PDA

View Full Version : Iraq / al-quida linked?



Deluxe247
27th May 04, 10:19 PM
Its been said by some people on this forum that there has never been any proof that al-quida worked in iraq or had ties to iraq. I found these while investigating that very thing, and while I found a few flaws in some of whats out there, I still think that Iraq was harboring al-quida representatives and helping them.I fo8und this interesting about a document that turned up refering to sadam and osama


The 1993 document, in Arabic, bears the logo of the Iraqi intelligence agency and is labeled "top secret" on each of its 20 pages.

The report is a list of IIS agents who are described as "collaborators."

On page 14, the report states that among the collaborators is "the Saudi Osama bin Laden."

The document states that bin Laden is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan."

"And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria," the document states, under the signature "Jabar."

Here it is, in black and white, Iraq referring to bin Laden as a collaborator. It'll be interesting to see what else turns up in examination of the Iraqi intelligence files.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inring.htm

http://www.hereticalideas.com/archives/cat_iraq_and_terrorism.html

I have no doubt Iraq was a client state for al-Quida. Answar al-Islam was operating in northern Iraq, and is a branch of al-Quida. The group is commanded by al-Zaquawri, who is known to be a close associate of OBL, and rumored to be third in command under OBL. al-Zaquawri's leg was seriously injured while fighting in Afghanistan with al-Quida. He received medical treatment in Baghdad, while Saddam was still in power. He has continued commanding Anwar al-Islam in Iraq.

I dont think there is enough "proof" that there was NOT a connection between iraq and al-quida to dismiss the very real notion that there was indeed cells operating there.

Deluxe247
27th May 04, 10:26 PM
These are a FEW links, out of hundreds of article, that show Iraq was working with Al Qaeda.

The first one is an article that shows some of the headlines written in the 90's (before this became a political football) from some mainstream press like NYT and Newsweek among others. The headlines reflect the world's growing concern that AQ and Iraq were joining forces.

List of newspaper article in the 90's linking OBL and Saddam: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1

Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts

The AQ connection (excellent):http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2

Western Nightmare: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html

Saddam's link to OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts

NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts

Document linking them: http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

A federal judge rules there are links:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts

Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts

Iraq and Iran contact OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts

AQ working with Iraq: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.x ml

Saddam's AQ connection: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

Further connections: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts

What a court of law said about the connections:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm

Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts

patfromlogan
28th May 04, 10:15 AM
Hmmm, I read several of the links and typical is this one:

According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

I don't see the smoking gun. Most of the reports seem to be saying that he'd go to Iraq to use WMD, the WMD that the inspectors were saying didn't exist by the late nineties.

Here's another quote from the links:

Islamic fundamentalist bin Laden, who has gone missing from his base in Afghanistan, would never seek refuge in secular Iraq on ideological grounds. "I think bin Laden would keep quiet or fight to the death rather than seek asylum in Iraq," the London-based dissident, who asked not to be named, told AFP last week.....


That Bin Laden agreed in '93 or '94 not to attack Saddam is what seems to be the clear point, as far as my reading of the links showed me.

Here's one that you might find interesting:
http://www.tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml
Though once again it shows a relationship did exist, not any kind of partnership.

Federal appellate Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of Nashville is in Iraq as one of 13 experts selected by the U.S. Justice Department to help rebuild Iraq's judicial system.

Merritt, 67, has made trips to Russia and India to work with their judicial systems. He has been sending periodic reports to The Tennessean about his experiences in Iraq and filed this dispatch recently:

Through an unusual set of circumstances, I have been given documentary evidence of the names and positions of the 600 closest people in Iraq to Saddam Hussein, as well as his ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden.

I am looking at the document as I write this story from my hotel room overlooking the Tigris River in Baghdad.

One of the lawyers with whom I have been working for the past five weeks had come to me and asked me whether a list of the 600 people closest to Saddam Hussein would be of any value now to the Americans.

I said, yes, of course. He said that the list contained not only the names of the 55 ''deck of cards'' players who have already been revealed, but also 550 others.

When I began questioning him about the list, how he obtained it and what else it showed, he asked would it be of interest to the Americans to know that Saddam had an ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden.

I said yes, the Americans have, so far as I am aware, have never been able to prove that relationship, but the president and others have said that they believe it exists. He said, ''Well, judge, there is no doubt it exists, and I will bring you the proof tomorrow.''

So today he brought me the proof, and there is no doubt in my mind that he is right.

The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.''

The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein. The story of how the document came about is as follows.

Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper.

On the front page of the paper's four-page edition for Nov. 14, 2002, there was a picture of Osama bin Laden speaking, next to which was a picture of Saddam and his ''Revolutionary Council,'' together with stories about Israeli tanks attacking a group of Palestinians.

On the back page was a story headlined ''List of Honor.'' In a box below the headline was ''A list of men we publish for the public.'' The lead sentence refers to a list of ''regime persons'' with their names and positions.

The list has 600 names and titles in three columns. It contains, for example, the names of the important officials who are members of Saddam's family, such as Uday, and then other high officials, including the 55 American ''deck of cards'' Iraqi officials, some of whom have been apprehended.

Halfway down the middle column is written: ''Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.'' (For more about the list, see accompanying article on this page.)

The lawyer who brought the newspaper to me, Samir, and another lawyer with whom I have been working, Zuhair, translated the Arabic words and described what had happened in Baghdad the day it was published.

Samir bought his paper at a newsstand at around 8 a.m. Within two hours, the Iraqi intelligence officers were going by every newsstand in Baghdad and confiscating the papers. They also went to the home of every person who they were told received a paper that day and confiscated it.

The other lawyer, Zuhair, who was the counsel for the Arab League in Baghdad, did not receive delivery of his paper that day. He called his vendor, who told him that there would be no paper that day, a singular occurrence he could not explain.

For the next 10 days, the paper was not published at all. Samir's newspaper was not confiscated and he retained it because it contained this interesting ''Honor Roll of 600'' of the people closest to the regime.

The only explanation for this strange set of events, according to the Iraqi lawyers, is that Uday, an impulsive and somewhat unbalanced individual, decided to publish this honor roll at a time when the regime was under worldwide verbal attack in the press, especially by us. It would, he thought, make them more loyal and supportive of the regime.

His father was furious, knowing that it revealed information about his supporters that should remain secret.

For example, at the same time this was published, Saddam was denying that he had any relationship with Osama. Therefore Saddam had all the papers confiscated, and he ordered that publication of the paper be stopped for 10 days.

That is the story of the ''Honor Roll of 600,'' and why I believe that President Bush was right when he alleged that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama and was coordinating activities with him.

It does not prove that they engaged together in any particular act of terror against the United States.

But it seems to me to be strong proof that the two were in contact and conspiring to perform terrorist acts.

Up until this time, I have been skeptical about these claims. Now I have changed my mind. There is, however, one big problem remaining: They are both still at large and the combined forces of the free world have been unable to find them.

Until we find and capture them, they will remain a threat — Saddam with the remnants of his army and supporters in combination with the worldwide terrorist organization of Osama bin Laden.

patfromlogan
28th May 04, 10:23 AM
I think that actually the US's actions have led to the Sunnis and Shias getting together to a degree to face their common enemy, and now there will be much more cooperation between Iraqis and Al Qaeda. Didn't Bin Laden call Saddam an "infidel" and call on the Iraqis to rise up against him?

