[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Bin Laden actually offered Al Qaeda’s services to the Saudi royal family in 1990, saying they would defend the Saudis from Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait, thus sparing Saudi Arabia from having to be defended by infidels (i.e. us). The Saudi royals wisely laughed in his face.
[/quote]
Stupid mistake by the US. They should have allowed Saddam’s forces to crush al-qaeda once and for all.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
… and even Wahhabist Saudi Arabia were all hated by Al Qaeda for being insufficiently Muslim.
[/quote]
How could al-qaeda think that Wahhabi SA is insufficiently Muslim? They are the most repressive muslim regime since the Taliban. So, how much more “muslim” can you go if you do not like fundimental Wahhabi’s?
Or is it the Royals they oppose?
Or greed for the oil financial benefits?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Bin Laden actually offered Al Qaeda’s services to the Saudi royal family in 1990, saying they would defend the Saudis from Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait, thus sparing Saudi Arabia from having to be defended by infidels (i.e. us). The Saudi royals wisely laughed in his face.
Stupid mistake by the US. They should have allowed Saddam’s forces to crush al-qaeda once and for all.[/quote]
Uh, and take the Saudi oil afterwards?
No, then move in. After Saddam’s troops did the diry work killing al-qaeda.
Check the Europe hates America thread for my explanation, because I think it fits here also.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
First you write: read your posted article. I know the King asked for extradition, obviously at the request of the US as Jordan is essentially a client state
Then after I’ve given you clear proof that Jordan had compelling reasons of their own to want zarqawi, you write this.
johnnybravo30 wrote:
The reasons for Jordan’s extradition request are of little consequence to this argument. Discussing the US connection isn’t of immediate concern. To do so would launch an extremely complex and long-winded geopolitical debate.
So after I showed you that Jordan, in all likelihood, wasn’t working on behalf of the U.S., you wrote that this was “of little consequence to this argument.”
Instead of acknowledging that I had a point, you try to dodge and hide behind an “extremely compled and long-winded geopolitical debate.”
You didn’t show me that that Jordan wasn’t under the influence of the US. You said something to the effect of, “I believe Abdullah wanted Zarqawi for crimes against Jordan.” You tell me why it matters who ultimately asked for Zarqawi’s extradition? I don’t think it does. I mentioned that Jordan is a client state in passing.
You still have yet to explain Jordan’s support for the invasion, if they were such close allies.
I have to tell you that you haven’t distinguished yourself whatsoever in your short posting history. Your arguments are neither complex nor very believable. Your ability to make an effective geopolitical debate are in serious doubt. Therefore, you haven’t earned the benefit of the doubt when you make these blanket statements.
I warned you. If you waffle, change your argument midstream, and generally make yourself look foolish, you are going to get hurt.
JeffR
P.S. I have some land to sell at “reasonable prices.” Interested?
I don’t think I will ever distinguish myself in your eyes JeffR because I haven’t attended Tank Abbott’s “Use Your Words” Summer Debate Camp like you have. Maybe I need to start making idle, meat-headed threats about getting “hurt.”
I’m in the middle of exams right now and can’t take the time to go round and round in circles like this. I’ve spent way too much time on here this weekend as it is. I apologize for my lack of commitment to this debate and promise that at this time next week I will make you my human toilet.
Cheers and happy non-denominational holiday season,
JB [/quote]
jb,
Good luck on your exams.
I find it interesting that you castigate me for “hurting” you verbally. Then you turn around and threaten to make me your “human toilet.”
Merry Christmas,
JeffR
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I want everyone to read jack “Don’t question anything I say because I served” murtha admitting the surge is working.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/murtha_eats_crow_on_iraq.html
That is huge news. Coupled with the democrats admitting hypocrisy as they chide the Iraqi’s for not passing laws when they can’t pass their own!!!
I remember when GWB proposed the surge. All the pundits said it wouldn’t work. All the snakes (lixy) were foaming at the mouth.
Bush gets credit for turning the war around in a profound way.
After several straight months of relative peace, it will be time to start drawing down the forces.
You do it after winning, NOT in the face of a hostile enemy.
