Maybe you should get the constitution changed if you want to go start wars of agression every time you don’t like some tinpot dictator?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You are right, we should limit ourselves to chasing Bin Laden up and down the mountains and ignore all of our other enemies.[/quote]
Well, since we now have so many new enemies, they should all be very hard to ignore.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I don’t remember ever hearing about cars exploding and killing Iraqi citizens before the invasion. Maybe I’m missing something.
…
[/quote]
But I did hear about the many Iraqi’s Saddam murdered.
I heard about Saddams plot to assasinate G.H.W. Bush.
I heard about Saddam funding suicide bombers in Israel. In fact I have seen the televised check writing ceremonies when he paid their families $ 30,000 each. But is that OK because it was not in the US?
If you harbor terrorists you are a terrorist. If you fund terrorists you are a terrorist. If you plot to kill an ex-president, you are a terrorist.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Zap,
Good stuff.
Not to mention the fact that saddam harbored and funded terrorism.
Not to mention trying to assasinate George H.W. Bush (my sugar-daddy).
Attacking neighbors and our allies.
I agree with you, betting on the restraint of a sworn enemy is a recipe of example.
It only takes one, measly little briefcase.
Wasn’t it William Cohen, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, who got up on Meet the Press and warned that one vial could wipe out Washington D.C.?
You know I agree with the power of deterrance post-Iraq invasion. It’s an ENORMOUS DEAL!!!
JeffR[/quote]
You beat me too it. This stuff is so obvious, yet many pretend not to get it.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
liftus wrote:
“The insurgents are there as a result of the US being in Iraq. I don’t remember ever hearing about cars exploding and killing Iraqi citizens before the invasion. Maybe I’m missing something.”
That would be the regime killing Iraqis. I would be very interested to hear the numbers of Iraqi deaths in 2001 compared to 2005.
[/quote]
So we’re back to square one. We are really there to “free” the Iraqis.
I can’t wait until someone starts quoting Gen. McAurthur.
Planet XEONDU–pronounced “what does it matter?”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I don’t remember ever hearing about cars exploding and killing Iraqi citizens before the invasion. Maybe I’m missing something.
…
But I did hear about the many Iraqi’s Saddam murdered.
I heard about Saddams plot to assasinate G.H.W. Bush.
I heard about Saddam funding suicide bombers in Israel. In fact I have seen the televised check writing ceremonies when he paid their families $ 30,000 each. But is that OK because it was not in the US?
If you harbor terrorists you are a terrorist. If you fund terrorists you are a terrorist. If you plot to kill an ex-president, you are a terrorist.
[/quote]
personal vendetta–this is how I read it. All other reasons are superfluous.
We funded Iraq first–to kill Iranians and then he killed people in his own country with the weapons we sold him. Who’s a terrorist? In your statement you said,
We are terrorists. We fund more murderers than anyother country in the WORLD.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You are right, we should limit ourselves to chasing Bin Laden up and down the mountains and ignore all of our other enemies.
Well, since we now have so many new enemies, they should all be very hard to ignore.[/quote]
New enemies my ass. We have new allies.
Iraq’s former government was hostile to the US. Iraq’s current government is friendly.
The foreign fighters in Iraq are extremists. They hated us before we liberated Iraq and they hate us now.
The Saddam loyalists hated us before and they hate us now. Who are the new enemies?
liftus,
Place of birth.
I want to know where you are “coming” from.
It would help me understand your point of view.
Don’t lie, be proud!!!
JeffR
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lincono wrote:
Professor X wrote:
lincono wrote:
Please read ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu to understand about choosing the site of battle. If you don’t think the Iraqi government was involved with AlQuida, then you should also study Middle Eastern history as well. You are the same type of person who used this same type of rhetoric in the 20’s and 30’s that Hitler wasn’t going to attack Europe or America; he did attack Europe and he would have attacked America.
Now I know that you are ridiculous. Saddam couldn’t even put together a loyal military, let alone convince them all of a new world order like Hitler. You can’t possibly see things this way.
