Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Preon1 on April 30, 2003, 01:21:24 PM
-
Didn't see this on the board... figured I'd post it.
New York Times
April 30, 2003
Pg. 1
U.S. To Withdraw All Combat Units From Saudi Arabia
By Eric Schmitt
PRINCE SULTAN AIR BASE, Saudi Arabia, April 29 The United States said today that it would withdraw all combat forces in Saudi Arabia by this summer, ending more than a decade of military operations in this strategic Middle East nation that is America's largest oil supplier.
The American presence here began as a joint operation to contain Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but increasingly became dangerous for the American troops involved because Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists resented their presence in the land of Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina. Twenty-four American soldiers died in two separate terrorist strikes here in 1995 and 1996.
American anger at Saudi Arabia swelled after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were identified as Saudi citizens.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his Saudi counterpart, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, said at a news conference in Riyadh that the end of the Iraq war and the fall of Saddam Hussein's government meant that America's military mission here was over. Only a small, longstanding training program involving some 400 to 500 troops will remain.
"It is now a safer region because of the change of regime in Iraq," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The aircraft and those involved will now be able to leave."
Even before today's announcement, American forces in Saudi Arabia, which doubled to 10,000 during the Iraq war, had started pulling out of this sprawling desert air base used by United States warplanes since 1992 to patrol what used to be the no-flight zone in southern Iraq.
On Monday, the military moved its major air operations center for the Middle East from here to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. By this summer, all 200 airplanes based here during the war will be gone, said the deputy air commander, Rear Adm. Dave Nichols. Some 1,600 Army soldiers operating Patriot antimissile batteries are expected to leave soon.
Prince Sultan today denied that Saudi Arabia had asked the United States to withdraw its forces. "This does not mean we requested them to leave Saudi Arabia, but as long as their operation is over, they will leave," he said.
But today's news conference was broadcast on Saudi national television, announcing a pullout of troops that the Saudis have always been reluctant to acknowledge were even here. In the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia refused to allow American journalists to join military units based here, as happened with troops elsewhere in the war.
Earlier this year, Saudi officials told The New York Times that the departure of American soldiers would set the stage for a series of democratic reforms, including an announcement that Saudi men but not women, at least initially would begin electing representatives to provincial assemblies and then to a national assembly. The ruling royal family, these officials suggested, could more easily sell potentially unsettling reform if it appears to be less dependent on the Americans.
Both parties in Congress urged reform upon the conservative kingdom after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Indeed, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and a critic of Saudi Arabia, today praised the Pentagon's decision to move the air operations center to Al Udeid because "the Qatari government welcomes U.S. presence."
Altogether, Mr. Rumsfeld spent only about six hours on the ground here in Saudi Arabia today, visiting troops and meeting with Prince Sultan and Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto daily ruler of the country who is said to be a leading proponent of internal political reform.
The withdrawal from Saudi Arabia comes at a time when the Pentagon is reassessing troop levels and basing agreements around the globe, but especially in Europe, the Persian Gulf and the Korean Peninsula. Mr. Rumsfeld said today that he is looking to "rearrange" United States forces to position them best for future conflicts.
Still, the departure of all American military forces from Saudi Arabia except for about 500 troops near Riyadh, who will continue a longstanding training mission, marks one of the most important milestones in the history of a relationship that dates to World War II.
Since the end of the 1991 gulf war, when the United States sent 550,000 forces to the Saudi desert, the two nations had agreed to confront and contain Mr. Hussein. American engineers built supply depots and the sophisticated, multibillion-dollar air operations center here, 50 miles south of Riyadh.
But by the mid-1990's, the security of American troops in the kingdom had become a major concern for the Pentagon. Five Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Riyadh in 1995, and 19 servicemen were killed and 500 others wounded in a bombing at the Al Khobar barracks in Dhahran a year later.
After that, most American military personnel were moved to this high-security base near the village of Al Kharj, far from populated areas.
Tensions flared between the two allies shortly after the air command post opened in 2001, just before the Sept. 11 attacks. In the first day of the Afghan air campaign, Saudi Arabia did not let American warplanes fly in Saudi air space. The issue was quickly resolved but the delay rankled American commanders.
The Saudi government barred the United States from launching airstrikes against Afghanistan or Iraq from this base, and it sought to stifle news that United States Special Operations forces were using other remote desert bases, like the one in Arar near the Iraqi border.
