Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: crockett on September 16, 2007, 06:01:35 PM
-
:D :D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6997935.stm
-
This is historic. When was the last time the French attacked somebody? Napoleonic wars?
More likely than not the French and the EU will just put up some worthless sanctions.
-
Well, man up. Won't be long before we have to take Paris back for the Frenchme.....Frenchm..... Frenchme... French people.
So, how many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
-
Must have:
"We have decided that while negotiations are continuing to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that," he said.
Hmmm..... Germany-France friendship? On the list of things you never see coming, #1 was France declaring war, #2 was France and Germany being "good friends". But will either be backed up?
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Must have:
Hmmm..... Germany-France friendship? On the list of things you never see coming, #1 was France declaring war, #2 was France and Germany being "good friends". But will either be backed up?
Nope.
-
What the French mean by preparing for war is that they are stock piling white flags.
We should have seen this coming back when the Germans did not want to go to war in the middle east.
-
french will be last to attack israel or us will be first
-
I think Molodova may go in first, witht heir entire 12 man military.:D
-
Guys, I have real hopes for this new PM. He has stated from the beginning that he wanted to mend fences with us. To me, so far it seems they are moving towards the less tolerant France of the past, so let's give em a break.
Besides, I wanna supersize my Frenchfries.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Must have:
Hmmm..... Germany-France friendship? On the list of things you never see coming, #1 was France declaring war, #2 was France and Germany being "good friends". But will either be backed up?
When france sends its soldiers to Iran, Germany will help itself to France again.
Whats that I hear?
I hear the sounds of halftracks and Panzers gearing up for deployment........
-
Personally I've always felt Iran should have been the target not Iraq. However I wouldn't support another war with George Bush as the guy in charge. He's lost two already because of his hard headed ignorance.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Personally I've always felt Iran should have been the target not Iraq. However I wouldn't support another war with George Bush as the guy in charge. He's lost two already because of his hard headed ignorance.
Lost two? I didn't relize either of them was over yet. After all we still have troops there. But I'm just ignorant.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
When france sends its soldiers to Iran, Germany will help itself to France again.
Whats that I hear?
I hear the sounds of halftracks and Panzers gearing up for deployment........
I'm glad someone caught my reference to WWII.
-
Originally posted by Ichthyologist
Lost two? I didn't relize either of them was over yet. After all we still have troops there. But I'm just ignorant.
Well we sure as hell aren't making any ground in Afghan and we basically shoved that one the "real" war on terror off on our allies. Now with Iraq, even Bush is starting to talk about pulling more troops out.
I guess it's all on your own perspective though, I mean if you work for KBR or Halliburton it's probably going great.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Well we sure as hell aren't making any ground in Afghan and we basically shoved that one the "real" war on terror off on our allies. Now with Iraq, even Bush is starting to talk about pulling more troops out.
I guess it's all on your own perspective though, I mean if you work for KBR or Halliburton it's probably going great.
afghanistan is coming alone fine... the big difference being the afghans actually want us to be there.
-
France has all those nuke plants now and just wants to raid Iran for their uranium. No blood for uranium!!!
-
Originally posted by Torque
afghanistan is coming alone fine... the big difference being the afghans actually want us to be there.
Funny seems the news tells different stories.
"Suicide attacks are a relatively recent phenomenon in Afghanistan, with the first being the assassination of military leader Ahmad Shah Massoud on 9 September 2001, according to a UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) report released on 9 September 2007 entitled Suicide Attacks in Afghanistan.
The report goes on to say that only four suicide attacks occurred in 2003 and 2004, but 17 occurred in 2005 and 123 in 2006. In the first eight months of 2007, 125 suicide attacks have killed over 120 civilians, establishing suicide missions as an integral part of insurgent strategy."
There have been more suicide attacks this year in Afghan than any other year, not to mention opium is at a all time high and the Taliban are returning. Hell, even Australian and Canadian govt's are trying to pressure more troops out of NATO, because they don't have enough troops on the ground to make progress.
So what part is going just fine?