Just who do you think is behind the insurgency? The teachings of the Koran is their new world order. Please utilize my previous suggestions to educate yourself before you call someone ridiculous.
And most of these insurgents are coming from OUTSIDE of Iraq. Again, Iraq wasn’t going to invade us. Quit the bullshit. The difference between individual terrorists and a united moveable front across the ocean is a chasm.
[/quote]
So, according to your argument, if they are coming from outside of Iraq to fight Americans in Iraq, wouldn’t they have come to America to fight Americans, if we weren’t in Iraq?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
We funded Iraq first–to kill Iranians and then he killed people in his own country with the weapons we sold him. Who’s a terrorist? In your statement you said,
…[/quote]
Another piece of BS the left likes to use. The Soviet Union provided the overwhelming majority of weapons to Iraq.
[quote]lincono wrote:
So, according to your argument, if they are coming from outside of Iraq to fight Americans in Iraq, wouldn’t they have come to America to fight Americans, if we weren’t in Iraq? [/quote]
If we weren’t in Iraq there wouldn’t be insurgents. What planet are you from?
lincono wrote:
“So, according to your argument, if they are coming from outside of Iraq to fight Americans in Iraq, wouldn’t they have come to America to fight Americans, if we weren’t in Iraq?”
Don’t you get it?!?
If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, there wouldn’t have been any terrorists!!!
We would have been safe and cuddly.
However, if you listen to elk, had there been a terrorist threat, we wouldn’t really have had anyone “man” enough to protect us here at home.
Or, if you reference graphics man, we are the reason for terrorism in the first place!!!
America first!!!
That is BLAME America first.
Get with it, man.
JeffR
Cherrypicking my news again, I just wanted to post a link of what Rummy just said:
Iraq ‘no more safe than in 2003’
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged that security in Iraq has not improved statistically since Saddam Hussein’s fall in 2003.
If that is true, it is pretty sad.
Makkun
[quote]lincono wrote:
Professor X wrote:
lincono wrote:
Professor X wrote:
lincono wrote:
Please read ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu to understand about choosing the site of battle. If you don’t think the Iraqi government was involved with AlQuida, then you should also study Middle Eastern history as well. You are the same type of person who used this same type of rhetoric in the 20’s and 30’s that Hitler wasn’t going to attack Europe or America; he did attack Europe and he would have attacked America.
Now I know that you are ridiculous. Saddam couldn’t even put together a loyal military, let alone convince them all of a new world order like Hitler. You can’t possibly see things this way.
Just who do you think is behind the insurgency? The teachings of the Koran is their new world order. Please utilize my previous suggestions to educate yourself before you call someone ridiculous.
And most of these insurgents are coming from OUTSIDE of Iraq. Again, Iraq wasn’t going to invade us. Quit the bullshit. The difference between individual terrorists and a united moveable front across the ocean is a chasm.
So, according to your argument, if they are coming from outside of Iraq to fight Americans in Iraq, wouldn’t they have come to America to fight Americans, if we weren’t in Iraq? [/quote]
Nope they would be streaming to Afghanistan where we could have a fully concentrated force.
You conservatives act like if we didn’t invade Iraq that there would be a D-day like invasion of muslims on the east and west coast. Ridiculous!
No matter how many wars are going on there are still cells that are working in America geniuses.
However, if you listen to elk, had there been a terrorist threat, we wouldn’t really have had anyone “man” enough to protect us here at home.
jerffy, go take out your frustration with me on a jaywalker or something. You are disrupting debate here.
Makkun,
Thanks for the link.
It appears he said just that.
I am heart-sick at each American and Iraqi death.
Every loss should be mourned.
The big difference between the fall of saddam and now are the Iraqi Security forces.
Rummy said: “The important thing … is to recognise that this insurgency is going to be defeated not by the coalition - it’s going to be defeated by the Iraqi people and by the Iraqi security forces, and that it’s going to happen as the Iraq people begin to believe they’ve got a future in that country,” he said.