Ronin
28th May 04, 10:34 AM
Wasn't Bin Laden part of the Mughadden (sp?) group that helped the US in the first Iraqi war?

Lady Vic
28th May 04, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by ronin69
Wasn't Bin Laden part of the Mughadden (sp?) group that helped the US in the first Iraqi war?

No.

Bin Laden was very upset that Saudi Arabia didn't call on him and his organization to help oust Saddam. He definitely didn't cooperate with the US.

There is other compelling evidence in regards to the Iraq - al Quacky connection. I don't have the items available unfortunately, but there are several cases of al Qaida reps meeting with Iraqi intelligence.

Let's not forget also, that Saddam had already shown a willingness to work with the fundamentalists. He was paying rewards to the families of Palistinean suicide bombers.

The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend philosophy was at work here.

Ronin
28th May 04, 10:49 AM
"No.

Bin Laden was very upset that Saudi Arabia didn't call on him and his organization to help oust Saddam. He definitely didn't cooperate with the US."

The fact that he was upset about NOT being bale to oust Saddam....
Lets not forget that, IF we start with "guilty by association", Rumsfield and Bush have ALOT to answer for...

Lady Vic
28th May 04, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by ronin69
"No.

Bin Laden was very upset that Saudi Arabia didn't call on him and his organization to help oust Saddam. He definitely didn't cooperate with the US."

The fact that he was upset about NOT being bale to oust Saddam....
Lets not forget that, IF we start with "guilty by association", Rumsfield and Bush have ALOT to answer for...

Like what exactly?

I infer from that that you mean they are consorting with international terrorists.

The information I've seen all points to Saddam and Al Qaida allying with each other for a couple reasons.

Hussein was going to allow them to stay in the country and promised cooperation with them against the US on the condition they didn't engage in operations against him.

Ronin
28th May 04, 11:44 AM
Well IF we go after ANYONE that has ties with Al-Qaida, perhaps Saudi Arabia might be the best target?

punchingdummy
28th May 04, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by ronin69
Wasn't Bin Laden part of the Mughadden (sp?) group that helped the US in the first Iraqi war?

They were supported by the US in Afghanistan during their fight against the soviets.

Deluxe247
28th May 04, 02:43 PM
Which bin laden was NOT a part of.

Deluxe247
28th May 04, 02:45 PM
By the way, I would very much like to hear from the wastrel on this, since it was he who voiced the argument that al-quida and iraq had 0 connection to me in the first place. Im still not sure if I misunderstood his arguement, or if he was just voicing his opinion.

Unicron
28th May 04, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Deluxe247
By the way, I would very much like to hear from the wastrel on this, since it was he who voiced the argument that al-quida and iraq had 0 connection to me in the first place. Im still not sure if I misunderstood his arguement, or if he was just voicing his opinion.

I don't understand how a bunch of internet research is going to bring you closer to any sort of truth. Unless you're CIA or ex Iraqi intelligence you're basically just grasping at straws no matter what your opinion may be.

Not only is tactical/covert intelligence easy to falsify but as we all know the more people story goes through the more it seems to change.

How can you prove that any of your sources are correct or for that matter whether or not theirs were correct. In the real world (most) people in power do tend to lie. Whether it be about taxes, jobs, unions or WMDs/Terrorists.

I mean if the whole world (i.e. America) can't find Osama what makes you think that all this intelligence is of good quality in the first place.

stoogejitsu
28th May 04, 05:46 PM
Hitler and Stalin have both come back from the dead and are now all linked with al qaida, plus I hear Carrottop is getting in on the action as well, may God help us all.

Unicron
28th May 04, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by stoogejitsu
Hitler and Stalin have both come back from the dead and are now all linked with al qaida, plus I hear Carrottop is getting in on the action as well, may God help us all.

Think Carrottop could beat down Hitler? That would be one sweet MMA matchup!

The Wastrel
29th May 04, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Deluxe247
By the way, I would very much like to hear from the wastrel on this, since it was he who voiced the argument that al-quida and iraq had 0 connection to me in the first place. Im still not sure if I misunderstood his arguement, or if he was just voicing his opinion.

Can you show me where I said this? Because I have no position, other than that there has been no demonstration of cooperation, and that people who make the argument that OBL hated Hussein because of his supposedly "secular" Baathi ideology were being foolish.

I find that document extremely unimpressive. Should I also point out that the Washington Times is one of the worst rags in news? The owner recently had himself crowned king or something, and fashions himself a kind of religious messiah.

The only reference I could find when searching the site was this:

http://bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7295&perpage=15

Here, I was criticizing the article's composition.

And then there's this page:

http://bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8962&perpage=15&pagenumber=2


Here, I am conceding an evidentiary point to someone while arguing against the idea that 9/11 was engineered by the Bush administration.

My practice, Deluxe247, is to reserve judgement, to acknowledge evidence when it exists and when it doesn't, and to operate from th strongest arguments of the opposition.

From the beginning, I have tentatively supported the removal of the Hussein regime, but I have consistently warned against trusting the INC, and I have criticized the Bush administration's lack of viable post-invasion planning.

The Wastrel
29th May 04, 12:47 AM
Found what you appear to be referring to:



Originally posted by the Mutt
drunkenj:

If al-Quaida bombed St.Pauls, or Piccadilly during afternoon lunch time, or Westminister, when it was crowded with people, Trafalgar Square or any British site, killing thousands, you'd see a few more LUNATICS...(thank you the lunatic thing....that's sort of a compliment, coming from a Brit)





Dear Historian,
Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq.
Love,
Reality.

http://bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11731&perpage=15&pagenumber=5


Fact is, if the Bush administration had evidence that OBL was cooperating with Hussein, they would have presented it. Instead, we heard of "WMDs" and "torture rooms". No one in the administration has claimed that we were invading Iraq in order to pursue al-Qaeda. There have been as-yet unsupported claims of contact between OBL and Hussein. Even that is very different from coordination. Do I think it is possible that the two had contact? Yes. Has there been any reliable evidence? No. Was it a justification for the invasion (which I supported)? No. Are innumerable hordes of the ignorant persuaded that Saddam Hussein was the leader of al-Qaeda? Yes. Do I think that OBL's supposed animosity towards HUssein's "secular" regime rules out the possibility of cooperation? Certainly not.

I simply object to the ignorant claim that "we" are "over there" exacting vengeance on people who had anything to do with 9/11. Today, we face a civil opposition from regular Iraqis. Failure to recognize that fact will lead to failure in general.

The Wastrel
29th May 04, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Deluxe247
Who was it that said there was no al-qaeda in Iraq? Shug and wastrel?
I would love to know where you got that information and what planet your living on?
Oh thats right, you mentioned the CIA? please tell me that you were joking? It is a proven fact that Al-qaeda and various other terrorists threats had operatives/camps in Iraq and that sadam gave refuge and supplies to said groups, ect, ect. I agree 100% with mutt on the fact that sadam was a global threat and the world is better without him.

While you're at it, care to support this claim? I already noted that Hussein supported and provided asylum to a variety of Palestinian organizations. You need to support your claim that al-Qaeda has been proven to have operated training bases in Iraq, and that they were funded by Saddam Hussein.

Deluxe247
2nd June 04, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
While you're at it, care to support this claim? I already noted that Hussein supported and provided asylum to a variety of Palestinian organizations. You need to support your claim that al-Qaeda has been proven to have operated training bases in Iraq, and that they were funded by Saddam Hussein.