-
Exactly how are we supposed to stop suicide attacks, short of building a wall between them and Pakistan? (And Israel was roundly bit***d out by the world for building ITS wall)--Russia tried to occupy Afghanistan with a huge, overwhelming force, and it back-fired--our plan there was always a small footprint, special-ops thing...us working with their army. They thought same thing would work in Iraq.....alas no--Iran/Syria have much easier access to Iraq... And if I may inquire, WHY does it seem that bad news in Iraq/Afghanistan is seized upon with such glee by leftists in this country?
THIS guy is retiring, and has NO reason to protect Bush...he actually says what he believes, a thing common for military officers, but unknown in Washington
"One of the mistakes I made in my assumptions going in was that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Army would welcome liberation, that the Iraqi Army, given the opportunity, would stand together for the Iraqi people and be available to them to help serve the new nation," Gen. Peter Pace said.
But "they disintegrated in the face of the coalition's first several weeks of combat, so they weren't here," Pace said.
Had he known that would happen, he would have recommended more troops be sent at the outset of the Iraq war, he said.
In addition, Pace said, if he had been asked in January 2006 whether the United States should build up its Army and Marine Corps contingents in Iraq, he would have said no, because the plan at the time was to build and equip an Iraqi Army and turn over security duties to it.
The force was built and equipped, Pace said, but the February bombing of the Golden Mosque -- one of the holiest *****e sites -- ignited long-simmering tensions between Sunni and *****e Muslims, further destabilizing the region and cutting short any plans for U.S. troop reduction.
Thousands of people have died in reprisal killings and bombings since the attack.
Still, Pace said, "Given what I knew at the time, I'm comfortable with the recommendations that I made." Any errors that were made are to be learned from, he added.Video Watch how Pace details the mistakes made at Iraq war's start »
And he continued to voice his support for the Iraq invasion.
"Twenty-six million Iraqis have the opportunity now," he said. "They are working their way through 3˝ decades of being trod upon, held down, no opportunity at all for freedom of expression, for living their lives the way they wanted to, for picking [their] leaders."
link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/14/pace.iraq/?iref=mpstoryview)
-
Originally posted by crockett
So what part is going just fine?
It wouldn't matter if someone posted an article with good things happening...youd find one of the oppisette to counter that...and so on and so on......
If a terrorist straps a bomb to themselves....walks into a building and blows themselves up , is that the U.S. fault?
Terroist dead=good
No troops died = good
Civilians died = bad
Yet you will make it the U.S. fault that those civilians died. Almost to the point of U.S. troops strapping the bomb on the terrorist and sending them in there.
You could really care less the good that is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere we may have troops helping in anyway. Your a doom and gloomer and just want to gripe and blame the U.S. for everything bad. Blame Bush and the admin and totally forget that the left voted to go to war as well. Its all about Haliburton and a huge plot to go to war for oil and the "Man" getting rich off the plight if the under priviledged and war torn people of where ever you feel the need to take up the cause for that day.
The whole left whinning anti war we were lied to impeach Bush lets get high and keep the world green due to global warming politically correct battle the government crowd make me tired.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
It wouldn't matter if someone posted an article with good things happening...youd find one of the oppisette to counter that...and so on and so on......
If a terrorist straps a bomb to themselves....walks into a building and blows themselves up , is that the U.S. fault?
Terroist dead=good
No troops died = good
Civilians died = bad
Yet you will make it the U.S. fault that those civilians died. Almost to the point of U.S. troops strapping the bomb on the terrorist and sending them in there.
You could really care less the good that is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere we may have troops helping in anyway. Your a doom and gloomer and just want to gripe and blame the U.S. for everything bad. Blame Bush and the admin and totally forget that the left voted to go to war as well. Its all about Haliburton and a huge plot to go to war for oil and the "Man" getting rich off the plight if the under priviledged and war torn people of where ever you feel the need to take up the cause for that day.
The whole left whinning anti war we were lied to impeach Bush lets get high and keep the world green due to global warming politically correct battle the government crowd make me tired.
From an article today..
"Militant attacks in southern and eastern Afghanistan have escalated over the past 19 months, marking the bloodiest period since the beginning of the war."
So where do you get the idea that it's going fine? Is it because you don't hear about "American" troops getting killed?
