[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
8- attacks by insurgants in June 2003.
.[/quote]
WTF, is this from 2003?
[quote]fahd wrote:
hedo wrote:
Are you serious little man?
What have you posted on T-Nation that is relevant? You are an anti-american clown who finds a fertile audience in your small circle…ntohing more.
Just because you have a high opinion of yourself and your intellect it is not universally shared. You haven’t even completed your undergraduate education if I recall.
You have shown your lack of character and it has been pointed out. You should crawl back into your troll hole and hang your head in shame.
Adults, what do you know of adulthood and responsibility? The answer is nothing. Stop wasting the oxygen son.
I’ll stand by my comment. The lowliest soldier buried at Arlington has earned more respect and honor then a bitch like you ever will.
LOL, I like a good comeback.
-
I have nearly 600 posts here. Have you read all of them? If not, shut your mouth about the relevance of my posts. 80% of my posts are about training and most of them made in the strength forum.
-
I disagree with Repulicans and conservatives, but I’m by no means anti-American. In fact I went to an International school for 3 years and it was American.
-
In a typical ‘liberal’ way, you have turned a valid discussion into personal insults and attack. You are a clown, and I hope you are wearing your full make up, red shoes and circus clothes as you are typing your comments.
Have a nice day,
Fahd
[/quote]
Fahd,
Your posts speak volume about you. Stick to training. 600 posts in the short amount of time you have trolled this site says enough about you.
Yes. I’ve read many of your posts. You are Anti-American. No need to distance yourself from that unless your are a coward.
You posted an article that “reflected” your opinion. I found it juvenille. You then distanced yourself from it.
Stick to the training forums. Try reading up on lowering the Estrogen levels…might help.
Still want to try talking about adulthood little man or have you dropped that as being to diffcicult?
You have a nice day too. Your disdain for brave men speaks more about you then the obvious shortcomings I can point out.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Fahd,
Your posts speak volume about you. Stick to training. 600 posts in the short amount of time you have trolled this site says enough about you.
Yes. I’ve read many of your posts. You are Anti-American. No need to distance yourself from that unless you are a coward.
You posted an article that “reflected” your opinion. I foound it juvenille. You then distanced yourself from it.
Stick to the training forums. Try reading up on lowering the Estrogen levels…might help.
Still want to try talking about adulthood little man or have you dropped that as being to diffcicult?
You have a nice day too. Your disdain for brave men speaks more about you then the obvious shortcomings I can point out.
[/quote]
I’m done with you hedo.
[quote]hedo wrote:
[/quote]
Funny no one who shares your ideology is backing you up. You have to turn political discussions personal and resort to some petty insults. I think anger management classes might help.
[quote]fahd wrote:
hedo wrote:
Funny no one who shares your ideology is backing you up. You have to turn political discussions personal and resort to some petty insults.[/quote]
Thought you were done little man?
Anything else to say that makes sense and displays your intellect some more?
Boston Barrister:
As I stated, these are numbers from the independent, therefore I can’t really add much more than what is there. I agree comparison would be nice, but as for being essential? I don’t think it is because frankly the point of the Independent’s feature wasn’t to show a progression (if there is one) it was to point out that Iraq is a mess. I remember offhand referring in my undergrad dissertation to the fact that pretty much all citizens had access to government provided electricity and water and since the war those services were worse, but I don’t have the references to hand so its hearsay.
As for this:
[quote]0- Number of WMDs found.
Number of WMDs accounted for that he was documented as possessing: 0[/quote]
Exactly. He wasn’t documented as possessing WMD, yet WMD were the reason for war. This was not, at the outset some humanitarian, philanthropic venture, it was to find WMD. Our leaders either lied, or made significant errors, depending on your cynicism, yet either is terrible when 30,000-100,000 (depending which report you read) civilians have died. You need a solid foundation if you’re about to launch a war, not a dossier lifted from the internet and satellite pictures of sheds which are supposedly bomb making/launching/hiding facilities.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
I’m pretty sure he’smocking the administration which has so little respect for the Armed Forces it has sent them off to die for no good reason, then flown their bodies back as cargo freight on a commercial airliner.
Harry ass is back. Your new skirt looks really nice, too. And are those new Pom Poms you are waving as well? [/quote]
I’m sorry, did YOU just call me a cheerleader?
Hey, pot…you’re black.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
And as usual the neo-cons ignore the statistics I posted because they aren’t good iraq news. Of course they will now point to this weeks election as to how things MUST be good if people are voting. Hmm. They have no sewerage system but at least they get to vote for thier Muslim faaction and continue Iraq’s progress into a series of small states, only one of which having any oil. Unfortunately the electoral commission is saying it is quite likely to be a tainted affair.
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10378
It’s not all good, but it sure as hell isn’t all bad either.
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/10/good-news-from-iraq-part-12.html
[/quote]
A right-wing Australian piece, that’s like the antithesis of Al Jazeera, heh heh. Nice! Anyways, I just posted all those stats because I think they have a lot to say. Now its great that the election is happening at all, but you don’t move forward and improve by saying ‘everythings great!’.
I gotta know…who the hell was making 4100 a month in Iraq?