For the 5,000 American troops that have been permanently stationed here, as well as the thousands more who lived in tent cities during the Iraq war, P.S.A.B., as everyone here calls the base, was like a slice of American suburbia plunked down in the middle of the Saudi desert.
Troops live comfortably in what they call the Coalition Compound, which has a base exchange, a Burger King, a Baskin-Robbins ice cream parlor, a Chinese restaurant and various other shops and stores.
Several sand-colored pavilions provide shade from a searing sun that can drive temperatures above 120 degrees in the summer. The compound has a gym, tennis court, basketball court, swimming pool and recreation office where troops can rent bicycles to ride around the compound.
The base also has a one-room library and a movie tent that shows films throughout the day. Alcoholic beverages are prohibited, but a British-style pub offers nonalcoholic beer.
Tough security restrictions prevent troops from going into Riyadh except on official business. Few military personnel ever meet a Saudi civilian off base.
Now all that is coming to an end.
The flights over southern Iraq, called Operation Southern Watch, ended with a total of 286,000 missions flown. The air war is all but over. Allied planes have dropped one bomb in the past two weeks, Admiral Nichols said on Iraqis stealing weapons from a cache near the Haditha Dam in central Iraq.
Saudi and American officials said today that security cooperation would still continue, and some noted that the troops and warplanes could return someday if a future Saudi ruler faced a new threat.
In a huge, air-conditioned hangar here, Mr. Rumsfeld thanked hundreds of American, British and Australian forces for their war effort. Meanwhile, Admiral Nichols and other defense officials said the Pentagon had not yet decided whether to keep a skeleton crew here so the base could be restarted in an emergency.
-
The bad thing is Al Jareeda will proclaim that we have given in to Bin Laden's demands. We just might have to "accidentally" bomb their offices (again) to make a point.
-
I'm all for US forces withdrawing from everywhere.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
The bad thing is Al Jareeda will proclaim that we have given in to Bin Laden's demands. We just might have to "accidentally" bomb their offices (again) to make a point.
Yeah, and Pravda will claim that it was a victory by Russian special forces.
-
Come to think of it, France will probably weigh in and say that it was their political and economic pressure, and Germany will claim that it's efforts to promote peace allowed this to happen...
I'm not saying that pulling out of Saudi is a bad idea... I just hope the rest of the world doesn't get the wrong idea.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I'm all for US forces withdrawing from everywhere.
I heard that!!
Pull out of every where and take our money with us.
No more money to these piss ant countries.
Lets spend some of OUR American dollars in AMERICA fer gawds sake!
They (all these little dip**** countries) can all curl up and die for all I care.
lets take care of our own for a change.
-
So... by the end of this summer all those troops currently in Saudi Arabia will be somewhere in Iraq?
-
Let's bring 'em ALL home, including Iraq and Afghanistan, soon as the job is done there.
-
weeee no more crap deployments to al's garage.
-
I'm all for US forces withdrawing from everywhere.
Wait a minute, where has all the fervour for 'kicking ass' gone all of a sudden?
Leave Iraq in chaos and expect the rest of the world to provide the peace-keepers. That doesn't sound particularly big or clever.
-
Dunno Dowding...I'd say that the US "did" its part...the HARD part. Now the blue helmets can do their work. What is wrong with that idea?
The US isn't the police-force of the world...they are the firemen. They go in, smash things up, pour water on things and leave a big mess. They leave the clean-up to the janitors...I'll leave you to guess who they are....and deservedly so.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Dunno Dowding...I'd say that the US "did" its part...the HARD part. Now the blue helmets can do their work. What is wrong with that idea?
The US isn't the police-force of the world...they are the firemen. They go in, smash things up, pour water on things and leave a big mess. They leave the clean-up to the janitors...I'll leave you to guess who they are....and deservedly so.
I'd say winning the peace is the hard part.
Quite frankly I wouldn't put in a UN peacekeeping force, last I heard it had nothing to do with them. let the victors clean it up.
(http://members.optusnet.com.au/pwinter/mcsaddam.gif)
Tronsky
-
Well okay Tronski...that would be the US, UK, AUSTRAILIA and a few other countries that helped kick Sadaam's butt..
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
I'd say winning the peace is the hard part.
Quite frankly I wouldn't put in a UN peacekeeping force, last I heard it had nothing to do with them. let the victors clean it up.
Tronsky
No doubt here that that is exactly what we'll do.
