Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ralphwiggum

The Iraq thread 3

Recommended Posts

a new digital camera...

Feel free to send me any electronics you feel like sending, digital camera is a plus tounge_o.gif

PFC Gallegos, Mark

18th En. Co

3-2 SBCT

APO AE 09385

biggrin_o.gif

But seriously, I can say when i'm going home, which is only a guess at this poiint, which SHOULD be around November, which is our 1 year mark, which i don't think they'll keep us over, god knows the army don't wanna have to pay us an extra $1000 a month.

And WhoCares, I can't believe all that shit is on the internet, there was one certain little word on there, that as far as i know, should not be open to the public. But o well, its the information age.

Well take care all, i'm going on leave FINALLY, taken two 20 days off to get drunk and do absolutely nothing. (with a small layover in Amsterdam wink_o.gif ) Take care all!

P.S.

Am i the only one who thinks having my address up there is a bad thing? I might take it off if i get too worried about you goons crazy_o.gifsmile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Am i the only one who thinks having my address up there is a bad thing? I might take it off if i get too worried about you goons

Naaah, no need to get concerned. This remains a cool community!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S.

Am i the only one who thinks having my address up there is a bad thing? I might take it off if i get too worried about you goons crazy_o.gif  smile_o.gif

nah, i'll send you some pots. tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Well.......there ya go....

We must respect terrorists has pows? crazy_o.gif

I wonder were was the red cross or those human right people when berg loss a head.... rock.gif I forgot ze terrorists are suppose to do that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]I don't think that the resistance fighters are outsiders. And if you want to follow the path of naive absolute morality, then you should ask yourself this:

If it was OK for the US to by force overthrow the government of Iraq and in the process killing thousands of civillians, why is it not OK for the Iraqi resistance fighters to do the same?

It has been proved many times that some of the "resistance" fighters are not iraqis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Well.......there ya go....

We must respect terrorists has pows? crazy_o.gif

I wonder were was the red cross or those human right people when berg loss a head.... rock.gif I forgot ze terrorists are suppose to do that....

As has been stated thousands of times.

Everyone condemned Berg's beheading.

So because the terrorists go against international law, we can too? I thought we were suppose to be the "good guys"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Well.......there ya go....

We must respect terrorists has pows? crazy_o.gif

I wonder were was the red cross or those human right people when berg loss a head.... rock.gif I forgot ze terrorists are suppose to do that....

As has been stated thousands of times.

Everyone condemned Berg's beheading.

So because the terrorists go against international law, we can too? I thought we were suppose to be the "good guys"?

EXACTLY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So because the terrorists go against international law, we can too?

You're assuming it's against international law to deal with terrorists differently that with uniformed combatants of a country's military.

Quote[/b] ]I thought we were suppose to be the "good guys"?

This in particular does not show otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]So because the terrorists go against international law, we can too? I thought we were suppose to be the "good guys"?

You can still be the "good guys" and go in to the gray area...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There wouldn't be terrorists in Iraq if we weren't there. tounge_o.gif

Don't get me wrong - I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, but I really don't think that the Iraq debacle was necessary or justified - even if Saddam had WMDs. Lots of other countries have them, lots of other countries have more of a reason to use them against us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Don't get me wrong - I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, but I really don't think that the Iraq debacle was necessary or justified - even if Saddam had WMDs. Lots of other countries have them, lots of other countries have more of a reason to use them against us.

Saddam needed that bitch slap for cock teasing with the good ole' United States and others for about this WMDs issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There wouldn't be terrorists in Iraq if we weren't there.  tounge_o.gif

Where would they be instead if they weren't kept busy in Iraq? rock.gif

Quote[/b] ]

Don't get me wrong - I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, but I really don't think that the Iraq debacle was necessary or justified - even if Saddam had WMDs. Lots of other countries have them, lots of other countries have more of a reason to use them against us.

Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where would they be instead if they weren't kept busy in Iraq? rock.gif

Yeah, that's how the real world works. There is a total of X terrorists in the world regardless of anything. rock.gif

Tell me Avon, how many new terrorists do you think were created by the Iraq war? How many people that disliked the US in the first place were pushed over the edge? If you didn't notice, this war was not exactly welcomed by the people in the Arab countries.

Afghanistan, sure (although how they did it is very questionable). Iraq - a disaster for the so called "war on terror". And it's reflected very well in the statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where would they be instead if they weren't kept busy in Iraq? rock.gif

Yeah, that's how the real world works. There is a total of X terrorists in the world regardless of anything.  rock.gif

And Al-Queda called an end to hostilities after 9/11. rock.gif

Quote[/b] ]Tell me Avon, how many new terrorists do you think were created by the Iraq war?

Maybe more than would have been created had Al-Queda & Co. not been diverted to Iraq. Maybe less. But they weren't planning on sitting on their laurels after one big successful day. Or do you think they were? rock.gif

Quote[/b] ]How many people that disliked the US in the first place were pushed over the edge? If you didn't notice, this war was not exactly welcomed by the people in the Arab countries.

Ask the Iraqis if they'd rather have these Arab country's citizens stay out or keep on blowing up their fellow Arab brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Al-Queda called an end to hostilities after 9/11.

Not at all, but you don't throw fuel on the fire. Terrorist organizations live and die depending on popular support. With the Iraq war Bush played right into their hands.

Quote[/b] ]Ask the Iraqis if they'd rather have these Arab country's citizens stay out or keep on blowing up their fellow Arab brothers.

It's the other way around. Ask the Iraqis about the US bombs that killed them and their Arab brothers.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe more than would have been created had Al-Queda & Co. not been diverted to Iraq.

How and why? Why would radicals bordering on becoming terrorists cross the line if the US did not invade a third-party Arab country?

Quote[/b] ]But they weren't planning on sitting on their laurels after one big successful day. Or do you think they were? rock.gif

Of course, that's why the logical step would have been to go after the terrorists rather than a country that had nothing to do whatsoever with anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Al-Queda called an end to hostilities after 9/11.

Not at all, but you don't throw fuel on the fire.

You fight fire with fire sometimes. Funny how that works by oil wells! tounge_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]Terrorist organizations live and die depending on popular support. With the Iraq war Bush played right into their hands.

The popular support dies down when you don't give in to them. If you leave them alone, they will not settle down to a homey life.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that there were big tactical and logistic blunders in this war. But the worst way you can deal with it is to say I'm sorry and turn your back on them.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Ask the Iraqis if they'd rather have these Arab country's citizens stay out or keep on blowing up their fellow Arab brothers.

It's the other way around. Ask the Iraqis about the US bombs that killed them and their Arab brothers.

Well that goes back to the question of ask Iraqis if they could turn the clock back, would rather still have Saddam?

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Maybe more than would have been created had Al-Queda & Co. not been diverted to Iraq.

How and why? Why would radicals bordering on becoming terrorists cross the line if the US did not invade a third-party Arab country?

Ask yourself what the goal of Islamic Jihad is, according to the school of Bin Laden and you'll have your answer.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]But they weren't planning on sitting on their laurels after one big successful day. Or do you think they were? rock.gif

Of course, that's why the logical step would have been to go after the terrorists rather than a country that had nothing to do whatsoever with anything.

And where were these terrorists then and where are they coming from now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Maybe someone should tell the soldiers in Iraq who still think that they are there because of 9/11. And that´s what a lot of them still think, by the way.

Can please find a quote that Bush directly said Iraq was apart of the 9/11 planning and etc.? The only thing he said were there were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. The commission only agreed that Iraq was not apart of the attacks and Bush never said they were. Furthermore, Iraqi officials did meet with Al-Qaeda officials a couple of times not once.

http://wid.ap.org/documents/911/040616staff15.pdf -read i!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news....adlines

Quote[/b] ]

But critics have alleged the administration has left a contrary impression with the public. Last fall, Cheney referred to what he called a credible but unconfirmed intelligence report that Mohamed Atta, one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, had met at least once in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attacks.

