-
-
blogroll
- A Soldier's Perspective
- American Soldier
- Ann Coulter
- Attack Machine
- Bill Ardolino
- Bill Roggio
- Black Five
- Blonde Sagacity
- Breitbart
- Chicagoray
- Confederate Yankee
- Day by Day Cartoon
- Euphoric Reality
- Flopping Aces
- Free Republic
- Frontier Web Design
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- Ian Schwartz
- Instapundit
- Little Green Footballs
- Matt Sanchez
- Michael Fumento
- Michael Yon
- Michelle Malkin
- Military.com
- Missiles And Stilletos
- Move America Forward
- Mudville Gazette
- Pass The Ammo
- Roger L. Simon
- Sportsman's Outfit
- Stop The ACLU
- TCOverride
- The Belmont Club
- The Big God Blog
- The Crimson Blog
- The Daily Gut
- The Drudge Report
- The PoliTicking Timebomb
- The Pundit Review
- Veteran's Affairs Documentary
-
36 Responses
Respond now.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
So why not impeach Bush too? And bring charges of high crimes against our intelligence personnel? Also, lets go after other foreign country allies would got the same information.
Dumbasses.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:07 pmTo call the democrats worthless is a kindness,
November 6th, 2007 at 6:11 pmsince the word assigns an actual value to them.
They’re little kids… That’s all they are…
November 6th, 2007 at 6:25 pmAbsolutely ridiculous!
This congress is so damn worthless, and to think the American people actually voted all these democRats in. Well i hope everyone has learned their lesson. scary thing is, i dont think they have.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:39 pmwell gilligan wants to charge cheney with a high crime, I suggest most of the congress also be impeached for going along with the intelligence that led us to war. If they were all duped including the president then they were all negligent in their duties!
November 6th, 2007 at 6:45 pmwhy has everyone forgotten where the intel came fm?? george tenet was a clinton boy.. and the military at the time was still clintons with clintons budget..the cia was clintons with clintons budget..,, i for one think we hit them just in the nick of time,,our sons and daughters would have been fried it we had waited til the dawn of sadaam era..we couldn’t have waited another 3 yrs til we had enuff troops..where would ol’ sadaam clinton be then???
November 6th, 2007 at 7:22 pmTJ,
Impeach ‘em all. They are all worthless. Bush, Cheney, Republicans and Democrats and all the assholes who voted for this war. They are all guilty for taking their eye off the ball and not rolling up Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan-Pakistan for their heinous crime of 9-11, et al. That is the high crime!!!!
November 6th, 2007 at 7:23 pmKurt, it’s nice to see you spelling democRats the proper way. LOL. They need to be thrown out on the street.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:26 pmKipp, high trason, get a freakin clue
here is a start toward your reality
By Stephen Young, A very astute individual and a student at the U. of Missouri
The United States invaded Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. Before September 11th terrorism was either appeased, 1993 World Trade Center bombings and the sinking of USS Cole, or fought in retaliation. September 11th changed this view. It put the United States on the offensive with a doctrine of kill them there before they kill us here. The invasion of Iraq was undertaken to prevent more American blood from being shed in the name of perverted ideology. The war in Iraq is justified through Saddam Hussein’s link to Al Qaeda, human rights abuses, and the growing threat he posed to western democracy.Saddam Hussein’s regime may not have been directly involved with the planning of September 11th, but the Iraqi government created a “safe haven” for Ansar al-Islam, a large terrorist network associated with Al Qaeda, to operate inside its borders. It has been known for years that Ansar al-Islam operated a large training camp in the northeastern part of Iraq. The base was headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; a main collaborator in the attacks of September 11th and long time associate of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq has dispersed many of the Ansar al-Islam training faculties inside the country and has successfully killed terrorist mastermind al Zarqawi. Dispersing terrorism organizations and eliminating their leaders is essential to American security. The invasion of Iraq and elimination of terrorist organizations has made the world a safer place.Opponents of the war in Iraq will admit the terrorist training camps existed inside the nation’s borders, but are quick to point out that the location of the camps were not under the control of Saddam Hussein. This is true but at least one member of Saddam Hussein’s regime was a key operative in the Zarqowi’s terrorist network. “Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region.” (Collin L. Powell, 1)” Powell’s assertion that Hussein was aiding terrorism was also backed by New York Senator Hillary Clinton who addressed the U.S. Senate claiming, “He (Saddam Hussein) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. (Clinton, 2)” While the terrorist camps may not have been under Saddam’s control, his government took measures to ensure the terrorist network’s stability in the region. Not only did the government help the network stay unnoticed in the northern Iraq, but also it had an official directly helping the terrorist organization. The specific activities of this agent are unknown, but it would be naïve to believe this agent did not at