And Dowding, even if we bring 'em all home, we still reserve the right to do a little bellybutton kickin' whenever and wherever needed.
-
The UN cant help much in Iraq... Not enough credibility.
-
The hard part is the peace-keeping, make no mistake about that. It's easy to walk into a bar brawl fists-a-swinging, it's a lot harder to try and separate people who are bent on murdering each other without getting battered yourself or being seen as biased.
Also, so personal responsibility does not translate to national responsibility in these matters?
And we heard so much about 'cleaning up the mistakes of the past' when referring to the '80s support of Saddam. According to some on these boards, they'd like to go through the whole process again.
-
Hold your high horses, Dowding.
We're in Iraq until, as Rumsfeld just said publicly for all the world to hear:
(MSNBC)
THE COALITION has no intention of owning or running Iraq, Rumsfeld emphasized in an addressed taped for Iraqi television and radio.
Our goal is to restore stability and security so that you can form an interim government and eventually a free Iraqi government, he said. A government of your choosing, a government that is of Iraqi design and Iraqi choice.
We will stay as long as necessary to help you do that, and not a day longer, he said.
They've pretty much said exactly the same thing in/about Afghanistan.
Further,
(MSNBC)
In a series of carefully choreographed steps following the swearing-in of a Palestinian leader acceptable to the United States and Israel, U.S. and U.N. officials presented a new Mideast peace plan to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and newly elected Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday.
So give this a chance and give it a rest, eh?
Bash us later, if we don't do what we say.
But give us just a tiny bit of credit and some time to do "the right thing", OK?
-
The Saudi Royal Family is in the same boat a certain Chinese princess was in in the 19th century.
They secretly supported forces *very* hostile to western powers with intel and weapons and one day those forces struck against westerners (in this case foreigners living in china), the west sent troops to protect their citizens (modern day equivalent: forces in iraq/afghanistan) with the public & open support of this chinese princess (modern version: saudi allowing allied forces to use nation as base).
Then, when the people of China grew restless about the princesses' open support of the "foreign invaders" , the princess was cought between her own people rising up against her, the forces that hated the west which she had secretely supported but publicly condemned getting pissy at her and finally the western armed forces (overpowering in military terms) literally being at her doorstep.
Thats where the Saudi Royal Family is at now. The chinese princess made the mistake of trying to stay in power by betraying the forces she had secretely supported to the western powers (literally handed them over); which in turn made her own people *really* pissed off and began to rebel and the western powers not being able to help her without causing a serious international issue (in those times they couldnt go into the capital of china shooting their way through the rebellious crowds). So the princess had to flee for her life. I dont remember if she made it out or not.
-
Hold my high horses? I would do, but yours are freaking mine out.
I was referring to people on this board and not the US administration. A re-reading of my post would confirm that, I believe.
And who's bashing who? To use an argument used by yourself in another thread:
I'm not bashing... I'm voicing my opinion... I haven't used foul language or anything like that.
Yes. I'd say that describes my post admirably.
-
I'm a little confused by your post toad. It seems Dowding has been pretty consistant on his thoughts regarding the Coalition forces remaining after the war and restoring order. Maybe he's a little cloudy on duty, responsibility and obligation... but the gist of the message has been pretty consistant.
It was someone else that pointed out that we should just pull all of our troops back.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Wait a minute, where has all the fervour for 'kicking ass' gone all of a sudden?
Leave Iraq in chaos and expect the rest of the world to provide the peace-keepers. That doesn't sound particularly big or clever.
Another inept and ignorant remark
-
Ignorant? How else can the following be interpretted?
They go in, smash things up, pour water on things and leave a big mess. They leave the clean-up to the janitors...I'll leave you to guess who they are....and deservedly so.
I think I paraphrased it pretty well.
-
None of this tripe serves any decent purpose...the fact of the matter is that we have done what we have done....time will bear out the truth of all of these matters and any help we could have used has been clearly withheld by our so called allies(with few exceptions).
Europe survives only becuase they have the USA to hate...without us, you would all be at each others throats in a New York minute.
-
Nice one Dowding. That was like a double-jab combo...like in a bar fight. You were "hit" with your remarks being referred to as ignorant and responded with a left at me, with my quote, and then a right at Rude by being so clever.
This guy is a BBS bare-knuckle prize-fighter.
-
Originally posted by Dnil
weeee no more crap deployments to al's garage.