I thought that I had provided a fair amount of links that showed evidence of links between saddam's regime and Al-quida. I know that you would not simply say this without reading the links provided, so what proof do you want? I cannot provide you with "hard core" proof of sadam and OBL working hand in hand any more then you can provide the same to the contrary. The point I was making is that there is enough evidence out there to justly claim that Al-quida had been operating in Iraq- which you had claimed had not.

CaptShady
2nd June 04, 11:39 PM
Wild how many use this as a political means to oust Bush. The fact of the matter is we are at war with terrorists. Responsible for 9-11 or not, they hate us, they want to kill us all. Who gives a flippin' fuck if they personally flew the planes or not, Bush (and Congress agreed) declared war on terrorism, and felt that Iraq was at the forefront of that, after OBL was in hiding, and will die the second he lets his guard down. What's it going to take? A member of your own fucking family dying by terrorist hand, for you to stop dissin' American Soldiers, and being all gay over the fact that a terrorist had to show his cock to an American woman. FACT: They hate us, they want us dead. FACT: They shia regime has declared Jihad on us loooooooong before we went over there. I pray to God that another terrorist attack like that of 9-11 EVER HAPPENS on U.S. soil again .. I personally believe that those responsible didn't think we'd all rally behind our government and demand justice, and THAT'S why there hasn't been another attempt .. yet! But if it HAS TO happen ... I sure as fuck hope it happens in liberal mecca (Hollywood) .. then there'll be a lot of fucktards shutting tfu, and there'll be less politicizing war for career politician's gain.

The Wastrel
3rd June 04, 03:25 AM
I supported the war, geniuses. I believed that Hussein had perpetuated WMD programs in contravention of the governing UN resolutions. Why is this so hard for you to absorb?

I opposed reliance on the INC. I opposed the alienation of allies. I opposed the de-Baathification program imposed by Bremer. I disliked the shifting justifications for the war. I warned that the US must be prepared to allow Islamic leaders to become powerufl forces in new Iraqi institutions. You realize that all of these points have now been conceded by the administration, right?

The post-war Occupation has been far, far, more incompetent than I had imagined. I tentatively believe that we will suffer the result of our bungling of consolidation for many decades to come.

P.S. Shady, you really, really need to read more. Or something.

The Wastrel
3rd June 04, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by CaptShady
FACT: They shia regime has declared Jihad on us loooooooong before we went over there.

Fact: Mossadegh.

CaptShady
3rd June 04, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
I supported the war, geniuses. I believed that Hussein had perpetuated WMD programs in contravention of the governing UN resolutions. Why is this so hard for you to absorb?

I don't buy any of this for a second. Go start your global warming thread now. The mere fact that you say you "opposed the alienation of allies" lends credence to you being a politicizing dumbass who could care less about American lives lost on 9/11, and in the future. THAT is what this is all about.


Originally posted by The Wastrel
I opposed reliance on the INC. I opposed the alienation of allies. I opposed the de-Baathification program imposed by Bremer. I disliked the shifting justifications for the war. I warned that the US must be prepared to allow Islamic leaders to become powerufl forces in new Iraqi institutions. You realize that all of these points have now been conceded by the administration, right?

The administration admitted loss of allies, and shifting justifications of the war? What a pile. The "shifting justifications thing" has been one HUGE political movement by liberal media and hollywood. You just choose to believe that bull.


Originally posted by The Wastrel
The post-war Occupation has been far, far, more incompetent than I had imagined. I tentatively believe that we will suffer the result of our bungling of consolidation for many decades to come.

More politics. Just fucking say it .. you feel Gore or John Fucking Kerry can do a better job. Funny how NO ONE brought up post war occupation until we went in there and kicked ass. It's a political move made by the opposition of George W. Bush ... What EXACTLY is so wrong that could have been done better? Yes, yes, we all know about the mistreatment of those poor innocent terrorists, but what else?


Originally posted by The Wastrel
P.S. Shady, you really, really need to read more. Or something.

Dude, you couldn't read more than I on your best day. Stop getting your news from CBS, and CNN. Move around a little, "know thye enemy". NOT ONLY do I read those authors whom I agree with, I read those I don't (e.g. Al "I couldn't be a good talk show host if my life depended on it" Franken). Even that sad mother fucker will admit to a biases in the media. Even that sorry excuse for a man wanted to kick some ass after 9/11. I just wonder what fucking tune you'd be singing if you mom was in the towers that day.

The Wastrel
3rd June 04, 08:49 AM
Shady....you're beneath me. The fact that you think reading Al Franken or any of his equivalents amounts to serious reading indicates far more than you realize. The fact that you presume to color in my intentions for me, and directly dispute basic facts about my politics makes discussing things with you totally futile.


I don't believe you supported the war either. In fact, you are obviously a terrorist saboteur attempting to corrupt the American political atmosphere. Who else could make such bizarre claims as:

More politics. Just fucking say it .. you feel Gore or John Fucking Kerry can do a better job. Funny how NO ONE brought up post war occupation until we went in there and kicked ass. It's a political move made by the opposition of George W. Bush

So...my opinion is a political move made by the opponents of Dubya? I can't follow the logic here.


Yes, yes, we all know about the mistreatment of those poor innocent terrorists, but what else?

Why were so many released if they were all terrorists? I mean, are you just saying that "Arab" is synonomous with "terrorist"?



I don't buy any of this for a second. Go start your global warming thread now. The mere fact that you say you "opposed the alienation of allies" lends credence to you being a politicizing dumbass who could care less about American lives lost on 9/11, and in the future. THAT is what this is all about.

This is ridiculous. I've been posting here since November 2001. Everyone on here knows my position on the war.



A member of your own fucking family dying by terrorist hand, for you to stop dissin' American Soldiers

This is truly retarded.


Stop getting your news from CBS, and CNN.

I don't. How about you and your t-mag and the Washington Times?

kismasher
3rd June 04, 09:11 AM
In all of these threads I have read, Wastrel has always maintained a consistent position of supporting the war.

I consider myself a "middle of the road" in terms of political ideology, but it seems that Captain's with us or against us attitude forces me into being a liberal.

Supposing there was an Iraq-Al Qaeda link, wouldn't that be a much more substantial premise for war than the farcical WMD's?

The post-war occupation is a revolting mire. People (US and Iraqi civilians) are dying everyday and nothing can stop it. This can only be a result of inadequate planning. I'm not sure that a truly global alliance would have much more success, talk about a logistics nightmare, but at least we would have some sort of international comradarie rather than the unjustified hatred that seems to be fashionable these days.

kismasher
3rd June 04, 09:12 AM
Also, this is not a Bush v. Kerry thing. I have much more substantial reasons for not liking Bush.

Rigante
3rd June 04, 09:32 AM
They are all tied together by their Islamic Fundamentalism whose aim is to remove Western nations and culture from the Middle East in an illegal manner. We have a fundamental conflict btw cultures here. They have no qualms to commit mureder to do so. The question is do we want to allow Terrorists to dictate where we are in the world. If we access to their demands should we illegally in turn forcibly remove all Islamic Fundamentalists from the Western countries? Should we say screw the Middle East and its oil, but in turn will have to greatly increase use of alternative energy sources such as nuclear etc.