You’ve lost, lixy.
JeffR
Good post Jeff. As many know, I’m no GW fan, but I’ll give him the credit he deserves on this one. It’s not easy to take the sort of heat that he’s been taking and stay the course. Granted I think it was the wrong course to begin with. But at the end of the day with Saddam dead and if Iraq turns as it’s looking it will- President Bush deserves credit.
[/quote]
Mick,
I wish more people thought like you. You can see all these nitwits (jb/“independent” gdol) weaving more and more fantasies to avoid saying what you just said.
JeffR
[quote]gdol wrote:
This is probably a waste of a few seconds, given JeffR’s propensity for ignorance, bias, and repetitive name-calling, but the basic argument johnnybravo is making is right on. And the larger argument is this:
Al Qaeda did not like Saddam. Far from it. Bin Laden actually offered Al Qaeda’s services to the Saudi royal family in 1990, saying they would defend the Saudis from Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait, thus sparing Saudi Arabia from having to be defended by infidels (i.e. us). The Saudi royals wisely laughed in his face.
Also, Saddam, despite attempts to cloak himself in religion following the First Gulf War, was a secular Arab dictator, a Baathist, the very thing Al Qaeda hates. I know this is probably beyond your limited, Giuliani-esque knowledge of terrorism Jeffy, but ever hear the terms ‘near enemy’ and ‘far enemy.’? Mubarak’s Egypt, Saddam’s Iraq, and even Wahhabist Saudi Arabia were all hated by Al Qaeda for being insufficiently Muslim.
Lawrence Wright, who wrote maybe the definitive book on Al Qaeda, ‘The Looming Tower,’ has said simply that while Saddam would have liked links with Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda would have nothing to do with him. I’ll take his word over yours.[/quote]
gdol,
I’m not going to attempt to prise open your mind. I think it’s pretty pathetic that you latch onto one concept and cannot discuss others.
From the beginning, guys like you have hung their hats (and their lives) on the premise that religious differences would preclude working together against a common enemy.
It doesn’t matter how many times you are shown examples of saddam, al qaeda, and bin laden working together. You just can’t open your mind for the microsecond it takes to think this through.
You just can’t understand saddam’s refusal to extradite al zarqawi. You can’t understand the importance of bin laden asking and receiving public relations help from saddam (see saddam tapes.)
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
JeffR
P.S. Who are you going to vote for in 2008?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
After several straight months of relative peace, it will be time to start drawing down the forces.[/quote]
Out of curiosity, just how relative is that peace anyway?
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
After several straight months of relative peace, it will be time to start drawing down the forces.
Out of curiosity, just how relative is that peace anyway?
[/quote]
pookie,
If it wasn’t you (desperate to say “I told you so”) I’d be concerned that Canadians were suffering from a substantial information delay.
Your youtube video was posted approximately April 1st, 2007.
Here is your same guy November 10th, 2007:
I hope I’ve answered your question.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I hope I’ve answered your question.
JeffR
[/quote]
For once, you did.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I hope I’ve answered your question.
JeffR
For once, you did.
[/quote]
pookie,
Good for you.
Remember, I’m always here to help.
JeffR
harry reid this week:
�??The president said, “Let’s send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves.” We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn’t hurt. It’s helped. I recognize that.�??
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2007/12/harry-reid-says-surge-is-working.html
No comment necessary.
Thank you, Bush, his team, our steadfast allies, and especially, the troops.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
harry reid this week:
�??The president said, “Let’s send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves.” We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn’t hurt. It’s helped. I recognize that.�??
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2007/12/harry-reid-says-surge-is-working.html
No comment necessary. [/quote]
Harry Reid voted for the invasion in 2003. I don’t see the scoop here. Comments welcomed.
What exactly are you thanking him for?
For getting 4000 Americans killed? The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead because of the war and ensuing occupation? The trillions of tax-payer dollars injected in the MIC because of him and the enormous strain it’s put on your economy? For turning a secular - albeit dictatorial - state into a jungle where sharia law is practiced? The hundreds dead in terrorist attacks in reprisal for the invasion (Madrid, London, etc.)?
Do tell.