Woohoo! i heard that!. If I never see that God foresaken land again, it will be too soon.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Wait a minute, where has all the fervour for 'kicking ass' gone all of a sudden?
Leave Iraq in chaos and expect the rest of the world to provide the peace-keepers. That doesn't sound particularly big or clever.
Don't put words in my mouth wise guy. Obviously we would not withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan until after some sort of order is established. As far as kicking ass, we should continue to kick the bellybutton of anybody who messes with us. Kicking bellybutton does not require the largest standing overseas garrison in military history.
-
lol Curval
You know my bark is worse than my bite. I don't put any stay by any of this bollocks. :)
-
Rude - you want to believe that everyone hates you. Desperately so. You want to believe that everyone is jealous of the you. Desperately so. Those are your hang-ups, but I simply don't see it.
I personally don't hate Americans - I think most of you are good, decent people. And I'm not jealous of Americans except for three things:
1) Your sunny weather
2) Your Cheap electronics
3) Your snowy weather
But hey, I'm British - the only good thing about our weather is that it is inconsistently grey.
Keep believing the barbarians are at the gates and one day it might turn out to be true.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
The bad thing is Al Jareeda will proclaim that we have given in to Bin Laden's demands. We just might have to "accidentally" bomb their offices (again) to make a point.
I hopt you are all aware that that bombing was against the Geneva convention. Just like bombing the Serbian and Iraqi TV.
The Geneva convention does not allow the attack of media assets (wether for propaganda or not.)
How can you retain morale autorithy when you break some of the rules that allows you to send people in jail (war criminals?)
<--- Puts is asbestos suit on.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
And who's bashing who?
Rereading? OK.. reread my post and see that "bash" is used in future tense.
;)
I didn't take your post as a "bash". I just said, "look, we've said we're going to stick it out; give us a chance".
I'm not sure what would be confusing about that, Mini.
As for the actual thread.. the withdrawal from SA does not signal or imply in any way a backing away from our committments to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. We've said we'll stay the course. So let's let some time go by and see how we do. That's all I said.
-
Originally posted by Imp
I hopt you are all aware that that bombing was against the Geneva convention. Just like bombing the Serbian and Iraqi TV.
The Geneva convention does not allow the attack of media assets (wether for propaganda or not.)
How can you retain morale autorithy when you break some of the rules that allows you to send people in jail (war criminals?)
<--- Puts is asbestos suit on.
No flame here, but the Geneva Convention allows for the targetting of military targets. And of course any media used for directing or galvanizing enemy forces is a legitimate military target.
-
Originally posted by Imp
I hopt you are all aware that that bombing was against the Geneva convention. Just like bombing the Serbian and Iraqi TV.
The Geneva convention does not allow the attack of media assets (wether for propaganda or not.)
How can you retain morale autorithy when you break some of the rules that allows you to send people in jail (war criminals?)
<--- Puts is asbestos suit on.
Now, as US piss on all other international conventions, Why would they respect the convention of Geneva?
Face it: They have the power to dictate the terms and do whatever they please to do.
-
Originally posted by Imp
I hopt you are all aware that that bombing was against the Geneva convention. Just like bombing the Serbian and Iraqi TV.
The Geneva convention does not allow the attack of media assets (wether for propaganda or not.)
How can you retain morale autorithy when you break some of the rules that allows you to send people in jail (war criminals?)
<--- Puts is asbestos suit on.
The same links used for their propaganda also delivered communications for the military.
-
What was confusing about it toad was that dowding was criticizing those who wanted to pull the troops out. Adressing those individuals. If you want to lump yourself in with them then fine. Just make sure the reply is aimed at the correct target.
Seems everyone thinks they are speaking for everyone else these days.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Now, as US piss on all other international conventions, Why would they respect the convention of Geneva?
Face it: They have the power to dictate the terms and do whatever they please to do.
At least you're half right.
-
Well, I read it more as commentary on the Administration rather than previous posters. That's the way I read it.
He cleared it up in a following post, so no big deal. Seems I'm not the only one that took it that way though, so I have company in my incredibly stupid misinterpretation.
So, sorry Dowding.. my mistake.
There, Mini... all better now?
Jeebus, the IRS been all over you the last month or what? ;)
-
Nah.. just the **** on this bbs is getting pretty deep.
Given some of the statements made before dowding's post... it should not have been that difficult to discern what he was trying to say. It was indeed an enditement. I think you just missed who it was aimed at... intentionally or not.