If the Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait etc want us to leave they can simply order us to do so. However they dont want to lose the revenue. Should we demand that they protect our interest and if they cant do so then leave?

So it comes down to fight a war against terrorism or pull out and begin building more nuclear facilites in the West and begin drilling and tapping for more oil sources in areas thay may not ecologically handle it well. We also would let the Israel vs Arab problem solve itself with the potential for nuclear strikes and mass genocide occurring btw the nations. However since we wouldnt be there we could just say we dont give a shit.

On the other we could all stand in a circle, hold hands and sing Kumbaya and let the terrorists continue to murder us and we continue to use Arab oil.

kismasher
3rd June 04, 09:37 AM
so, is your solution to kill all the terrorists?

CaptShady
3rd June 04, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
So...my opinion is a political move made by the opponents of Dubya? I can't follow the logic here.


Nor can I, yet it's incessantly being done by the gullible.


Originally posted by The Wastrel
Why were so many released if they were all terrorists? I mean, are you just saying that "Arab" is synonomous with "terrorist"?

A truly pathetic, yet common liberal tactic. Win at any costs, and if that means infering or calling someone a racist, by all means do so. It's WAR, dumbfuck


Originally posted by The Wastrel
I don't. How about you and your t-mag and the
Washington Times?

And you and the post?

Rigante
3rd June 04, 10:16 AM
We either have to do what the terrorists wish and then hope that they will leave us alone or aggressively hunt them down. Fighting terrorism is similiar to fight against guerrila warfare. Defensive strategies down work very well as you simply cannot adequately protect all vulnerable areas at the same time.

We need to remember that Bin Ladens big beef with the U.S. is the fact that U.S troops are on Saudi soil and therefore committing contamination of their holy lands. We were in Saudi because we were invited by the Saudi government to protect them from Saddam Husseins army. The Saudi government had great fears that they would be next.

We didnt invade Saudi Arabia we were strongly requested. If they Saudi want us to leave then we should do so, but we need to make plans for other sources of energy for our country since the fuel supply is in jeapordy.

CaptShady
3rd June 04, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by kismasher
Supposing there was an Iraq-Al Qaeda link, wouldn't that be a much more substantial premise for war than the farcical WMD's?

The "mainstream" media has been tiptoeing around the discovery of a 155-mm mortar shell containing Sarin gas in Iraq, the contents of which have been confirmed. The shell was used as part of an improvised explosive device (IED) on a road near the Baghdad International Airport, and exploded as it was being disarmed.

This one shell contained enough WMD material to potentially kill as many people as died on 9/11, ALL BY ITSELF.

And before you go off quoting the liberal hero Janeane Garoffolo ... Is it logical to assume that this is the only one in existence -- or just wishful thinking? Farcical my ass. The Iraq-Al Qaeda link gets shown time and time again .. and in true UN fashion, liberals ask for MORE proof.

CaptShady
3rd June 04, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by kismasher
so, is your solution to kill all the terrorists?

Rigante said it much better than I, but let me reply with YOU DAMN SKIPPY!

kismasher
3rd June 04, 10:36 AM
Sure, I bet there are warehouses full of sarin gas laden shells, and none have been used or discovered as of yet. Maybe the liberals hid them.

Once again, I'm not liberal, I have no idea what Janeane Garoffalo has said, if the Iraq-Al Qaeda link is so strong why wasn't it a major part of the war idealogue. There is not a great leap of logic here, nor is there any "liberal conspiracy", it's just skepticism.

Killing all the terrorists is ridiculous and futile. Leaving Saudi Arabia will do nothing to change the animosity that these people harbor towards americans and western views in general. I'm afraid the solution is beyond me. If it were possible, I would say identify and quarantine as many as possible. Give them the option to rejoin society in an appropriate manner or be relieved of their freedoms. Don't kill them, stick them all in a camp somewhere to live the rest of their lives under guard.

Rigante
3rd June 04, 10:50 AM
How do you advise that we quarantine these terrorist without military force? We are in Irag because Saddam Hussein refused to follow the terms he agreed to after he was removed from Kuwait. Multiple requrests were made by the UN to him to follow what he agreed to. He continued to defy the requirements. He had a well documented history of using WMD. He also had links direct at otherwise with Terrorist groups. His failure to comply with actions he had already agreed to were the reason for his overthrow. We could just pull out of Iraq starting today but we run a very high risk of it becoming another Somalia. I personally think they should have a referendum. If they vote for us to stay we would stay if the military and economic costs arent to high. If they want us to leave, then we leave and let sort their own troubles out.

CaptShady
3rd June 04, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Rigante
I personally think they should have a referendum. If they vote for us to stay we would stay if the military and economic costs arent to high. If they want us to leave, then we leave and let sort their own troubles out.

Good one! But we should also warn them and the rest of the world ... we leave .... we don't come back. Future terrorism will result in the anihilation of your country.

Rigante
3rd June 04, 11:00 AM
I am starting to think is that the best thing for us to do is pull out of the Middle East completely. Leave the Israeli's are Arabs duke it out. If its a smoldering radioactive mess, its not our problem. Leave Korea, if North Korea invades hell I dont like Hundai's anyway. Pull out of the Nato, if the people in the Balkans want to slaughter each other, so what? The UN? we dont need them, let them move to Switzerland. Since we will be in a tighter economic problem with energy cost we would withdraw all foreign aid including africa.
We start building nuclear reactors on an on needed basis, begin drilling where ever the hell we need to do for fuel and focus on alternative sources. We reduce the military but upgrade our tactical nuclear capability to compensate. Then we can all go sing Kumbaya.

kismasher
3rd June 04, 11:02 AM
I agree with the invasion of Iraq, just not the line of bullshit we were fed as justification. Questioning the actions of the government in a democratic society is fundamentally a good thing.
Disagreeing with the policies and actions of an extreme leader who obfustucates at every opportunity does not make me a liberal.

Maybe a referendum would be a good idea. What would it take, a simple majority?

What would be the economic implications of the US being voted out of Iraq? Would it devolve into a theocracy?

kismasher
3rd June 04, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Rigante
I am starting to think is that the best thing for us to do is pull out of the Middle East completely. Leave the Israeli's are Arabs duke it out. If its a smoldering radioactive mess, its not our problem. Leave Korea, if North Korea invades hell I dont like Hundai's anyway. Pull out of the Nato, if the people in the Balkans want to slaughter each other, so what? The UN? we dont need them, let them move to Switzerland. Since we will be in a tighter economic problem with energy cost we would withdraw all foreign aid including africa.
We start building nuclear reactors on an on needed basis, begin drilling where ever the hell we need to do for fuel and focus on alternative sources. We reduce the military but upgrade our tactical nuclear capability to compensate. Then we can all go sing Kumbaya.

I can see that you have clearly thought this position through and have covered all of your bases. What a genuinely insightful idea.

WRONG!!!!

Really, this is so impossibly ridiculous it's barely worth thinking about. Do you actually think our corporate leaders want an isolationist country? Can Haliburton charge thousands of dollars for meals to soldiers stationed in Kentucky?