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
A right-wing Australian piece, that’s like the antithesis of Al Jazeera, heh heh. Nice! Anyways, I just posted all those stats because I think they have a lot to say. Now its great that the election is happening at all, but you don’t move forward and improve by saying ‘everythings great!’.[/quote]
The converse is also true, you won’t make much progress if you’re always bitching about what we did wrong instead of moving forward and fixing it. We went to war, maybe we were justified, maybe we weren’t. For better or worse we’re over there now, how would you like to see things change for the better at this point?
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Boston Barrister:
As I stated, these are numbers from the independent, therefore I can’t really add much more than what is there. I agree comparison would be nice, but as for being essential? I don’t think it is because frankly the point of the Independent’s feature wasn’t to show a progression (if there is one) it was to point out that Iraq is a mess. I remember offhand referring in my undergrad dissertation to the fact that pretty much all citizens had access to government provided electricity and water and since the war those services were worse, but I don’t have the references to hand so its hearsay.[/quote]
I’m sure you’re right as to the intent of the Independent.
However, I’m not sure I agree with the point, which isn’t a surprise I’m sure. What might be a surprise is that I’m not sure the Iraqis agree with the point either:
Analysis: Degrees of optimism in Iraq
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website
The latest survey of opinion in Iraq shows a degree of optimism at variance with the usual depiction of the country as one in total chaos.
The figures will provide evidence for supporters of the invasion and occupation to argue that the international media have got it wrong - that, despite everything, most Iraqis are wedded to a democratic future in a unified state and have faith it will come.
The findings are in line with the kind of arguments currently being deployed by President George W Bush.
In a recent speech, he referred to reconstruction and, as an example, this survey shows the rapid growth of consumer buying in Iraq, led by mobile phones and satellite television.
However critics will claim that the survey proves little beyond showing how resilient Iraqis are at a local level.
They will argue that it reveals enough important exceptions to the rosy assessment, especially in the centre of the country, to indicate serious dissatisfaction.
Indeed a high level of optimism was evident in surveys last year and yet the situation has hardly improved.
The question, therefore, is whether the desire for stability shown by the survey can overcome the centre of resistance.
The immediate problem is that these attitudes - optimism, faith in democracy - have not been enough to overcome the insurgency.
On the other hand, they offer the possibility that it might be overcome one day.
Regional differences
The survey splits Iraq into four regions - Kurdish, the Centre, Baghdad and the South.
The most important exceptions to the overall findings are revealed in the centre of Iraq, the band of mainly Sunni territory where the insurgency is strongest.
As long as that dissatisfaction continues, so, it seems, will the insurgency itself.
There are regional differences, with the Kurds showing a significant interest in quality-of-life issues compared to the rest of the country, which is still preoccupied with security.
The Kurds have moved on. They even approve of a unified state in larger numbers than they did before.
Indeed such is the concern about security in Iraq that there is a yearning for a “strong leader”, though within a democratic framework.
And none of the current leadership appears to meet that requirement. Religious leaders are respected, but not overwhelmingly so.
It is interesting that, asked to look five years ahead, Iraqis stressed democracy more than strong leadership as the priority they would look for then. Again, the future is looking better to them.
Stable attitudes
This is the fifth survey in Iraq carried out by Oxford Research International (ORI), on behalf of five media groups, including the BBC.
Its researchers, who were Iraqis, spread out in minibuses across the country and carried out 1,711 face-to-face interviews.
This figure was lower than in previous surveys because of security considerations but even so, according to ORI director Dr Christoph Sahm, it produced a result in which “Iraqi households were talking to us”.
Since the international media cannot get out and about in Iraq, the findings are of particular interest, though for the same reason the results cannot easily be tested against experience.
What Iraqi households are saying, according to Dr Sahm, is consistent with previous surveys. “In attitudes,” he said, “Iraq is remarkably stable.”
But, he added: "We are beginning to lose the centre. The centre has gone sour. It has a siege mentality.
"As for other Iraqis, locally things are getting better. Life goes on. Their satisfaction level is above the global average and is going up.
“Their desire for a strong leader within a democracy shows that they want a Konrad Adenauer, not a Saddam Hussein.” Adenauer was the first chancellor of post-war Germany.
Optimism prevails at the individual or family level. Most - 71% - said their lives were very good or quite good. This is the same result as in the poll last year.
Part of this may reflect the fact that, for Iraqis, family life is so important and they have managed to cling to their families during these times.
The narrow confines of their lives are suggested by the finding that 89% say they have to be careful what they say. The level of trust in society is very low.
However, this finding is balanced by the results of the very first question, which asks about the state of the country, not the state of the individual.
And here the picture is gloomier. Fifty-three percent say the situation is bad and 44% that it is good. The country is split.
A similar division emerges from the question about the US-led invasion.
Some 50% said it was wrong and 47% said it was right, compared with 39% and 49% respectively in the last poll - so support for the invasion has gone down.
And the occupation troops are unpopular (65% are opposed to them, though again with regional variations) with much greater favour being given to indigenous Iraqi security forces.