Agreed.
JeffR
Vroom,
“Thunder, that was a really weak response. You can do better than that.”
Did you read it, Vroom?
Elk,
“Thunder, you’re not half the intellectual powerhouse or strategic war planner you think you are. Real good at regurgitating neocon talking points that’s about it I’d say.”
I wouldn’t call myself either an intellectual powerhouse or strategic war planner, just a guy who reads and I write above a fourth grade level.
If that bothers you, so be it.
To follow up on Rummy’s comments: From the strategypage.com
IRAQ: How the Cops Took Back the Streets
June 12, 2005: Tensions between the “Accomodationists” and “Rejectionist” factions of the pro-Saddam Baathist movement seem to be leading to the possibility of a violent confrontation. The “Accomodationists” support cooperation with the Iraqi government, and support participation in the political process. Given that the Baath Party seems to have stashed away an enormous amount of money, and that Baathists are really the only experienced managers and administrators in the country, following the Accomodationists line could arguably result in a return of the Baathists to power eventually. The Rejectionists are violently opposed to any accommodation with the government, and seek a return to power by force, sooner rather than later.
There have been an increasing number of violent attacks on Accomodationists, or people who appear to be Accomodationists. Until recently, most of the incidents were in the form of attacks on property, threats, and occasional kidnappings for the purpose of intimidation. But lately there have been several killings. The possibility of a serious violent confrontation between the two wings of the Baath movement is increasing. In some cases, the attackers are foreign al Qaeda gunmen, working for the Rejectionists.
One reason for the despair within the Baath Party is the improved performance of the Iraqi police. This is no accident. Late last year, two changes were made to how the United States recruited and deployed the Iraqi police. First, standards for recruitment were increased, and training made longer and more intense. As expected, this did not reduce the number of new recruits coming in, because being a cop was still one of the better paying, and available, jobs in the other country. But firing poorly performing cops and police commanders did wonders for the morale and performance of the good cops.
The other change was to deploy trained police battalions to areas the cops were not native to. This was a technique even Saddam had to use. If you recruit all the cops from the area they will be working in, too many of those policemen will be corrupted by local criminals and bureaucrats. The corruption wasn?t always in the from of cash or favors. Threats against a cops family would work as well. This was what was happening to so many of the police recruited from areas where they were working, particularly in Sunni Arab areas.
So the U.S. formed special police battalions, trained them a bit more, screened their commanders more thoroughly, and paid them a bonus to work away from home. These were mainly Kurdish and Shia Arab cops being sent to work in Sunni Arab areas.
Sunni Arab cops needed all the help they could get. The Baath Party, and the most vicious criminal gangs were dominated by Sunni Arabs. Al Qaeda was also a Sunni Arab outfit. It was hard to get Sunni Arab police to come down hard on misbehaving Sunni Arabs. But Kurdish and Shia Arab cops saw cracking down on Sunni Arabs as a rare combination of business and pleasure.
Meanwhile, al Qaeda continues to be its own worst enemy. Unable to make other types of combat work, Al Qaeda has bet everything on the use of car bombs, driven by suicidal foreign volunteers. For all of 2004, there were under 30 car bombs used in Baghdad. But in the last four months, there have been over 130 in Baghdad. Nearly as many have been used in other parts of Iraq in that time period.
Even Iraqis who support al Qaeda cannot understand this reliance on car bombs, which kill many innocent bystanders, and generate much hatred against al Qaeda, and Sunni Arabs in general. But it makes sense if you ignore al Qaeda?s English language pronouncements, and look at what they say in Arabic. There, al Qaeda denounces Shia Moslems as heretics and miscreants who must be converted to the true Islam (Sunni Islam), or slaughtered. In Iraq, al Qaeda is mainly sending its car bombs against Shias. It?s a matter of practicing what you preach.
Ahahahahaha. Yes, that is why I said what I did.