Number one you don't even have a clue as to what I think about the war in Afghan. I'm pissed off that Bush pulled troops out of Afghanistan to put them in a BS war in Iraq. I totally supported the war in Afghan because it is the "war on terror". Yet Bush has fumbled it every step of the way and then pawned it off on our allies to go screw off in Iraq.
I've also "always" supported a war against Iran because I know they are "real" supporters of terrorism. In fact the only war I don't support is the Iraq war. So take your consertive BS and stick it some where unpleasant.
However I would never support "any" war with Bush as the commander in chief because he's screwed this country over on the current two wars and pretty much anything else he's done.
-
From an article today..
"Militant attacks in southern and eastern Afghanistan have escalated over the past 19 months, marking the bloodiest period since the beginning of the war."
That kinda proves Redtop's point ;)
I totally supported the war in Afghan because it is the "war on terror".
You don't get to decide where the war on terror is fought, neither do I or anyone else on this board for that matter. If the government decides they want to fight it in Siberia, thats where it will be fought.
Saddam was supporting terrorists in various ways, it's been shown here, you refuse to see it. Granted, he wasn't supporting terrorism on the scale of Iran, Syria or Afghanistan but he was doing it.
-
GWB will be pissed off. if the French get there first!!
:noid
-
Originally posted by crockett
I've also "always" supported a war against Iran because I know they are "real" supporters of terrorism.
There is an organisation called MEK.
An organisation which killed in its history US citizen, later they fought for Saddam and tortured POW´s and also normal iraqi civilians in the name of Saddam. The MEK is an extremely brutal organisation, which butchered iraqi kurds by rolling over them with their tanks so they "didnt have to waste" ammunition.
The USA defined this MEK as a terrorist organisation.
It is still defined today as a terrorist organisation by the USA.
But after the liberation of Iraq the MEK-members were not arrested.
The MEK-members were allowed to have weapons. They have to give up their tanks and heavy weapons, but the strange situation came that the USA allowed terrorists to keep light wepons.
The MEK was allowed to keep its main base in Iraq.
When the iraqi kurds wanted to take revenge against their former torturers, the MEK was protected by US-troops.
The MEK still performs terroristic operations against civilian targets. The last one was a bomb explosion which killed civilians.
So there is the paradox situation that on the one hand the USA defines the MEK as a terrorist organisation and on the other hand MEK terrorists have no problem to live in Iraq, even protected by US-forces against iraqis.
Maybe you can tell me, where the logic in this behavior is.
Or maybe there is a rule like "We are making war against terror, but our terrorists are good terrorists, even if they do criminal and barbaric acts like all the other terror-organisations."?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That kinda proves Redtop's point ;)
You don't get to decide where the war on terror is fought, neither do I or anyone else on this board for that matter.
Wrong, ...............vote!
-
Originally posted by babek-
There is an organisation called MEK.
An organisation which killed in its history US citizen, later they fought for Saddam and tortured POW´s and also normal iraqi civilians in the name of Saddam. The MEK is an extremely brutal organisation, which butchered iraqi kurds by rolling over them with their tanks so they "didnt have to waste" ammunition.
The USA defined this MEK as a terrorist organisation.
It is still defined today as a terrorist organisation by the USA.
But after the liberation of Iraq the MEK-members were not arrested.
The MEK-members were allowed to have weapons. They have to give up their tanks and heavy weapons, but the strange situation came that the USA allowed terrorists to keep light wepons.
The MEK was allowed to keep its main base in Iraq.
When the iraqi kurds wanted to take revenge against their former torturers, the MEK was protected by US-troops.
The MEK still performs terroristic operations against civilian targets. The last one was a bomb explosion which killed civilians.
So there is the paradox situation that on the one hand the USA defines the MEK as a terrorist organisation and on the other hand MEK terrorists have no problem to live in Iraq, even protected by US-forces against iraqis.
Maybe you can tell me, where the logic in this behavior is.
Or maybe there is a rule like "We are making war against terror, but our terrorists are good terrorists, even if they do criminal and barbaric acts like all the other terror-organisations."?
MEK = Methyl Ethyl Ketone?