President Bush deserves a lot of credit for telling the Iranians to quit fucking around in Iraq or they’d get fucking firebombed. The scum in Iraq backed off when Iran pulled in its horns.
We ought to firebomb the place anyway, wipe 'em all out while we’ve got the men and ships and planes over there. Nip it in the bud.
If we had listened to Patton and nuked Moscow, we’d have saved 2 trillion dollars and would be the hegemon for centuries, instead of the piddly few decades we got. The world suffers when we are too nice.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
harry reid this week:
�??The president said, “Let’s send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves.” We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn’t hurt. It’s helped. I recognize that.�??
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2007/12/harry-reid-says-surge-is-working.html
No comment necessary.
Harry Reid voted for the invasion in 2003. I don’t see the scoop here. Comments welcomed.
Thank you, Bush, his team, our steadfast allies, and especially, the troops.
What exactly are you thanking him for?
For getting 4000 Americans killed? The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead because of the war and ensuing occupation? The trillions of tax-payer dollars injected in the MIC because of him and the enormous strain it’s put on your economy? For turning a secular - albeit dictatorial - state into a jungle where sharia law is practiced? The hundreds dead in terrorist attacks in reprisal for the invasion (Madrid, London, etc.)?
Do tell.[/quote]
Merry Christmas, lixy!!!
Please read the link. Google reid and see how he was claiming “we’ve lost in Iraq.” He hung his hat on losing.
I’ll list a few things that I’m thankful for this Christmas season.
First, your pals have been drawn to Iraq and killed in large numbers since the invasion.
Second, no attack on the U.S.
Third, our economy is thriving.
Fourth, it looks like the U.S. will be able to start drawing down troops within the next 12 months. The best part, it will be at the behest of the Democratically elected Iraqi Government.
Fifth, saddam is still dead.
Oh, lixy, that list gives me great Christmas cheer!!!
A Merry Christmas, indeed.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
…
[/quote]
You aren’t making the least bit of sense.
Reid supporter the invasion, period! Your silly partisan quarrels are of no relevance to Iraqis.
How on earth is bombing Iraq preventing terrorist attacks on US soil?
The US dollar is low-low-low!
US troops have been in Iraq for close to 5 years.
Iraqis (and a good chunk of the world’s population) hates your guts.
Here’s something that sums up the situation pretty neatly:
[i]Reporters and too many politicians continue claiming that happy days are here again in Iraq. Golly, that surge has been soooo successful �?? and things are going just swell. In fact, US soldiers have even been told to treat approaching Iraqi civilians as �?� civilians!
�??Effective immediately, assume all civilian vehicles are friendly,�?? it reads. The order admonished soldiers throughout Iraq to yield to civilian drivers, allow vehicles to pass, and avoid firing their weapons as they escorted convoys of concrete barriers, generators, water and food to U.S. military outposts."[/i]
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/23/success-in-iraq-not-for-iraqi-women/
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
…
You aren’t making the least bit of sense.
Reid supporter the invasion, period! Your silly partisan quarrels are of no relevance to Iraqis.
How on earth is bombing Iraq preventing terrorist attacks on US soil?
The US dollar is low-low-low!
US troops have been in Iraq for close to 5 years.
Iraqis (and a good chunk of the world’s population) hates your guts.
Here’s something that sums up the situation pretty neatly:
[i]Reporters and too many politicians continue claiming that happy days are here again in Iraq. Golly, that surge has been soooo successful �?? and things are going just swell. In fact, US soldiers have even been told to treat approaching Iraqi civilians as �?� civilians!
�??Effective immediately, assume all civilian vehicles are friendly,�?? it reads. The order admonished soldiers throughout Iraq to yield to civilian drivers, allow vehicles to pass, and avoid firing their weapons as they escorted convoys of concrete barriers, generators, water and food to U.S. military outposts."[/i]
Domain Registered at Safenames [/quote]
lixy,
I think Santa is going to fly right by you.
You’ve been naughty. You support very bad things.
But, I do wish you a Merry Christmas.
JeffR
Give Bush some credit.
2007 deadliest for US troops in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_casualties