Unconfirmed means it could not be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

But critics have alleged the administration has left a contrary impression with the public. Last fall, Cheney referred to what he called a credible but unconfirmed intelligence report that Mohamed Atta, one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, had met at least once in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attacks.

Unconfirmed means it could not be true.

So its alright to invade a country and kill thousands on an UNCONFIRMED rumour?

Was I looking the other way when common sense went flying out the window?rock.gifcrazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ].........only agreed that Iraq was not apart of the attacks and Bush never said they were.

Al Qaeda And Iraq

Quote[/b] ] WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.

"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of bin Laden's terrorist followers ... What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."

Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.

"The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out," he said.

"Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."

The congressional inquiry, by members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees, was launched in February 2002 amid growing concerns that failures by U.S. intelligence had allowed 19 al-Qaida members to enter the United States, hijack four airliners and kill almost 3,000 people.

Although the committee completed its work at the end of last year, publication of the report has been delayed by what one committee staffer called "vigorous discussion" with administration officials over which parts of it could be declassified.

The 800-page report -- 50 pages of which were censored to protect still-classified information -- was published Thursday.

It is a litany of poor management, bad communication and flawed policy that enabled the 19 hijackers to carry out their deadly plan. Failures by the CIA, the FBI and the super-secret National Security Agency are catalogued.

Many of the censored pages concern the question of support for al-Qaida from foreign countries. Anonymous officials have told news organizations that much of the still-classified material concerns Saudi Arabia, and the question of whether Saudi officials -- perhaps acting as rogue agents -- assisted the 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudis.

Inquiry staff would not comment to UPI about the issue, but one did say that the section contained references to "more one country."

Prior to the report's publication, a person who had read it told UPI that it showed U.S. intelligence agencies had no evidence linking Iraq to the 9-11 attacks or to al-Qaida. In fact, the issue is not addressed in the declassified sections of the report.

One other person who has seen the classified version of the document told UPI subsequently that the Iraq issue is not addressed in the still-classified section, either. "They didn't ask that question," the person said.

9-11 Report

Quote[/b] ]CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

Plans For Iraq Began on 9/11

Cheney Makes 9/11 Iraq Link

Quote[/b] ]ASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Quote[/b] ]The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Impact of Linking

Though he didn't do it directly in the speech, the purpose of linking the two is clear.

Quote[/b] ]"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said in response to a reporter's question.

But he added, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.

Still does not prove that Bush linked Iraq to 9/11. Furthermore, Iraqi officials did meet with Al-Q officials a couple of times....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.

Still does not prove that Bush linked Iraq to 9/11. Furthermore, Iraqi officials did meet with Al-Q officials a couple of times....

Read above.

I believe it was denoir or bals that posted an article a while back that disproved the Al Queda Iraq meeting in Hungry or Romania.....perhaps they can dig it up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]I believe it was denoir or bals that posted an article a while back that disproved the Al Queda Iraq meeting in Hungry or Romania.....perhaps they can dig it up...

Was talking about what is in the 9/11 report not that.

Quote[/b] ]

CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

Jumping the gun? Hey, Saddam was not are friendly list.

Quote[/b] ]

ASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush, who is president, has said a lot of times Iraq had no role.

Quote[/b] ]

Though he didn't do it directly in the speech, the purpose of linking the two is clear.

Majority of the people still not believe that Iraq had a role.

Quote[/b] ]Though he didn't do it directly in the speech, the purpose of linking the two is clear.

Okay, he said Iraq had no role in 9/11 attacks but had ties to the group that it. Common sense....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, Iraqi officials did meet with Al-Q officials a couple of times....

Iraqi officials met with US officials too. Does that mean the US was responsible for 9/11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×