:D
Actually theres an old quote that answers your questions, one that has at times gotten the U.S. into tight situations:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
-
As a matter of historic fact, France attacked Iraq along with everyone else in '91. On another point, Germany and France have been good friends for quite some time much to the discomfort of the British as times. Indeed there is even a Franco-German brigade based in Mulheim in Germany.
With the pro American, Sarkozy in power now there may yet come a time when all the ignorant French bashers will have to choke on their freedom fries and find another country to have a go at. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by FBBone
MEK = Methyl Ethyl Ketone?
:D
Actually theres an old quote that answers your questions, one that has at times gotten the U.S. into tight situations:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
;)
1. MEK means Mujaheddin-e-Khalk
2. Yes - I know this quote.
The USA called the Taliban-like Mujaheddin noble freedom fighters when they performed their terroristic acts against the soviets in Afghanistan.
The USSR called them terrorists.
That is understandable for me.
I have problems to understand, when the USA calls the MEK on the one hand officially a terrorist organisation and on the other hand helps them.
At least they could remove these terrorists from the US-Terrorist list and call them noble freedom fighters ;)
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
As a matter of historic fact, France attacked Iraq along with everyone else in '91. On another point, Germany and France have been good friends for quite some time much to the discomfort of the British as times. Indeed there is even a Franco-German brigade based in Mulheim in Germany.
With the pro American, Sarkozy in power now there may yet come a time when all the ignorant French bashers will have to choke on their freedom fries and find another country to have a go at. :rolleyes:
It would be nice to see the French go fight a war that we don't have to bail them out of. WWI, WWII, Vietnam (thanks for that mess by the way)
I'd also be glad to moev on to the next country, maybe we can go after Belgium, Belgian Waffles become Freedom Waffles.
-
Originally posted by babek-
There is an organisation called MEK.
An organisation which killed in its history US citizen, later they fought for Saddam and tortured POW´s and also normal iraqi civilians in the name of Saddam. The MEK is an extremely brutal organisation, which butchered iraqi kurds by rolling over them with their tanks so they "didnt have to waste" ammunition.
The USA defined this MEK as a terrorist organisation.
It is still defined today as a terrorist organisation by the USA.
But after the liberation of Iraq the MEK-members were not arrested.
The MEK-members were allowed to have weapons. They have to give up their tanks and heavy weapons, but the strange situation came that the USA allowed terrorists to keep light wepons.
The MEK was allowed to keep its main base in Iraq.
When the iraqi kurds wanted to take revenge against their former torturers, the MEK was protected by US-troops.
The MEK still performs terroristic operations against civilian targets. The last one was a bomb explosion which killed civilians.
So there is the paradox situation that on the one hand the USA defines the MEK as a terrorist organisation and on the other hand MEK terrorists have no problem to live in Iraq, even protected by US-forces against iraqis.
Maybe you can tell me, where the logic in this behavior is.
Or maybe there is a rule like "We are making war against terror, but our terrorists are good terrorists, even if they do criminal and barbaric acts like all the other terror-organisations."?
I know all about MEK.. that's another one that pisses me off. We have US troops being used to protect these guys inside Iraq. Even the Iraqi govt want them out but the US govt lets them stay and even uses US troops to guard convoys and offer general protection for this terrorist group.
I think the MEK example shows just how "F" up our govt really is. The second example to show how "F" up our govt is, is that we allow mercenaries to fight in Iraq.
Now today we get to see why that's such a great idea.. Say good by to Iraq Blackwater, you just got kicked out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998788.stm
-
Originally posted by FBBone
MEK = Methyl Ethyl Ketone?
Actually theres an old quote that answers your questions, one that has at times gotten the U.S. into tight situations:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
yea that worked real good for us with bin Laden didn't it?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That kinda proves Redtop's point ;)
I'd like to understand how your mind can come up with that one. I hope you also understand that the other half of the bloodiest part of the war that they are talking about also means our allies soldiers, whom have died in that time period.
I'm sure the Canadians and Austrians will appreciate your thoughts on how well it's going.
Originally posted by Elfie
You don't get to decide where the war on terror is fought, neither do I or anyone else on this board for that matter. If the government decides they want to fight it in Siberia, thats where it will be fought.