MiniD
-
I don't think anyone here was advocating pulling out of Iraq before a stable government is in place. Dowding just chose to interpret it that way.
-
Intentionally or not?
Implication or just comment?
I mean, if we're going to be all touchy here.........
:D
-
Hmmm.. well Iron, now I guess it's you, me and Funked make three...
Guess we're all three duma es.
-
Um, Iron... you are the only one reading interpreting what was posted.
"I'm all for US forces withdrawing from everywhere."
"I heard that!!
Pull out of every where and take our money with us.
No more money to these piss ant countries.
Lets spend some of OUR American dollars in AMERICA fer gawds sake!
They (all these little dip**** countries) can all curl up and die for all I care.
lets take care of our own for a change."
There's not really much interpretation needed. You're the only one that added the caveat at the end. My guess is that you think you were speaking for the others that didn't?
MiniD
-
Sigh...
You two feel free to "play" stupid. I have to think you are just playing dumb here, because neither of you seem to be that way normally.
Include FunkedUp too. I'm sure he really didn't mean "pull out troops out from everywhere"... he really meant "get our troops home as soon as the area they are in is stable enough to do it."
Yep. Dowding sure has a tough time interpretting posts. Oh.. and the fireman analogy... that wasn't really implying that we should just leave either.
Nah... its all dowding and his misinterpretation of the things people are actually writing.
You guys have it down much better.
MiniD
-
Please note toad and iron... I'm not saying you two want the troops pulled out immediately. But you have to acknowledge that the tone of this thread was going that way, to the point that Iron had to mention the "after a stable government has been established" in his post.
And.. once again... that spoke only for what Iron posted.
Maybe you guys are seeing things the same way right now because you're just used to it?
MiniD
-
Think what you like; it's obvious you're convinced you're right.
Coincidentally, I'm sure I know how I interpreted it and what I meant when I wrote it.
I'm going with me, sorry.
-
LOL! I know how you interpreted it toad. You've stated as much. You continue to do so.
And... you've done so contrary to what was posted.
Sorry... but you need to re-read what you just wrote.
MiniD
-
I bow before your incredible ability to read my mind.
-
I think you're being obtuse here MiniD. (hehe, know how much you like that word ;) ) No one mentioned a time frame for bringing the troops home. It's been mentioned many times in many other threads and was never a suggestion that we forego our responsibilities, at least not by me nor do I feel by the others that have posted the same.
-
Once again, you're adressing what wasn't said iron. You are interpreting things the way you would like them to be.
Look at what was said... not what wasn't said.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Once again, you're adressing what wasn't said iron. You are interpreting things the way you would like them to be.
Look at what was said... not what wasn't said.
MiniD
Indeed, look at what I said before Dowding began his rant. Here, I'll quote it for ya.
"Let's bring 'em ALL home, including Iraq and Afghanistan, soon as the job is done there."
By the "soon as the job is done there" I meant once a stable government is installed.
Dowding knows full well that is what most of us want. He was just taking a cheap shot.
-
He didn't quote you iron.. he quoted funkedup who posted before you did. Let me shed some light on this for you:
Funked says:
"I'm all for US forces withdrawing from everywhere."
Shortly after, you say:
"Let's bring 'em ALL home, including Iraq and Afghanistan, soon as the job is done there."
Now.. why didn't you just quote funked and agree with him? I mean... it was so crystal clear that you just had to... um... clarify it.
He quoted funkedup, not you. FunkedUp got pissed cause he got lazy and decided to spew rhetoric instead of saying what he actually meant.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
Woohoo! i heard that!. If I never see that God foresaken land again, it will be too soon.
Yep.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Dowding knows full well that is what most of us want. He was just taking a cheap shot.
Yep.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The same links used for their propaganda also delivered communications for the military.
Wasnt aware of that.
That would make it a military target.
Wasnt Al Jazeera also bombed?
How is it a military target?
Or was it an accident?
-
Originally posted by Imp
Wasnt aware of that.
That would make it a military target.
Wasnt Al Jazeera also bombed?
How is it a military target?
Or was it an accident?
LOL.
You're grasping at straws. This is what I mean by anti american trolling.
Al Jazeera wasn't bombed. At least research your material before you through it out there.
-
Even if Al Jazeera was bombed, I'm sure it was unintentional collateral damage. Yeah, That's it... probably had to do with Russian GPS jammers.... yeah, damn Russkies screwed everything up. Real target was French Biolab next door... yeah.
