bush 41, and you cannot back him even if he does the right thing. That's your intent, and it has been for a long time. Thank you for posting it and admitting it.
Dude, with a statement like that, I'm not even going to touch it. Here's your hook back. :)
And if you want a flame you best look elsewhere or expect exactly what you ask for.
IMO you're talking out of your butt.
-
Originally posted by VOR
It wouldn't matter. You wouldn't believe it.
Excuse me while I post a couple things. Interpret it as you please.
Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assesments On Iraq
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence On Postwar Findings About Iraqs WMD Programs And Links To Terrorism And How They Compare to Prewar Assesments.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Additional Info: most of which is found in the PDFs
2002 DIA reports
In February 2002, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency issued Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, the existence of which was revealed on 9 December 2005, by Doug Jehl in the New York Times, which impugned the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The DIA report suggested that al-Libi had been "intentionally misleading" his interrogators. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: "Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.
2002 British intelligence report
In October 2002, a British Intelligence investigation of possible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the possibility of Iraqi WMD attacks issued a report concluding: "al Qaeda has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided. We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda and do not believe that al Qaeda plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction.
2003 British intelligence report
In January 2003, British intelligence completed a classified report on Iraq that concluded that "there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network." The report was leaked to the BBC, who published information about it on February 5, the same day Colin Powell addressed the United Nations. According to BBC, the report "says al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden views Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party as running contrary to his religion, calling it an 'apostate regime'. 'His aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq,' it says." The BBC reported that former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that intelligence had shown that the Iraqi regime appeared to be allowing a permissive environment "in which al-Qaeda is able to operate...Certainly we have some evidence of links between al-Qaeda and various people in Iraq...What we don't know, and the prime minister and I have made it very clear, is the extent of those links...What we also know, however, is that the Iraqi regime have been up to their necks in the pursuit of terrorism generally.
2003 Israeli intelligence
In February 2003, Israeli intelligence sources told the Associated Press that no link has been conclusively established between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to the AP story, "Boaz Ganor, an Israeli counter-terrorism expert, told the AP he knows of no Iraqi ties to terror groups, beyond Baghdad's relationship with Palestinian militias and possibly Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.... A senior Israeli security source told the AP that Israel has not yet found evidence of an Iraqi-Palestinian-Al Qaeda triangle, and that several investigations into possible Al Qaeda ties to Palestinian militias have so far not yielded substantial results. Ganor said Al Qaeda has put out feelers to Palestinian groups, but ties are at a very preliminary stage.
2004 Carnegie study
In January 2004, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholars Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, and George Perkovich publish their study WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, which looked into Saddam's relationship with al-Qaeda and concluded that "although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda." The study also found "some evidence that there were no operational links" between the two entities.
2004 CIA report
In August, the CIA finished another assessment of the question of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. This assessment had been requested by the office of the Vice President, who asked specifically that the CIA take another look at the possibility that Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constituted a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, as Colin Powell had claimed in his speech to the United Nations Security Council. The assessment concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime harbored Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A U.S. official familiar with the new CIA assessment said intelligence analysts were unable to determine conclusively the nature of the relationship between al-Zarqawi and Saddam. "It's still being worked," he said. "It (the assessment) ... doesn't make clear-cut, bottom-line judgments" about whether Saddam's regime was aiding al-Zarqawi. The official told Knight Ridder "What is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities," but that the report didn't conclude that Saddam's regime had provided "aid, comfort and succor" to al-Zarqawi. According to Knight Ridder, "Some officials believe that Saddam's secular regime kept an eye on al-Zarqawi, but didn't actively assist him." Knight Ridder reporters called the CIA study "the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush's key justifications for last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
2005 update of CIA report
In October 2005, the CIA updated the 2004 report to conclude that Saddam's regime "did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates," according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (see 2006 report below).[89] Two counterterrorism analysts told Newsweek Saddam's government may never have known Zarqawi was in Iraq because Zarqawi used "false cover." An intelligence official also told Newsweek the current draft of the report says that "most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war. It also recognizes that there are still unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge about the relationship." According to Newsweek, "The most recent CIA analysis is an update—based on fresh reporting from Iraq and interviews with former Saddam officials—of a classified report that analysts in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence first produced more than a year ago.
-
FT, you must have missed my earlier post. You aren't telling me anything I didn't already know.
-
Originally posted by VOR
FT, you must have missed my earlier post. You aren't telling me anything I didn't already know.
I didn't mean to come across as if I was. Just looked like an opertune moment to do so. :)