Saddam was supporting terrorists in various ways, it's been shown here, you refuse to see it. Granted, he wasn't supporting terrorism on the scale of Iran, Syria or Afghanistan but he was doing it.
Funny you still cling to the "Saddam was supporting terrorists" line, hell I think even Bush gave up on that one. Maybe you can still justify it in your mind because he was a "bad guy".
-
Originally posted by crockett
Funny you still cling to the "Saddam was supporting terrorists" line, hell I think even Bush gave up on that one. Maybe you can still justify it in your mind because he was a "bad guy".
So he wasn't sending money to Palestinians to blow themselves up in Israeli pizza parlors?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by crockett
yea that worked real good for us with bin Laden didn't it?
Did you read the whole post, or just snipe at the quote? Let me help you out:
Originally posted by FBBone
Actually theres an old quote that answers your questions, one that has at times gotten the U.S. into tight situations:
[/b]
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Must have:
Hmmm..... Germany-France friendship? On the list of things you never see coming, #1 was France declaring war, #2 was France and Germany being "good friends". But will either be backed up?
#3, a frechmen with balls
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070917140851.yub7uk0l&show_article=1
-
Originally posted by Goth
Guys, I have real hopes for this new PM. He has stated from the beginning that he wanted to mend fences with us. To me, so far it seems they are moving towards the less tolerant France of the past, so let's give em a break.
I think it is the new leadership and perhaps a little bit rookie or inexperienced comment by the new government. Definitely an attempt to get back on the US side.
Besides, it's all talk. We'll have to wait and see what Russia will do.
-
this reminds me of work too much BLAH
-
Read Al Jazeera's article on the issue:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/485038D5-97BD-4300-93CA-7F78F35D8C36.htm
-
Originally posted by crockett
From an article today..
"Militant attacks in southern and eastern Afghanistan have escalated over the past 19 months, marking the bloodiest period since the beginning of the war."
So where do you get the idea that it's going fine? Is it because you don't hear about "American" troops getting killed?
Number one you don't even have a clue as to what I think about the war in Afghan. I'm pissed off that Bush pulled troops out of Afghanistan to put them in a BS war in Iraq. I totally supported the war in Afghan because it is the "war on terror". Yet Bush has fumbled it every step of the way and then pawned it off on our allies to go screw off in Iraq.
I've also "always" supported a war against Iran because I know they are "real" supporters of terrorism. In fact the only war I don't support is the Iraq war. So take your consertive BS and stick it some where unpleasant.
However I would never support "any" war with Bush as the commander in chief because he's screwed this country over on the current two wars and pretty much anything else he's done.
1st off , I never said it was going "Fine". That was said by someone else not me. My definition of going fine and the admins. as well as most peoples definition is WAY off. I won't elaborate on mine.
2nd off stats inho are nothing more than numbers made to report what you want them to say. 19 months? why not report 12 months. 6 months. 3 months. I don't have your source but I would be willing to bet , that those numbers and time period were done to make things look bad. Perhaps they should do 2 years worth. You can make figures come out to fit your agenda in this type of thing easy enough.
What makes a terrorist more of a threat. The one with a gun or the one that just got paid 25k to blow themself up? You say Iran is the "Real" supporter of terror. What does that make syria? How about hamas? What about islamic jihad? Less of a threat?
I don't make decisions in policy. Neither do you or anyone else here. And yes EVERYONE can and should state thier opinion. But where the troops are sent and who we fight where is not yours or my decision. If the POTUS was told that things in Afghan were going well and the generals decided that they could move troops to that "BS" war in Iraq , then thats what was done. the POTUS is only as good as his advisors and generals in a war. He can only act on INFO and INTEL provided by the proper people in that business. IF he decides to not view the info and makes the wrong choice THEN it is his fault. But if he weighs things out , talks to the people around him with the knowledge and it doesn't go right , then IMHO he is not the only one at fault.
Every frikin democrat that voted for this "BS" war gets a free pass daily while the POTUS gets hammered as well as the republicans.