Rigante
3rd June 04, 11:19 AM
The point I am trying to make is that we live in a very complicated and interdendent world with each other, both as nations and as individuals. There are to many people with simplistic ideas that dont understand and dont consider the deeper implications of government actions. Instead they focus on one specific item and beat it to death without looking at its context. Fundamentally we can either be connected with the world which involves a complex array of activities and alliances or we can become isolationist and tell the world to go fuck itself. If we were some minor power it wouldnt impact the rest of the world much. The problem is we are (whether the rest of the world likes it) the most powerful nation in the world. What we do or dont do does matter and there are times we will do it wrong. If the world insists on not wanting us, then stop buying our goods, dont sell to us and demand that all our troops and economic supports go away. I think we could do quite well on our own but should we also be our brothers keeper?

Matt Bernius
3rd June 04, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by CaptShady
The administration admitted loss of allies, and shifting justifications of the war? What a pile. The "shifting justifications thing" has been one HUGE political movement by liberal media and hollywood. You just choose to believe that bull. Ok... let's review a few quotes:

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

As to the link between Sadam and Al Qaeda:

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

And finally, all one has to do is compare the '03 State of the Union Address (where Bush laid out the case for war) to the '04 State of the Union Address (where Bush reviewed the war) to note a marked change in the rehortic that the President used. So no this isn't simple some mass brainwashing by the liberal media. The source has changed it's story on multiple occaisions.

Try harder on that account.

- Matt

kismasher
3rd June 04, 11:20 AM
that makes more sense.

[edit: re: rigante's last post]

CaptShady
3rd June 04, 11:30 AM
loss of allies, and shifting justifications of the war ... ummm, gee, nice quotes and all, but uhhhhhh ... those quotes don't prove anything under this topic. I can put quotes and dates of Kerry and Clinton saying undeniably that there are WMD's in Iraq, and what a threat Sadam was ... and it still doesnt' prove that the administration admits to a loss of allies (you're either with us or against us) or shifting justifications of the war.

Matt Bernius
3rd June 04, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by CaptShady
loss of allies, and shifting justifications of the war ... ummm, gee, nice quotes and all, but uhhhhhh ... those quotes don't prove anything under this topic. I can put quotes and dates of Kerry and Clinton saying undeniably that there are WMD's in Iraq, and what a threat Sadam was ... and it still doesnt' prove that the administration admits to a loss of allies (you're either with us or against us) or shifting justifications of the war. ahhh... ok, so basically the thing that you take issue with here is the use of the word "admit." Got it.

So basically, your not disagreeing with the fact that the Administration has shifted it's rehetoric about why we went to war (moving away from it's major talking point and aligations [hard evidance of ties to 911, WMDs, attemps to by nuclear materials]) towards more humanitarian purposes.

Your disagreeing with the fact that the administration has specifically admitted to this shift.

- Matt

ps. And yes, I can come up with those comments from Clinton and Kerry as well. That isn't the issue here.

CaptShady
3rd June 04, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Matt Bernius
So basically, your not disagreeing with the fact that the Administration has shifted it's rehetoric about why we went to war (moving away from it's major talking point and aligations [hard evidance of ties to 911, WMDs, attemps to by nuclear materials]) towards more humanitarian purposes.

Wrong again. Your quotes provide no proof of shift. Declaring a war on terror was the focus. Osama and his boys were taken care of and the hunt continues *open door for Wastrel's attack on the current administration for "not finding him yet" because OF COURSE that Bush's fault*. Iraq was next, and had it not been for bleeding hearts another country would be next. But, we have Americans making heroes out of the enemy, and making our soldiers and those appointed in the offices to lead them- into cowards. Thus ends the war on terror, and thus opens the door for yet another attack. WHICH will again lead to the blame of the current administration.

"They're willing to fly a plane into a building for what they believe in, but are they willing to take a hot poker up the ass?" - Al Franken

kismasher
3rd June 04, 02:45 PM
Declaring a war on terror was definitely the motivation for invading Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban. I think that equating Saddam's regime with the Taliban is a bit of a stretch.

Saddam was definitely a cruel dictator, but religious zealot he was not.

Matt Bernius
3rd June 04, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Osama and his boys were taken care of and the hunt continues *open door for Wastrel's attack on the current administration for "not finding him yet" because OF COURSE that Bush's fault*. Oh right, taken care of, the same Al Quiada network that is according to the administration:

1. Planning an attack inside the US this summer (though this wasn't worthy of raising the terror level).

2. Helped pull off the Spanish Attack.

3. Were aparently responsible for the Saudi Attack this past weekend that helped send gas prices even higher (becuase, when you really look at it the current prices have more to do with trading levels than production).

Yeah, that Al Quiada. I particularly love this quote from Bush on Bin Laden:

“I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him… I truly am not that concerned about him.” [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

Little different from:
"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

No, we're clearly staying the course and going after the major targets.

- Matt

Rigante
3rd June 04, 03:39 PM
The linkage btw Saddam and bin Laden is pretty clear. First of all we probably would not be in this terrorism war if Saddam hadnt invaded and then we were asked to help throw him out. We never had large amts of troops in the middle east untill then. Our continued presence in the "holy lands" is Osama's stated big beef.

2nd there is good evidence that Saddam directly supported the terrorism war thru having training camps in Iraq, providing medical care to injured Taliban etc.

3rd The biggest issue that prompted the invasion was the concern over WMD. He had a clear history of using WMD. He had at the time of the 1st gulf war been found to have a very active WMD program. He refused to allow the appropriate inspections (that he had previously agreed to) that could have shown that no WMD programs were present. Since WMD are of the greatest concern in a terrorism war, Saddam dug his own hole.

The elder Bush in retrospect should have taken all of Iraq, granted that would have pissed on the pacifists and some of the Arab world. We would then be 10 years down the road, and perhaps Al-Quida may not have become a player. Hindsight however is always much easier than forsight. If Clinton had taken out Bin Laden when he was given muliple opportunities then perhaps no 2nd gulf war would have occurred. Monica probably had such a lip lock on him probably couldnt read his reports.:p

Dochter
3rd June 04, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
there'll be less politicizing war for career politician's gain.

I so hope you realize the inherent irony of using this as a differentiating factor between democrats and republicans.

kismasher
3rd June 04, 03:55 PM
yes, but current findings have yet to show any stockpiles of WMD and none were used against our troops in either installment of the Mess-O'Potamia.

troops in the holy land is a major recruiting tool for Osama but i think his intentions are a little beyond forcing us out of Saudi Arabia.

why do i feel like we're going in circles?

Dochter
3rd June 04, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
A member of your own fucking family dying by terrorist hand, for you to stop dissin' American Soldiers, and being all gay over the fact that a terrorist had to show his cock to an American woman.

This really pisses me off, it is incredibly moronic as well.

My brother was/is actively serving and was involved in the initial invasion of Iraq this go around. While he hasn't talked about any of it he recieved a bronze star during his time there so I can only assume that he was at some risk, the units he was attached to make that pretty damn certain. I am incredibly grateful he came back uninjured, I know he was to an extent lucky for that. I also am worried for him because the fact is he is heading back there in a couple of months.

That doesn't change the fact that:
1) I think that there was a level of dishonesty involved with how the administration went about making the case for war.
2) That I think we all would have been better off if the administration hadn't fumbled diplomacy and done a better job of creating a more encompassing coalition.
3) That prisoner abuse is morally wrong.
4) That both parties have politicized the war, and that in my opinion the republicans more so by pretending that dissent against a sitting president is unpatriotic during war times.
and 5) That despite the fact that Iraq is better off now than under Saddam, the ends don't justify the means if Bush knowingly lied about the level of threat Saddam posed based on WMD's (one antique shell does not a case make). In fact if he intentionally overstated things or lied I think he should be jailed for it. It also wouldn't surprise me if he did.