They put their trust therefore in their own institutions - not in those of foreigners. This is evidence supporting the US policy of handing over security to the local forces as much and as quickly as possible.
However, majority opposition to the occupation is not matched in support for a quick withdrawal.
Some 45% said the foreign troops should leave now or after the elections, with 31% saying they should stay until security is established.
Voice for the majority?
The elections on 15 December will provide a test of all these findings. The first test will be to see if those who said they would vote (83%) actually do so. Many of these would not say who they would vote for.
There is political optimism. Seventy-six percent said they had confidence that the elections would create a stable Iraqi government, though again the figure was smaller (45%) in the Centre.
That is very much the picture. And it leads to the question: The majority are having their say, but given the strength of the minority, will the majority have their way?
Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
As for this:
0- Number of WMDs found.
Number of WMDs accounted for that he was documented as possessing: 0
Exactly. He wasn’t documented as possessing WMD, yet WMD were the reason for war. This was not, at the outset some humanitarian, philanthropic venture, it was to find WMD. Our leaders either lied, or made significant errors, depending on your cynicism, yet either is terrible when 30,000-100,000 (depending which report you read) civilians have died. You need a solid foundation if you’re about to launch a war, not a dossier lifted from the internet and satellite pictures of sheds which are supposedly bomb making/launching/hiding facilities.
[/quote]
Ah, but he was documented as possessing WMDs – a whole slew of WMDs actually. He wasn’t documented as having nukes – but he had chemical and biological weapons, which went somewhere – there are no records of their destruction, and they haven’t turned up. Similarly, we did find distribution systems - missles, actually - that he was banned from possessing.
So, no, none found – but I do still wonder where they went. Especially with all those months of time during which we were “rushing” to war, and during which Saddam had time to move and/or hide things, within and outside of his country.
[quote]fahd wrote:
hedo wrote:
Funny no one who shares your ideology is backing you up. You have to turn political discussions personal and resort to some petty insults. I think anger management classes might help.[/quote]
fahd, you have posted a ton of anti-american BS.
You have also posted some funny shit too, but much of your political stuff appears to be incredibly biased.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
A right-wing Australian piece, that’s like the antithesis of Al Jazeera, heh heh. Nice! Anyways, I just posted all those stats because I think they have a lot to say. Now its great that the election is happening at all, but you don’t move forward and improve by saying ‘everythings great!’.
The converse is also true, you won’t make much progress if you’re always bitching about what we did wrong instead of moving forward and fixing it. We went to war, maybe we were justified, maybe we weren’t. For better or worse we’re over there now, how would you like to see things change for the better at this point?[/quote]
The anti-war types rarely have an answer for this.
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
A right-wing Australian piece, that’s like the antithesis of Al Jazeera, heh heh. Nice! Anyways, I just posted all those stats because I think they have a lot to say. Now its great that the election is happening at all, but you don’t move forward and improve by saying ‘everythings great!’.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone has ever said “everything’s great”. However, here’s some more good news:
http://www.aina.org/news/20051114120606.htm
http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/portal/page?_pageid=75,80077&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
[quote]hedo wrote:
Fahd
Arlington is filled with hero’s. Some who I have served with.
[/quote]
Umm, a hero’s what? Can you finish your sentences, please???
Or did you mean gyros, perhaps?
(fyi, politics suck on both sides, but either way you slice it, this war is idiotic.)
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
[/quote]
I agree Zap that I’m incredibly biased towards the left. But then who isn’t biased when it comes to politics?
Fahd
I’m not biased (at least not american politics), and I would like to say that hedo is not a good representative for whatever side he is with. At least until he brings good discussion.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
I gotta know…who the hell was making 4100 a month in Iraq? [/quote]
The lowest man on the totem pole at Halliburton. 
BB,
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
…
JohnGullick wrote:
As for this:
0- Number of WMDs found.
…
Ah, but he was documented as possessing WMDs – a whole slew of WMDs actually. He wasn’t documented as having nukes – but he had chemical and biological weapons, which went somewhere – there are no records of their destruction, and they haven’t turned up. Similarly, we did find distribution systems - missles, actually - that he was banned from possessing.
So, no, none found – but I do still wonder where they went. Especially with all those months of time during which we were “rushing” to war, and during which Saddam had time to move and/or hide things, within and outside of his country.[/quote]
From the Duelfer Report:
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
…
ISG investigated a series of key pre-OIF indicators involving the possible movement and storage of chemical weapons, focusing on 11 major depots assessed to have possible links to CW. A review of documents, interviews, available reporting, and site exploitations revealed alternate, plausible explanations for activities noted prior to OIF which, at the time, were believed to be CW-related."
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0
"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.
Iraq would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. Nevertheless, after 1996 Iraq still had a significant dual-use capability - some declared - readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program. Moreover, Iraq still possessed its most important BW asset, the scientific know-how of its BW cadre."
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap6.html#sect0
Not to worry, BB, seems like that had been mostly settled long before OIF…
Makkun
[quote]daraz wrote:
I’m not biased (at least not american politics), and I would like to say that hedo is not a good representative for whatever side he is with. At least until he brings good discussion.[/quote]
And you are represntative of what…“bringing good discussion”. Too funny.