I was just talking to my wife, uhhh Morgan Fairchild......
-
Just don't leave Germany..............won't be able to use the PX anymore.
-
I was highlighting the imprecise rhetoric posted by people in this thread. If I'd meant you AKIron, I would have quoted you. And now you overlook the fact I didn't quote you to take a cheap shot, in parallel with accusing me of taking cheap shots!
Your technique needs work, my friend. If you want to snipe, I'd suggest you wait until you have a more solid target in the cross-hairs.
-
There was an arab TV network bombed I believe. Saw it on CNN, or maybe they are anti american trollers? :rolleyes:
Dont know the name. Im not good with arab names sorry Martlet.
How is your EGO? :D
Does it make you feel better to insult me?
I hope so, I like making people feel better about themselves:D
What does through it out therre mean anyway :rolleyes:
Or did you mean throw it out there?
-
Originally posted by Imp
There was an arab TV network bombed I believe. Saw it on CNN, or maybe they are anti american trollers? :rolleyes:
Dont know the name. Im not good with arab names sorry Martlet.
How is your EGO? :D
Does it make you feel better to insult me?
I hope so, I like making people feel better about themselves:D
What does through it out therre mean anyway :rolleyes:
Or did you mean throw it out there?
No tv network bombed. Nice try though.
Perhaps you'd have better luck spewing your propaganda in your own country? They probably don't actually require proof there.
You'd get away with it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
So... by the end of this summer all those troops currently in Saudi Arabia will be somewhere in Iraq?
Ya gotta read between the lines, dude. The troops who weren't in Saudi Arabia will now not be in Iraq.
-
I have no idea what you are saying here arfann. I don't believe anyone has denied there were troops in Saudi Arabia.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I was highlighting the imprecise rhetoric posted by people in this thread. If I'd meant you AKIron, I would have quoted you. And now you overlook the fact I didn't quote you to take a cheap shot, in parallel with accusing me of taking cheap shots!
Your technique needs work, my friend. If you want to snipe, I'd suggest you wait until you have a more solid target in the cross-hairs.
Moma always said, "One cheap shot deserves another."
-
Must... resist... temptation... for... obvious.... comeback...
-
not too sure if you're talking about Iraq or Afghanistan Martlet....
but the offices of Al-Jazeera where hit in the Afghan conflict......
good move on taking the troops out....
I'm sure the Muslim community will appreciate NOT having foriegn troops on there most sacred land.....
hope a little peace will come from this move.....your taking Bin Laden's motives away:D
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No tv network bombed. Nice try though.
Perhaps you'd have better luck spewing your propaganda in your own country? They probably don't actually require proof there.
You'd get away with it.
I wont dignify that with an answer :rolleyes:
No matter what I say you think im anti american, so I wont waste my virtual ink.
-
Originally posted by SLO
not too sure if you're talking about Iraq or Afghanistan Martlet....
but the offices of Al-Jazeera where hit in the Afghan conflict......
good move on taking the troops out....
I'm sure the Muslim community will appreciate NOT having foriegn troops on there most sacred land.....
hope a little peace will come from this move.....your taking Bin Laden's motives away:D
You should read the whole thread, then you would be sure.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
lol Curval
You know my bark is worse than my bite. I don't put any stay by any of this bollocks. :)
LOL...I know man.
Actually my firefighter analogy was a bit of a dig at the Americans...they have had a tendancy in the past to make a right "hash" of their attempts to "regime change" or "meddle". However, when it comes to Iraq I think they did the right thing...no shady CIA deals, no propping up of a "yes man" dictatorship (yet) to achieve their goals. This time they have so far done what they have said they would do. I think Toad is right. Give them some time before you level criticism at 'em.
I was strong in my description of "janitors" which is what probably put your nose out of joint. I'll change that now to "Custodial Engineers". ;) Better?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You should read the whole thread, then you would be sure.
thx for your help......NOT:p
don't have time....cya
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I have no idea what you are saying here arfann. I don't believe anyone has denied there were troops in Saudi Arabia.
MiniD
Actually, I saw a FOX news report that stated specifically that there were troops and command and control elements in SA secretly.
-
Originally posted by SLO
thx for your help......NOT:p
don't have time....cya
yeah, why get all the information before you run your mouth. That would make too much sense. It's much easier to throw your opinion around when you don't know what you're talking about.