If you or anyone on this BBS or throughout the country want a change in policy , then VOTE the morons that are in washington now OUT.
You say you support a war with Iran? We aren't in a war with Iran. Nor right now are we massing troops or getting ready to go to war with Iran. But I'd bet my pension and retirment that IF we do go to war with Iran , the very same people that vote for it at the first sign of a bump in the road will be calling for it to stop. The same people like you that are all in a daily tizz over Iraq and finding something to blame Bush for , will be suking up to the hillarys and obamas to get us out of Iran.
Truth is I don't think half the country , or maybe even more than that has a clue anymore. This whole country is falling apart at the seams and all thast done is play a blame game. Never a fix...just sling mud. I'm persoanlly sick of the whole damn thing and if I ever hit the lottery , Im moving to someplace like the virgin Islands or bermuda.
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/14/world/main3260912.shtml
for those of you who think nothing is wrong.... Get real
-
Originally posted by crockett
I'd like to understand how your mind can come up with that one. I hope you also understand that the other half of the bloodiest part of the war that they are talking about also means our allies soldiers, whom have died in that time period.
I'm sure the Canadians and Austrians will appreciate your thoughts on how well it's going.
Funny you still cling to the "Saddam was supporting terrorists" line, hell I think even Bush gave up on that one. Maybe you can still justify it in your mind because he was a "bad guy".
Redtop said if someone posts something positive you will find something negative, and you sure did. You proved Redtop correct.
As far as Saddam supporting terrorists, he sure was. Just not on the same scale as others were doing. Go back and look for the thread where I posted sources showing Saddam's support for terrorists and not just paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Nah, you wont do that because it wouldn't fit your anti-Bush agenda.
-
I saved ya the trouble of doing your own search.
Iraq did have ties to terrorists, Iraq did give safe harbor including medical care to at least one Al-Qaeda member. There were also terrorist training camps in Iraq. It has also been documented that Zarqawi, former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq had himself and his organization in Iraq before we invaded.
Just a couple of the links from my google search *terrorist training camps in Iraq*
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...06/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ws/khodada.html
Saying Iraq had no ties to terrorism is just as rediculous as saying Iraq had ties to 9/11.
From this thread.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/frindex.html
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I saved ya the trouble of doing your own search.
From this thread.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/frindex.html
Following that logic, Timothy McVie and Ted Kaczynski operated and built their bombs inside the United State, therefore the United states supports terrorisms.
-
Hardly the same thing Thrawn and you know it.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
So he wasn't sending money to Palestinians to blow themselves up in Israeli pizza parlors?
Bronk
Don't know, Would not surprise me, But then Saudi Arabia was holding telethons on there TV for the same thing,
Israeli can handle there own affairs
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Hardly the same thing Thrawn and you know it.
It's comparable. Those camps in Iraq were in Kurdish territory. Saddam had very little control over what happened there, especially after the no fly zones were instituted.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It's comparable. Those camps in Iraq were in Kurdish territory. Saddam had very little control over what happened there, especially after the no fly zones were instituted.
Thrawn are you that stupid or did you self educate yourself?
The "No Fly Zones" were for fixed winged aircraft.
The mass killings of Kurds in the North were before the "No Fly Zones" were established.
Are you, Thrawn, French-Canadian, or French or Canadian?
I love your posts BTW... makes my dog look really intelligent.
Mac
-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
and this
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
and one more
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
To say any American in power at the time actually supported those two loons is total BS. McVeigh got the death penalty, Saddam got the death penalty, and Kaczynski made a plea deal for life imprisonment.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It's comparable. Those camps in Iraq were in Kurdish territory. Saddam had very little control over what happened there, especially after the no fly zones were instituted.
Incorrect, at least one of the terrorist training camps was south of Baghdad, no where near the kurds.
While there were no fly zones, Saddam still had his army to enforce his will upon the people of Iraq. I believe the no fly zones also only applied to fixed wing aircraft.
-
the analogy plays better with the 9/11 bombers...
both had a long standing hatred and both unaware the other was in-house and being trained.
-
I still can't figure why I come to read this BBS and still pay to support this game.
When I almost can't play and when the moderation in the O'club is such a joke.