least pass Iraqi intelligence over to Ansar al-Islam. The northeastern part of Iraq was and is controlled by Kurdish people, but Zarqawi’s terrorist network was by no means limited to that region. “Zarqawi’s activities are not confined to this small corner of northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day. (Powell, 1).”Saddam’s government allowed terrorist to move freely around the nation’s borders. This is because, terrorist were not viewed as enemies or a possible threat, but were seen as allies against west. Large amounts of credible information show the Iraqi government had this mindset. “We know that they have entered into agreements with one another, something that has been characterized as a non-aggression agreement, but it’s really a mutual assistance agreement. We know that Iraqis have trained al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. And there is still additional evidence involving meetings and arrangements and substantial numbers of operatives.” (Perle, 3)” Despite what critics of the war and the antiwar media lead people to believe, Iraq not only harbored terrorist but also helped them lay out terrorist operations. At this point Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Zarqawi viewed each other as allies against the “greater evil”.Critics of the war try to question this intelligence by claiming Hussein and Bin Laden were enemies after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait during the Persian Gulf War. This is true, intelligence shows Bin Laden met the invasion with disapproval, and may have even considered Iraq a target for future terrorist plots. Critics will also argue that Bin Laden, a religious extremist, was at odds with Saddam’s secular, non-religious government. At one time both of these arguments were valid, but times have changed. Both Bin Laden and Saddam now see the United States as the bigger enemy. Bin Laden sees the economic success of the U.S. threatening to his way of life and hates America’s support of the “Infidel” nation of Israel. He also claims U.S. troops desecrated the Islam holy land of Mecca. Hussein is still bitter over the United States defeat of Iraq during the Persian Gulf War, and the sanctions it set against Iraq for human rights abuses involving chemical and biological weapons.The Islamic extremist and Hussein’s government do not view each other as close friends, but have united together to fight Western ideology. Hussein saw the damage of September 11th and the potential for more American casualties, if Iraq aided the terrorist network. The two parties put aside past disputes and united to fight the American way of life.While Hussein’s established link to terrorism alone is enough to justify the United States invasion of Iraq, human rights abuses by the Iraqi government made the decision to go to war easier. “Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam’s 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.” (U.S. Department of State fact sheet). Hussein killed the Kurds using chemical and biological weapons. Saddam’s human rights abuses prove that not only does he support terrorist but he himself is terrorist. The 50,000 or more people he killed were not enemies of war, they were civilians killed for their ethnic background.People blind to the human rights situation in Iraq will argue that the abuses stopped after the Persian Gulf War, but this could not be farther from the truth. “The regime continued to be responsible for disappearances, and to kill and torture persons suspected of or related to; supporters of oppositional politics, economic crimes, military desertion, and a variety of other activities.”(The U.S. Department of State, 4)” That being said, not only were people seen in opposition to Hussein subject to persecution, but Saddam continued to hurt society as a whole. The 1995 Oil for Food program, created by the United Nations, allowed Iraq to sell its oil to members of the UN in exchange for food and humanitarian aid for ordinary Iraqi citizens. The theory behind the program was that Iraqi civilians were hurt economically as a result of the Persian Gulf War. This program was to help the nation begin its recovery process, but Hussein ended any hope of recovery for his people. Saddam’s tyrannical government kept large amounts of the food set aside to feed starving Iraqi’s. Inspectors after the 1998 bombing of Iraq fount countless government run warehouses in Baghdad filled with food intended to feed the people of Iraq. While Saddam and people in his government thrived, he watched men, women, and children slowly starve to death inside his country. “What it looks like is the program that was set up supposedly to provide relief, medical help and basic food for the Iraqi people, was, in fact, converted to a corrupt system that generated enormous profits for Saddam Hussein himself, as well as for some people outside who were participating in that program.” (V.P. Richard Cheney 5) The oil for food program was seen as an international failure, that had good intentions but its trust was misplaced in the hands of a brutal dictator.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:28 pmAfter the Persian Gulf War Iraq signed Resolution 687, which guaranteed United Nations inspectors full access inside Iraq to monitor human rights and to inspect the nation for illegal chemical and biological weapons. The treaty made creation of such weapons illegal and was drafted to prevent mass murders from ever taking place again in Iraq. Hussein’s refusal to fulfill this treaty is one of the main reasons given for the invasion of Iraq.
