My last words on the subject
[QUOTE=Jackson]At least these personal sacrifices were made in a campaign that produced results, specifically: A despot removed from office, the liberation of 36 million formerly oppressed people, Al Qaeda beaten to a pulp, and the creation of a new democratic country to counter-balance Iran.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Jax Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we went there, get it, we put them there. Instead of "beaten to a pulp" try "had all of their recruitment wet dreams come true." Bin Laden was jerking off in some cave in Afghanistan while he was watching the tanks roll in. Here's an idea, move troops away from were he is to support an invasion of a country were he isn't.
In one post you justify the deaths of 1000's upon 1000's of INNOCENT Iraqi citizens because "the fight is there and not here so we are safer." Yet in this one you justify the invasion because we liberated them. You can't callously justify their slaughter one day, then claim moral high ground the next. Who is responsible for more Iraqi citizens dying Saddam or this administration? Who will liberate them from us?
One more thing regarding this liberation thingy. Saddam was into retail oppression with the exception of the Kurds. The House of Saud is into oppression wholesale, why did we invade Iraq and not the Kingdom. Plus that pesky little fact they never mention on Fox News, 19 of the 20 on 9-11 were Saudis, Bin Laden, Saudi, and the Secret Service guards their embassy.
The very minute we pull the troops from Iraq there will be another Despot in power. My wager is this, Steaks at La Estancia, all entradads, drinks, chica drinks, taxis, plus the duo of my choice for a TLN. Do I have action?
I'm done with this, there is no reasoning on this issue, all of our minds are closed, myself included. Back to pussy.
2 photos
People who have not been to war don't have a clue
I wish fox news and the like would show images like this once in a while.
Jackson, you really don't have a clue what war is like other than what you are "told" from the media. The smells, the screams, your buddy getting his head shot off in front of you, you shoot up a convoy only to find out you shot some kids etc.
If you think that this does not affect our soldiers, sailors and Marines mentally, well I need some of what your smoking.
You should try it some time, I did. I will never be the same either.
These are not my pics, mine were all confiscated by the US State Dept in Gulf War pt one. Before digital cameras.
1 photos
Revisionist History Continues
[QUOTE=Doggboy]Hey Punter. I don't think you would find many of the left leaning mongers advocating a hands off approach with Al Qaeda. Certainly not me. My beef, and I think the beef of many, has been with the monumentally flawed strategy employed by the Bush administration. Lest we forget, there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion, and there was an historical enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Remember, the Bush administration's reasons have changed considerably since they initially floated the WMD rationale, and there is much compelling evidence that alot of the WMD "evidence" was contrived.[/QUOTE]Dogg, Stray, Stowe,
Please review the following articles; they are quoting your deity - President Clinton, by a source you will probably accept - CNN.
Please provide your comments on how the Clinton rhetoric and rationale is different from Bush's - other than putting "boots on the ground" and attempting to nation build (although Sec of DOD Cohen did say that the strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan were to defend our ideals of democracy)
[url]http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/[/url]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/24/bomb.damage/[/url]
[url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EFD9173CF936A1575BC0A96E958260&scp=2&sq=iraq+sudan&st=nyt[/url]
[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-112921-3401r/[/url]
Stray: Possibly your branch enjoyed some of the Clinton "info blackout",
"The Pentagon's tight hold on information contrasts with previous cruise missile strikes. Sources say that at least two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office did not learn of the attacks until President Clinton announced them Thursday afternoon."
By the way, I thank you for your service to the United States. Whether you agree with or believe in the policies of your Commander in Chief, that is your right - I defend that right.
Gato Hunter: I'm sorry I was was not overly moved by your photos - But I am quite moved and motivated by this one. Also of the video of Paul Johnson Jr. And Nick Berg. Do you know who Paul Johnson and Nick Berg were?
There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war.
[QUOTE=Alan23]Dogg, Stray, Stowe,
Please review the following articles; they are quoting your deity - President Clinton, by a source you will probably accept - CNN.
Please provide your comments on how the Clinton rhetoric and rationale is different from Bush's - other than putting "boots on the ground" and attempting to nation build (although Sec of DOD Cohen did say that the strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan were to defend our ideals of democracy)
[url]http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/[/url]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/24/bomb.damage/[/url]
[url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EFD9173CF936A1575BC0A96E958260&scp=2&sq=iraq+sudan&st=nyt[/url]
[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-112921-3401r/[/url]
Stray: Possibly your branch enjoyed some of the Clinton "info blackout",
"The Pentagon's tight hold on information contrasts with previous cruise missile strikes. Sources say that at least two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office did not learn of the attacks until President Clinton announced them Thursday afternoon."