Dochter
3rd June 04, 04:17 PM
In other words: fuck you.

Don't think you know me, or other people you've never met.

Rigante
3rd June 04, 04:18 PM
Perhaps the simplist way I can make my point is that this is a war on terrorism. Like all wars you have battles and campaigns etc. In retrospect in all wars its clear that certain battles and campaigns were unnecessary even though that wasnt clear immediately preceding these battles. In retrospect I think the 2nd iraq war (campaign?) will probably be seen as an unnecessary campaign. However this should not dissuade us from proceeding with other battles or campaigns because the war on terrorism will be around for a long time. It should teach us to upgrade our intelligence but not put a damper on the continuing fight.

If we dont want to continue the fight then we should proceed to a more isolationist policy in the world. Personally I think that is irresponsible.

I know this is going to piss a lot of people off, but the U.S. right now is the big boy on the block. No one even comes close. In essence it is similiar to the situation that Rome held in the first several centuries. With an empire comes power, power is always despised and complained about by those without. On the other hand power is dangerous because of its inherant seductiveness. The challenge for the U.S. is to use its power appropriately in world and domestic affairs. We could just withdraw like the Romans did from 300-450 AD but would it have some similiar catastrophic consequences? Also like Rome we cannot expect to be at the top of the hill forever.

kismasher
3rd June 04, 04:21 PM
there is no comparison between Rome and the US other than we currently have significant influence and they at one time had significant influence

btw, Dochter is correct.

The war on terror is just like the war on drugs, a money pit.

Dochter
3rd June 04, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Rigante
However this should not dissuade us from proceeding with other battles or campaigns because the war on terrorism will be around for a long time. It should teach us to upgrade our intelligence but not put a damper on the continuing fight.


Agree completely. However other campaigns on terrorism need to also include introspection on how and who we support. Otherwise "the war on terror" will never end. We certainly play a role in how we are percieved externally.

Matt Bernius
3rd June 04, 04:44 PM
Rigante

That was an elloquent post. However, the issue that many of us have is that not only do we question the necessity of the second Iraq war but we question the manner in which the necessity was expressed to the people of this country.

Two scenarios have been outlined:
1. The government truely beleved it's case. If that's the case one then needs to look at the intellegence feeds. I can't help but wonder looking at the intellegence supplied by the INC and Bush's desire for "Slam dunk cases" if this was a case of people believing what they wanted to believe rather than objectively looking at the facts.

2. The government felt that for one reason or another it needed to intentionally inflate the situation in order to convince the public. This suggests that the governent actively misled the public.

Personally, looking at how botched the initial weeks after the war were I tend to believe the first scenario is probably the case. That members of the administration were so gung ho on going to war with Iraq that they allowed themselves to be manipluated by various individuals and in turn maniplulated the public.

Why this is important is that the "War against terror" is a war that is not going to have a difinative end. Not treaties. It's like nothing we've previously engaged in. And if we're at the hands of an incopitent adminstration, then we need to be concerned about giving them carte blanc to wage war and then afterwards announce "oops... maybe we didn't have the best intellegence."

Especially considering that we moving into Iraq before stabilizing Afganistan. Further we have not concentrated reconstruction efforts on that country. Otherwise why would Hamid Karzi (sp) have to make so many trips to Washington to ask for continued aid. Considering it was a destabilized Afghanistan that eventually became a staging ground for terror camps, I have a difficult time understanding why we didn't concentrate our nation building work there before moving on to the next target.

- Matt

Deluxe247
3rd June 04, 05:01 PM
I would like to clear something up - I understood from the beginning that you (wastreal) have supported the war. I was unclear on other topics of past discussions, and wanted to know if my assumtions were right. I am in full support of the war, and I also agree that the stated causes for the war bother me simply because it shows a fault in our countrys intelligence. Rigante said it best I think, that no matter what blame or faults we had with this war, we cant allow it to dissuade us from combating terror around the world. When I made this thread, I was not attacking wastreal, I was asking his thoughts, as I happen to like disscussing serious situations with people. As a soldier and an american, it saddens me that we can argue and bicker back and forth at each other over pointing fingers, or justifications for war, when the underlieing truth is its the terrorists themselves that are the problem.

CaptShady
3rd June 04, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by kismasher
Saddam was definitely a cruel dictator, but religious zealot he was not.

Yet he supported terrorist zealots.


Originally posted by Dochter
That doesn't change the fact that:
1) I think that there was a level of dishonesty involved with how the administration went about making the case for war.


But you're at least presenting that as an opinion, not an undisputable fact.


Originally posted by Dochter
2) That I think we all would have been better off if the administration hadn't fumbled diplomacy and done a better job of creating a more encompassing coalition.

"Fumbled diplomacy"??? Fuck that. THEY don't lead US, plain and simple. The UN fumbled diplomacy when they wanted more proof of Hitler's atrocities. We don't fucking answer to them ESPECIALLY when they look to us to go out and help others all the freaking time. If it's our duty to help, then WE call the shots, not the other way around.


Originally posted by Dochter

3) That prisoner abuse is morally wrong.


To what level? Is it abusive to not let them watch TV? What would differentiate a prison from a hotel, short of them not being allowed to leave? Prisoner abuse IS wrong ... terrorist abuse on the other hand ....


Originally posted by Dochter
That doesn't change the fact that:
4) That both parties have politicized the war, and that in my opinion the republicans more so by pretending that dissent against a sitting president is unpatriotic during war times.

When people like your brother are out there putting their lives on the line, it's OUR job to cause them as litte strife as possible. Sending our troops into battle with low morale, and a feeling like their country doesn't support them is damned near treason in my book. Why is it that libs go on and on about their first amendment rights when it comes to spitting on our soldiers, yet chastise others for labeling them as pinkos?


Originally posted by Dochter
5) That despite the fact that Iraq is better off now than under Saddam, the ends don't justify the means if Bush knowingly lied about the level of threat Saddam posed based on WMD's (one antique shell does not a case make).


Since the cease-fire that suspended the Gulf War depended on Saddam's handing over to the UN "[a]ll chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities", this shell is precisely what we were looking for, especially if it predates 1991. This shell and others like it is why the UN passed 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam disarm. No matter how old it was, it was still lethal. There is no statute of limitations on weapons of mass destruction.

I'll say it again. This "one shell" contained enough WMD material to potentially kill as many people as died on 9/11, all by itself. Is it logical to assume that this is the only one in existence?



Originally posted by kismasher
btw, Dochter is correct.

The war on terror is just like the war on drugs, a money pit.

Interesting ... then why is it that we haven't had another attack?

Dochter
3rd June 04, 05:19 PM
"Fumbled diplomacy"??? Fuck that. THEY don't lead US, plain and simple. The UN fumbled diplomacy when they wanted more proof of Hitler's atrocities. We don't fucking answer to them ESPECIALLY when they look to us to go out and help others all the freaking time. If it's our duty to help, then WE call the shots, not the other way around.

You're missing the point. You can't tell people what you're going to do and then act surprised when they a) don't agree and b) don't provide troop or logistic support. That's stupid and that is essentially what we did.

By the way, you probably were making a joke, but the UN didn't exist until after ww2 and it wasn't the un that needed more proof it was FDR.