From the resolution passed in 1991 to the invasion of Iraq March 20, 2003 the United Nations inspectors were never allowed full access inside Iraq. Initially Hussein refused monitors the right to inspect his country at all. This deliberate disobedience of treaty 687 was allowed to continue until 1998, when President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair both ordered coordinated air strikes against Iraq military targets for three days. After the bombings inspectors were allowed to monitor Iraq for weapons within limited areas. The inspectors were denied full access to inspect Iraq, as stated in the treaty of 687. Iraq’s continuous violations the UN treaty, could not go ignored post September 11th. Too much was at stake to continue to appease terrorist like Saddam Hussein. On March 19, 2003 President Bush gave an address to the American people, Iraqi people and Saddam Hussein. The President gave Iraq’s dictator one last chance, 24 hours to allow inspectors full access to his country, and promised the use of force if Hussein did not comply. Saddam did not head the warning and continued to refuse inspectors access to the country, and the invasion of Iraq began. The tyrannical government had repeatedly violated the U.N. treaty for 12 years. What good is a treaty if the agreement cannot be backed with force? Most members of the U.N. seemed comfortable letting the countless human rights and treaty violations go unanswered. Initially even the United States seemed comfortable appeasing the terrorist dictator, but September 11th opened our eyes to the true significance of the situation. Acts of atrocity and terrorism cannot be appeased. The world is better off without people like Saddam Hussein.
People who disagree with the invasion of Iraq also point to the fact that no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were found inside Iraq’s borders. While being correct, this description does not paint the whole picture. No WMDs were found but facilities were found that were ideal for making and testing biological and chemical weapons. If Iraq’s government did not currently posses the weapons, they were more then capable of quickly assembling large amounts of WMDs. One reason the weapons were not found may be because the threat of U.S. force gave the Iraqi government years to possibly smuggle the weapons out of their country. This view is backed by Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon. He told the New York Sun that Saddam “transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.” (Yaalon, 6) Other reports of U.S. intelligence seem to back the possibility of this claim. David Kay the former head of the coalition’s search for weapons of mass destruction claims “We know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD programme.” (Kay, 7)
The question remains if Saddam never had WMD’s after the Persian Gulf War, then why did he refuse to give weapons inspectors full access to his country? If no violations were present why would the dictator not being willing to comply even under the threat of U.S. military force? All intelligence points to Hussein having weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq. The testing facilities for biological and chemical weapons paired with multiple intelligence reports detailing the smuggling of WMD’s to Syria leaves no doubt Hussein frequently violated the weapon agreement after the Persian Gulf War.