By the way, I thank you for your service to the United States. Whether you agree with or believe in the policies of your Commander in Chief, that is your right - I defend that right.
Gato Hunter: I'm sorry I was was not overly moved by your photos - But I am quite moved and motivated by this one. Also of the video of Paul Johnson Jr. And Nick Berg. Do you know who Paul Johnson and Nick Berg were?[/QUOTE]
There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war. The stuff you quoted was old, nothing was ever found linking Al Qaeda to Iraq. They did find one guy from the PLO who was retired and living in Baghdad, and another guy who was in the Kurdish area in the north, (which saddam had no control over) to try to make a link. There was no link.
[QUOTE=washingtonpost]Before the war, “Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.”[/QUOTE][url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15019-2003Jun4?language=printer[/url]
[QUOTE=CNN]“The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.”[/QUOTE][url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/[/url]
The Baath party, which Saddam Hussein was the leader, was a secular socialist party. They where hated by Al Qaeda. They did not promote religion. Within the government there where Christians, Sunni and Shia. For example Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz was Christian.
[QUOTE]“For example, of the eight top Iraqi leaders who in early 1988 sat with Husayn on the Revolutionary Command Council--Iraq's highest governing body-- three were Arab Shias (of whom one had served as Minister of Interior), three were Arab Sunnis, one was an Arab Christian, and one a Kurd. On the Regional Command Council--the ruling body of the party--Shias actually predominated. During the war, a number of highly competent Shia officers have been promoted to corps commanders. The general who turned back the initial Iranian invasions of Iraq in 1982 was a Shia.”[/QUOTE]From [url]http://countrystudies.us/iraq/38.htm[/url]
The Baath Party was Secular, and was fearful of religious extremist.
Again, There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war.
[QUOTE] Bin Laden, who views the rigid Saudi theocracy as insufficiently Islamic, has long considered Saddam Hussein an infidel enemy. Before Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, Bin Laden warned publicly that the Iraqi dictator had designs on conquering Saudi Arabia. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered to assemble his mujahedeen to battle Hussein and protect the Arabian peninsula.
Last summer, when CNN acquired a cache of internal Al Qaeda training videotapes, they discovered a Qaeda documentary that was highly critical of Hussein. Peter Bergen, the CNN terrorism expert who interviewed Bin Laden in 1998, noted that Bin Laden indicted Hussein, as "a bad Muslim."
That theme continues in the latest "Bin Laden" audiotape, released to Al Jazeera. In it, Bin Laden (or someone claiming to be him) urges Muslims to fight the American "crusaders" bent on invading Iraq. But even while urging assistance to Hussein's "socialist" regime, "Bin Laden" can't resist condemning that regime: "The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago. Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden."[/QUOTE][url]http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3017[/url]
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm[/url]
The Baath party, which Saddam Hussein was the leader, was a secular socialist party. They where hated by Al Qaeda. They did not promote religion. Within the government there where Christians, Sunni and Shia. For example Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz was Christian.
[QUOTE] “For example, of the eight top Iraqi leaders who in early 1988 sat with Husayn on the Revolutionary Command Council--Iraq's highest governing body-- three were Arab Shias (of whom one had served as Minister of Interior), three were Arab Sunnis, one was an Arab Christian, and one a Kurd. On the Regional Command Council--the ruling body of the party--Shias actually predominated. During the war, a number of highly competent Shia officers have been promoted to corps commanders. The general who turned back the initial Iranian invasions of Iraq in 1982 was a Shia.” [/QUOTE]
From [url]http://countrystudies.us/iraq/38.htm[/url]
The Baath Party was Secular, and was fearful of religious extremist.
Even The Joint Forces Command could not find a link, after a big investigation.
[QUOTE]
The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.
The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.
The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/[/url]
Bush on youtube admits no link with 9-11
BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdlEcFfYZ2k[/url]
I don't understand why people keep say that Iraq was involved with the September 11 attack, or with Al Qaeda. Saddam distrusted religious extremist, and even when he was captured, he had with him order to his people, to work with the mujahedeen, but not to trust them. So when he was on the run, and needed help, he still feared the religious extremist.
What shall it be Food for thought or fuel for the fire?
You decide,
[I][b]“So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in.
When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed.
When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said 'Praise the Lord.'
And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!' But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away.
By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed.
By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him.
By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status.
By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the MOST fortunate Cubans.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Would we...?”[/i][/b]