Dochter
3rd June 04, 05:22 PM
Regarding "WMD's" there were indeed un resolutions that iraq violated because of not cooperating with investigators. The point was that Bush presented the argument that Iraq possesed WMDs of a scale to be and was of a mind to be an immediate threat. One shell does not equal that, at all. We, the american people, were told that US and foreign intelligence was pretty damn certain that he had lots of bio and/or chemical weapons and posed a danger to us and his neighbors. This has since been demonstrated false.

Dochter
3rd June 04, 05:26 PM
To what level? Is it abusive to not let them watch TV? What would differentiate a prison from a hotel, short of them not being allowed to leave? Prisoner abuse IS wrong ... terrorist abuse on the other hand ....

They were war prisoners. Simulating sex acts and photographing them is morally wrong and illegal on so many levels.

At what point, if this sort of behavior is accepted, does our morality and political system no longer differentiate "us" from those we are purportedly fighting.

DJeter1234
3rd June 04, 05:30 PM
damnit Capt you piss me off.

first of all
"UN fumbled diplomacy when they wanted more proof of Hitler's atrocities."
Leage of Nations. It was a completely different body specifically changed to fix this flaw.

"To what level? Is it abusive to not let them watch TV? What would differentiate a prison from a hotel, short of them not being allowed to leave? Prisoner abuse IS wrong ... terrorist abuse on the other hand ...."

you realize that stacking them naked is not depriving them of TV? And that thsoe detained were not necesarily terrorists?

"Why is it that libs go on and on about their first amendment rights when it comes to spitting on our soldiers, yet chastise others for labeling them as pinkos?"

WHO THE HELL HAS SPIT AT OUR TROOPS IN THIS THREAD? Hell, I know a pacifist anarchist who is compeltley psycho liberal and even he respects our troops. Saying that the war oculd ahve been arranged better isn't implying the soldiers needed to do a better job but that the administration did.

"Interesting ... then why is it that we haven't had another attack?"

we hadn't had an attack since the War of 1812, why is this necesarily due to the war, especially the on in Iraq (as opposed to Afganhistan and other anti-terrorists actions)? You know, I have some tiger reppelent you might want to buy.

Seriously, I find some of your points persuasive, but you seem to actively ignore what people say and assume that they follow your idea of a liberal agenda.

Rigante
3rd June 04, 05:32 PM
No question that the intelligence screwed up big time and the government probably read into it what they wanted to see. My problem goes back to having a mediocre president and at best another mediocre candidate (who frankly I think will do a worse job). We are stuck with a war on terror and only mediocre leadership at best.
If anyone has any solutions on how to get out of it and deal with the political and economic ramifications I would sure like to hear it.
:(

Dochter
3rd June 04, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Rigante
No question that the intelligence screwed up big time and the government probably read into it what they wanted to see. My problem goes back to having a mediocre president and at best another mediocre candidate (who frankly I think will do a worse job). We are stuck with a war on terror and only mediocre leadership at best.
If anyone has any solutions on how to get out of it and deal with the political and economic ramifications I would sure like to hear it.
:(

I'd say;
My problem goes back to having a horrible* president and at best another mediocre candidate.

Otherwise I agree.



*based on other things than just "the war on terror, da dum"

CaptShady
3rd June 04, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Rigante
No question that the intelligence screwed up big time and the government probably read into it what they wanted to see. My problem goes back to having a mediocre president and at best another mediocre candidate (who frankly I think will do a worse job). We are stuck with a war on terror and only mediocre leadership at best.
If anyone has any solutions on how to get out of it and deal with the political and economic ramifications I would sure like to hear it.
:(

PREACH IT!!! Fact is ... Bush sucks nuts. kerry sucks worse IMO. THIS is why we need a president of ESTEEMED character.

Rigante
3rd June 04, 05:42 PM
I vote for Arnold;)

Dochter
3rd June 04, 05:55 PM
cya--->cha

cover her ass

TKDman
4th June 04, 12:39 PM
i blow boht th fokers to hell!!!11

The Wastrel
4th June 04, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Osama and his boys were taken care of and the hunt continues *open door for Wastrel's attack on the current administration for "not finding him yet" because OF COURSE that Bush's fault*.

This is why I won't discuss anything with you. Again, you just assume what I believe. Have fun.

The Wastrel
4th June 04, 11:54 PM
Is or is not the much-derided UN the body to whom the United States has turned in order to wash its hands of political consolidation of Iraq?

Did or did not the US military conduct a raid on the home of Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the INC, who was a PERSONAL GUEST of Dubya at a SotU address, the one whom Rumsfeld and his cabal had chosen as the future leader of Iraq against great resistance from many, the primary source of intelligence on Iraqi WMD programs which reuslted in the embarassment of the US?

Is there not currently a fairly well-founded allegation that this man, who was the darling bud of the administration's hawks, was given intelligence on American signint capabilities vis a vis Iran which he subsequently passed on to them?

Has or has not the administration largely reversed its policy on de-Baathification?

Have they or have they not retreated from engagement with Moqtada al-Sadr?

Regarding the sarin shell that was recently found: did I or did I not specifically mention sarin gas weapons in the Iraqi arsenal on this very board in the winter before the invasion? Was this shell in fact a NATO round that was supplied by the US? And is this not why the administration IS NOT making a case that it is evidence of a real arsenal?

When Donald Rumsfeld symbolically "fired" Eric Shinseki for claming that a post-war occupation of Iraq would take far more troops than was being projected, was he wrong? Consider youor answer in light of the fact that deployments have been increased?

During the Vietnam war, which was more significant to our loss? Media coverage, or the fact that the Johnson administration EXPLICITLY CLAIMED that they would NOT increase the deployment or escalate the war? What does this sound like?

How do you win a "war on terrorism"?

Take your time.

patfromlogan
5th June 04, 10:53 AM
jeesus Capt., I think you would have flunked out of basic.

Well, I'd say more but I've got to wheel barrow my $$$$ down to the sleasy lawyer who's defending the liberal's rights to spit on soldiers.

CaptShady
6th June 04, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by patfromlogan
Well, I'd say more but I've got to wheel barrow my $$$$ down to the sleasy lawyer who's defending the liberal's rights to spit on soldiers.

Ridicule all youwant, it fucking happens. Ask any Vietnam vet. ESPECIALLY any that served after the Tet offensive.

The Wastrel
6th June 04, 12:49 AM
Is there a protected right to spit on people?

patfromlogan
6th June 04, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Why is it that libs go on and on about their first amendment rights when it comes to spitting on our soldiers, yet chastise others for labeling them as pinkos?

I didn't start this fucking reeediculous train of argument. I really don't believe that there has been any liberals (god, how we hate those dirty liberals!!!) going "on and on about their first amendment rights when it comes to spitting on our soldiers." Capt. Shady is in la la land.

I think that Matt has been reasonable in this thread. Congrats to Matt (well ok, Wastrel too).;)

CaptShady
6th June 04, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by patfromlogan
I didn't start this fucking reeediculous train of argument. I really don't believe that there has been any liberals (god, how we hate those dirty liberals!!!) going "on and on about their first amendment rights when it comes to spitting on our soldiers." Capt. Shady is in la la land.