The threat of Hussein having biological and chemical weapons was too large of a threat to ignore. These weapons may not have been found inside his country, but there is no doubt he had the capability of making them. This coupled with his strong link to terrorism, made Saddam’s regime a significant threat to the security of United States and the rest of the free world. The U.S. had to engage in this fight to prevent more American casualties on American soil. It appears our strike first method has worked. There have been no terrorist attacks inside the U.S. since September 11th and we have dispersed or captured countless members of terrorist organizations. The capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq seemed to give vindication for the invasion. Saddam is now on trial in Iraqi court, for crimes against humanity. He will be judged by his countrymen who experienced his abuse and neglect first hand. No one can argue the world is not safer without Hussein in power. Perhaps Massachusetts junior Senator John Kerry said it best “No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer — and Iraq is better — because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars.” (Kerry,8)
Works Cited 5) Cheney, Richard. Address. Town Hall Meeting. Town Hall, Joplin, Missouri. 12 Aug. 2004.2) Clinton, Hillary R. Address. U.S. Capitol Building, Washington D.C. 10 Oct. 2002.7) Coughlin, Con. “Saddam’s WMDs Hidden in Syria, Says Iraq Survey.” Sunday Telegraph 25 Jan. 2004.8) Kerry, John. Speech. Drake University, Iowa. 16 Dec. 2003.3) Perle, Richard. Interview with Tim Russert. Meet the Press. 26 Sept. 2002. NBC. Washington D.C.1) Powell, Colin L. “Presentation to United Nations Security Council.” 5 Feb. 2003.6) Stoll, Ira. “Saddam’s WMDs Moved to Syria, and Israeli Says.” New York Sun 15 Dec. 2005.4) United States. Department of State. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for the Year 2002. 2003.
I was outside a store and some lady asked me to sign a petition to that effect. She’s lucky I wasn’t in a particularly bad mood. Why can’t everyone grow up and try to solve real problems. You may not like the VP, but his term is almost over.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:11 pmSaddam(n) was a ticking time bomb. He had proved he was using the world’s biggest WMD … money … by sending tens of thousands of dollars to suicide bombers (families) in Israel. I don’t know how many he paid, but there was plenty more to go around as our military discovered millions upon millions of American dollars after the invasion. Now, with all that money funding terrorism in Israel, just imagine how many 9-11s old SH could have bought from eager bands of terrorists like the ones that hit us on 9-11-01 …
(Not to mention we DID find weapons and weapons grade materials he was not supposed to have … but the MSM refused to report any of it …)
As for Kucinich, he’s a little man, and getting smaller and smaller.
I do love the Republican switch-hit in the vote, though. Hot damn, I think they’re finally growing a few pair! About damn time. The democrats think they can continue to make threats and not be called on them, well hell, think again.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:33 pm@ Jim: Can I get the Cliff Notes version of your comment….. I read about half and could not get much further. Might I suggest taking me off of the Reader’s Post as a goal for you.
Hey Kipp, you forgot a few that lied about the intel reports that got us into this war that we are WINNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 6th, 2007 at 9:52 pmJohn Kerry
Al Gore
Hillary Clinton
Joe Bidden
Teddy “the swimmer” Kennedy
Dick Turban, shit I meant Durbin
and I apologize for not mentioning the rest of the lot.
The above aformentioned list all went to the floor of the Senate, except Gore who thank God was gone, and spewed the same intelligence that Germany, France, Russia, China and the rest were about WMD. Just because we ain’t found ‘em yet does not mean they do not exist, just Kucinich about those UFO’s he’ll tell you!!!
See Jim and that was about 25% of yours!!!
November 6th, 2007 at 9:52 pmGood Lord.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:14 amThese pukes make me want to vomit…
Now I’m pissed off. I think I’m just going to go to sleep now.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:56 amKipp, you’re a fool.
By the way, the fact that partially enriched uranium was found in Iraq (enriched past the point that would be used for fuel, but not yet to the point that would be used for weapons) WAS reported in the New York Times.
Did it make the front page? No.
Did anyone see it anywhere else in the MSM? No.
Kipp, I suggest you educate yourself before you make more of a fool of yourself.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:13 amKipp,
Iraq is THE CENTRAL FRONT IN THE WAR ON TERROR.
The Republicans are not the anti-military, terror appeasers who should be tried for treason, its the dems, particularly clinton who caused 9/11 via his incompetence on not handling al Qaida. Its the creepy sick shits like Murtha, Pelosi and Reid who want to stab the troops in the back and cut off funding while they are at war. The Republican deserve Americas thanks for preventing this.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:23 amYour little college boy’s term paper up there has many flaws. It begins with the whole “base for Ansar Al-Islam” premise. There is no proof even after invasion that Hussein was actively involved with the group. He uses a quote from Powell to support his point that members of SH government were linked to the group. Is that evidence he aquired from Curveball? hmmmm Even if you believe AAI was a threat to the US it wasn’t the only one. How about terrorist operatives in Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia not to mention Pakistan. Under his premise we should invade them all. Then he uses Richard Perle as a souce. A real academician would use unbiased sources to support his premise not an active member of the Neo-cons. This report sounds like a copy of the UN report. Pathetic. This war was not necessary and it has cost us greatly. I’m not saying we should leave. I’m not one of those on the wacky left. Now that we are engaged, we should win but to not understand that this engagement is antithetical to the war on terror is showing a lack of intelligence. The war has damaged our image in the Middle East at a time when it would be to our advantage to galvanize the populations there as we fight the real war on terror against those who perpetrated 9-11.
Your astute student wrote the following:
“One reason the weapons were not found may be because the threat of U.S. force gave the Iraqi government years to possibly smuggle the weapons out of their country.”
Good. That means our containment policy worked. If they were smuggled out of the country it must have been to a regime who didn’t plan to use them by a regime that obviously scared of US power. Six years plus and no news of anyone using WMDs.
“The threat of Hussein having biological and chemical weapons was too large of a threat to ignore. These weapons may not have been found inside his country, but there is no doubt he had the capability of making them. This coupled with his strong link to terrorism, made Saddam’s regime a significant threat to the security of United States and the rest of the free world. The U.S. had to engage in this fight to prevent more American casualties on American soil.”
This is a rediculous link between OBL and Hussein. Hussein never killed a single American on US soil. He didn’t bomb embassies. He didn’t blow up US destoyers. There is no pattern of Hussein killing Americans like Al-Qaeda exhibited. Iraq was a war of choice; a really bad national security choice. It has funneled most of our resources away from the real war on terror.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:15 amKooky is such an irrelevant turd.
Was Cheney ever brought up on charges, or you know, convicted of an “alleged” crime? I thought impeachment was the logical follow-up to a conviction…
…for example, like “Wild Willy” Clinton and his perjury conviction?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:09 amThe Kippshit is still a Kippshit. Kipp Buddy, when you pull your information from your own ass, all you end up with is shit on your hands. Now, go wash-up and go to bed little fool.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:25 amKipp you silly boy, al-Qaida didnt have WMD, Saddam did. Why is our lopsided pulverization of the Taliban (as valuable as it is to the GWOT) more important than the smashing of al-Qaida in Iraq. After all, we were attacked by AQ on 9/11, not the Taliban.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:42 am“I’m not saying we should leave. I’m not one of those on the wacky left….”
Bullshit. That’s exactly what you think and have said before. And you ARE a wacky ‘left’ MF kipp.
“…Now that we are engaged, we should win…”
Stop trying to sweet talk us.
Wait. I sense a “but” coming. Ah yes here it is:
“…but to not understand that this engagement is antithetical to the war on terror is showing a lack of intelligence….”
Wow….antithetical and intelligence are pretty big words for a young girl like you.
“The war has damaged our image in the Middle East at a time when it would be to our advantage to galvanize the populations there as we fight the real war on terror against those who perpetrated 9-11.”
Ummm… they died in the ‘perpetration’ dumbass.
And the “image” that got “damaged” was that we are the same kind of suckers that we were under the Clintonistas.
“Iraq was a war of choice; a really bad national security choice. It has funneled most of our resources away from the real war on terror.”
Yeah? Then who is poor fella?
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j97/stars5501/terror.gif
A ‘freedom fighter?
November 7th, 2007 at 10:01 amKipp
#1 “There is no proof even after invasion that Hussein was actively involved with the group”
Are you willing to bet your life on that as you know it to be and because the little college boy stated a Powell quote…
For real yes or No…and don’t be a fucking pussy, just answer yes or no
November 7th, 2007 at 10:02 am#2 “How about terrorist operatives in Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia not to mention Pakistan.”