I think that Matt has been reasonable in this thread. Congrats to Matt (well ok, Wastrel too).;)

There is the literal, and the figurative. BOTH have happened, albeit more one than the other. Just look at the comments made by those in the forefront of the liberal media about Tilman. If you feel that lowering the morale of soldiers overseas in combat areas is a patriotic act, you're a dumbass. Calling THEM names when they're following orders is UNAmerican. Liberals love to do things like call American soldiers "cowards", or act like the poor terrorist prisoners were sooooo mistreated when Americans are being decapitated with no outcry .. is un .... fucking ... american. STFU and stop crying like a little bitch with a skinned knee about MY calling YOU unAmerican .. say your piece and move the fuck on. You can call the terrorist prisoners 'poor misguided heros' all you want, it's in the constitution. I can call you a communist pinko asshole all I want .. I have the same right.

patfromlogan
6th June 04, 11:07 AM
good for you. Now try to document any of the bullshit you espouse. Like spitting on soldiers, like liberals calling soldiers cowards. The more you write, the deeper you get into la la land.

p.s. I would hazard a guess that the Army is a little more concerned with the firing of Sec of Army Thomas White and the firing of the head of the Army Gen. Shinseki (and the gutting of brass that Shinseki had promoted). Fired by the cabal. Fired because they disagreed with the narrow minded ideologues. Fired because they had guts and brains and spoke the truth.

But don't let truth get in the way of a rant, sir.

CaptShady
6th June 04, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by patfromlogan
good for you. Now try to document any of the bullshit you espouse. Like spitting on soldiers, like liberals calling soldiers cowards. The more you write, the deeper you get into la la land.

p.s. I would hazard a guess that the Army is a little more concerned with the firing of Sec of Army Thomas White and the firing of the head of the Army Gen. Shinseki (and the gutting of brass that Shinseki had promoted). Fired by the cabal. Fired because they disagreed with the narrow minded ideologues. Fired because they had guts and brains and spoke the truth.

But don't let truth get in the way of a rant, sir.


Originally posted by patfromlogan
good for you. Now try to document any of the bullshit you espouse. Like spitting on soldiers, like liberals calling soldiers cowards.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38235

http://media.dailycollegian.com/pages/tillman_lobandwidth.html?in_archive=1


"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from 2000 miles away, that’s cowardly. " -Bill Maher

As far as spitting .. ASK a real life VET, not some fuck running for office. Or someone trying to push off a writing career.



Originally posted by patfromlogan
The more you write, the deeper you get into la la land.


Like you with your conspiratory bullshit? Go back to your fucking MUFON meeting.

CaptShady
6th June 04, 12:45 PM
"When I see an American flag flying, it's a joke." -- Robert Altman

"I not only think that they (U.S. leaders) are misguided, but I think they know exactly what they are doing and I think that they are men who are possessed of evil." -- Harry Belafonte

"The real terrorist threats are George W. Bush and his band of brown-shirted thugs." -- Sandra Bernhard

"I'm saying that the moral climate within the ruling class in this country is not that different from the moral climate within the ruling class of Hitler's Germany." -- David Clennon, star of "The Agency,"

"I don't know if a country (America) where the people are so ignorant of reality and of history, if you can call that a free world." -- Jane Fonda

"(W)hen Communist U.S.S.R. was a superpower, the world was better off. The right-wing media is trying to marginalize the peace movement." -- Janeane Garofalo

Have we gone to war yet? We f****** deserve to get bombed. Bring it on." -- Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders

"Let's get rid of all the economic bullshit this country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!" -- Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders

"The WTC was not just an architectural monstrosity, but also terrible for people who didn't work there, for it said to all those people: 'If you can't work up here, boy, you're out of it.' That's why I'm sure that if those towers had been destroyed without loss of life, a lot of people would have cheered. Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel, which consequently had to be destroyed. And then came the next shock. We had to realize that the people that did this were brilliant. It showed that the ego we could hold up until September 10 was inadequate." -- Norman Mailer

"I think that people like the Howard Sterns, the Bill O'Reillys and to a lesser degree the bin Ladens of the world are making a horrible contribution." -- Sean Penn

"I just think we are a little bit of an arrogant nation and maybe this is a little bit of a humbling experience ... what has our government done to provoke (9/11) that we don't know about?" -- Backstreet Boy Kevin Richardson

UnAmerican, unAmerican, unAmerican!

The Wastrel
6th June 04, 03:19 PM
I wonder about the context of Robert Altman's comment. In my opinion, the only place a flag belongs is on a government building, or used in official capacity elsewhere. When I see someone wearing one, or flying it at their home, it makes me queasy.

The Wastrel
6th June 04, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
There is the literal, and the figurative. BOTH have happened, albeit more one than the other. Just look at the comments made by those in the forefront of the liberal media about Tilman. If you feel that lowering the morale of soldiers overseas in combat areas is a patriotic act, you're a dumbass. Calling THEM names when they're following orders is UNAmerican. Liberals love to do things like call American soldiers "cowards", or act like the poor terrorist prisoners were sooooo mistreated when Americans are being decapitated with no outcry .. is un .... fucking ... american. STFU and stop crying like a little bitch with a skinned knee about MY calling YOU unAmerican .. say your piece and move the fuck on. You can call the terrorist prisoners 'poor misguided heros' all you want, it's in the constitution. I can call you a communist pinko asshole all I want .. I have the same right.

Shady, saying pretty much whatever the hell you like without fear is one of the things that made me happy to serve. You can't accurately call that un-American. In fact, your contradiction here is pretty glaring. "Freedom of speech is un-American and I can say that because the Constitution allows it"?

Also, you're missing the significance of the Abu Ghraib incident. Not to mention the fact that you continually refer to those imprisoned there as "terrorists". That was why I originally asked you if you were conflating Iraqi with "terrorist". The fact is that the military released, what, hundreds? And if you do the background reading you will learn that the great majority of them were picked up for what is termed "driving while Iraqi".

You have also failed to note that nearly the entire Muslim world, including Hizbollah, decried the beheading. You keep saying, "Where's the outrage?" The answer is threefold:

1. It's there and you would see it if you weren't reading Newsmax and Washington Times op-ed pieces that are bemoaning the lack of outrage.

2. What happened at Abu Ghraib reflects on us, AND it is widely seen as endangering the success of the Iraq mission. That is a view widely held by people in the Pentagon, and apparently in the Administration itself.

3. There is a valid question about the level of formality of what occurred at Abu Ghraib.

Finally, how is anyone lowering anyone's morale? I tell you right here that there are plenty of soldiers in theatre whose morale is being lowered by what they consider to be a basic lack of strategic direction, or by stop-loss. Not to mention the fact that there are many soldiers who don't support Bush despite the fact that they do their jobs, and do them well.

Do not contribute to the illusion that all the men and women in uniform want Americans at home to blindly support whatever the administration does.

patfromlogan
6th June 04, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38235

http://media.dailycollegian.com/pages/tillman_lobandwidth.html?in_archive=1



As far as spitting .. ASK a real life VET, not some fuck running for office. Or someone trying to push off a writing career.




Like you with your conspiratory bullshit? Go back to your fucking MUFON meeting.

I hate to ask, but should I google MUFON? WTF is it?

Any how, the first link was about Tilman, to quote: One suggested an alternative headline, " … or, how about, 'privileged millionaire, blinded by nationalist mythology, pisses away the good life.'"
This almost the same as what was said in the Tillman thread in Bullshido, so what? Some think he's a hero, some think he's a sucker. I admire his courage and think that he died for an ill concieved mistake. I know a lot of vets, none were spit on.