How many terrorist operatives do you know of Kipp…
November 7th, 2007 at 10:18 amPol-ish,
Discount what I said. All you can do is insult because your IQ is too low to debate.
Deathstar,
If the main premise of the invasion of Iraq was AQI then why didn’t the Bushies say as much. I remember the administration saying things about Hussein and mushroom clouds. AQI was not involved in 9-11, the bombing of the US embassies, or the bombing of the Cole. If you have proof otherwise let me know. If any country should have been invaded it should have been Pakistan due to the harboring of those that did attack us on 9-11. Can you provide any operations by AQI outside of Iraq prior to 2003? I’ll wait patiently.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:25 am“A real academician would use unbiased sources to support his premise not an active member of the Neo-cons”
Well that’s a bit of a liberal puke broad statement… would you like an in-depth map track from Navspecwar to decipher…are you qualified? What real information do you have to prove this kids paper wrong, if you have nothing then I would suggest you leave the sarcasm to someone else..that would be academic
November 7th, 2007 at 10:45 am“This report sounds like a copy of the UN report. Pathetic.”
WTF..have you even read the UN report … now your getting stupid
November 7th, 2007 at 10:51 am“Can you provide any operations by AQI outside of Iraq prior to 2003?”
Everything else is ‘equivalent’ in the libtards life except Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:01 amWith all due respect, we elected Bush to make foreign policy decisions. He decided to invade Iraq–maybe it’s not the decision some of us would not have made. That being said, it’s our duty to win in Iraq. And that being said, 27 million or more people are now free. That’s got some intrinsic value. We changed strategies and we are now winning. Just like the Civil War, just like Korea before Ridgeway took over. Now, we need to wrap this thing up.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:11 am“One reason the weapons were not found may be because the threat of U.S. force gave the Iraqi government years to possibly smuggle the weapons out of their country”
This statement co-exist with a network and networks that we have monitored. The “containment” is not established to the contact or working relation between terrorist, terroist factions, indigenous tribes, regime sympathizers from the Chechen Republic on out. These relationships that were not established, had ample time to become solidified and functionable during a 6 year process..after we went into Iraq we were able to really learn how detailed and savy they were and to what extent the direction we had to move.
This is unfiltered hands on and a goal that was to be met regardless of who believed what
May be the college boy should have detailed his explanation better so a novice could understand
November 7th, 2007 at 11:25 amKipp, you shit-pole, debate implies you present intelligent ideas, and persuasive argument to support logical assertions, BASED ON FACT. You do none of the above. Talking, which is all you do, is a waste of time with you. You are nothing more than a ‘usefull idiot’ allowed here to remind thinking contributers of how dangerous the ‘enemy within’ can be.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:27 am“This is a rediculous link between OBL and Hussein. Hussein never killed a single American on US soil. He didn’t bomb embassies. He didn’t blow up US destoyers. There is no pattern of Hussein killing Americans like Al-Qaeda exhibited. Iraq was a war of choice; a really bad national security choice. It has funneled most of our resources away from the real war on terror.”
Kipp
November 7th, 2007 at 11:41 amMay be you need to do some legitimate research outside your bubble. This process works best by establishing reasonble arguments to oppose what you believe to be true, or at the very least try to build an argument for that which you don’t believe. Then your comments won’t come accross as a snotty nosed kid loaded up with sarcastic inuendo
Pol-ish,
You are incapable of debate. That would take intelligence. I am here to remind you how stupid you are. Don’t forget that.
My last question above, which you were not able to answer, was a trick question because AQI did not come into existence prior to 2003. The only group in Iraq that might have posed a threat during that time was Ansar Al Islam and no one has proved anything about what kind of threat they may have been. Their activities prior to the Iraq war were mainly targeted at the PUK. If they were the Al-Qaeda threat in Iraq, was it worth spending almost a trillion dollars to see their end? Is this why we invaded Iraq? This is a premise in the journalists text. If you can’t stand up to a debate, shut your pie hole. The fact is you lightweights can’t stand up intellect. All you can do is talk smack. Discount what I say. You cannot because reason wins the day every time.
“This statement co-exist with a network and networks that we have monitored. The “containment” is not established to the contact or working relation between terrorist, terroist factions, indigenous tribes, regime sympathizers from the Chechen Republic on out. These relationships that were not established, had ample time to become solidified and functionable during a 6 year process..after we went into Iraq we were able to really learn how detailed and savy they were and to what extent the direction we had to move.”
We may defeat a contingent of Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq but if defeated they have so many other havens in which to retreat. Everyday we fail to invade Pakistan is a day we are losing the war on terror.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:38 pm@kippshit:
You: You are incapable of debate. That would take intelligence.
Me: See my previous post.
You: I am here to remind you how stupid you are. Don’t forget that.
Me: The only reason I’m stupid is for responding to a craphat like you.
You: My last question above, which you were not able to answer, was a trick question because AQI did not come into existence prior to 2003.
Me: The question was nonsense, and you just proved it.
You: The only group in Iraq that might have posed a threat during that time was Ansar Al Islam and no one has proved anything about what kind of threat they may have been. Their activities prior to the Iraq war were mainly targeted at the PUK.
Me: Your assesment of the threat of Ansar Al Islam is both disengenuous and understated. It is general knowledge that AQ was established as a loose coalition of quasi-independent terrorist groups. This was by design, partly to fool dipshits like you. Ansar Al Islam is known to have been one of these associated groups. It is also known these groups were in communication and cooperation with each other. You fail to disprove the kind of threat they were. Targeting the ‘PUK’ was only part of their operational scope.
You: If they were the Al-Qaeda threat in Iraq, was it worth spending almost a trillion dollars to see their end? Is this why we invaded Iraq?
Me: Yes, and Yes, asshole.
You: This is a premise in the journalists text.
Me: Who gives a fuck what the “jounalists” say, I certainly don’t.
You: If you can’t stand up to a debate, shut your pie hole.
Me: Follow your own advice, shitpole. I’m doing just fine.
You: All you can do is talk smack. Discount what I say.
Me: Boo, fuckin hoo.
You: You cannot because reason wins the day every time.
Me: Ditto.
You: We may defeat a contingent of Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq but if defeated they have so many other havens in which to retreat.
Me: Thats why its called the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR! dumbass.
You: Everyday we fail to invade Pakistan is a day we are losing the war on terror.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:26 pmMe: No fucktard, every day is a day we are WINNING the war on terror.
Everyday we fail to invade Pakistan is a day we are losing the war on terror.”
I agree but not entirely from your perspective of a “contingent of Islamic fundamentalists” These networks I speak of are far more diverse than towel heads running around with a gun
A “brief” overview and perspective
Ansar Al-Islam and its base, was a protected safe haven and chosen because Iraq offered the protection and the chief architecture for implementing of a meshing of warring factions, criminal elements and “etc.” together into a network where unilateral communication was not nescessary.
Northern Iraq as host offered saddam a virtual military ally in geurrilla warfare, and overtly a cover from association.
An Ansar Al-Islam base offered the terrorist / criminal underground ie drugs for 1,the most protection under a sovereign nation.
A perception of a virtual Global Terrorist / black market weopens / drugs / etc. becoming a world wide enterprise with political, business and charitable ties seemed inevitable
The initial observation I’m sure was mind boggling and the strategic analysis daunting…
To name a few sponsors and their “network” affiliates such as Iran, Syria and N Korea and lets say S Arabia by proxy….had one common denominator and that was “Ansar Al-Islam” and by proxy its master (an Iraqi “KGB”).
To cut this summary short and get back to Pakistan, my conclusion is we need to rock the badlands of Pakistan
November 7th, 2007 at 8:46 pmSpecial note for Iraqi “KGB”: Al-Amn al-Khas is charged with the surveillance of al-Mukhabarat, al-Istikhbarat, al-Amn al-’Askari, and al-Amn al-’Amm—essentially spying on Iraqi spies.
Al-Amn al-Khas watched over the activities of al-Istikhbarat and the KGB during the Iran-Iraq War. The KGB advised these agencies in techniques of concealing covert weapons production facilities.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:04 pm