The Iraq / war on terror thread

[SLCPUNK]

And although we are winning the war, and Bush stated the objective and time table years ago,
now the liberals are claiming they 'forced' him to give a timeline.
Its fuckin hilarious is what it is.

Prove it.  Where's his stated timeline? And "eventually" and "someday" aren't timelines.  They're cop outs.

Oh, right....."when we're done"...done with what, exactly, he's never specifically said.  Or what "done" exactly means to him.

The most ironic thing is that Bush just today REFUSED to give a timeline in Iraq. He said it would send the "wrong message" again.

This man ran his entire campaign against Kerry claiming he had "no plan" , yet now when asked for his plan, he refuses to give one. At the same time an Iraqi official claims the insurgents are only there because we are (which is true) and the sooner we leave, the sooner Iraq can get itself back together. Which of course, Bush ignores.

Then guys like Shades claim he gave plans "years ago". Posting urban legends to back his point, then resorts to name calling and physical threats when he gets called on his bullshit.

The best part is Charity Case coming to his rescue all upset that somebody said something insulting. The same guy who got banned for using racial slurs over and over, crying about being "insulted".

Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I can't wait to see the trash get taken out....(grabbing popcorn)

[Charity Case]

And although we are winning the war, and Bush stated the objective and time table years ago,
now the liberals are claiming they 'forced' him to give a timeline.
Its fuckin hilarious is what it is.

Prove it.? Where's his stated timeline? And "eventually" and "someday" aren't timelines.? They're cop outs.

Oh, right....."when we're done"...done with what, exactly, he's never specifically said.? Or what "done" exactly means to him.

The most ironic thing is that Bush just today REFUSED to give a timeline in Iraq. He said it would send the "wrong message" again.

This man ran his entire campaign against Kerry claiming he had "no plan" , yet now when asked for his plan, he refuses to give one. At the same time an Iraqi official claims the insurgents are only there because we are (which is true) and the sooner we leave, the sooner Iraq can get itself back together. Which of course, Bush ignores.

Then guys like Shades claim he gave plans "years ago". Posting urban legends to back his point, then resorts to name calling and physical threats when he gets called on his bullshit.

The best part is Charity Case coming to his rescue all upset that somebody said something insulting. The same guy who got banned for using racial slurs over and over, crying about being "insulted".

Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I can't wait to see the trash get taken out....(grabbing popcorn)

I never said I was insulted.? Pilferk wasn't directing those comments at me at the time.? I said that the way Pilferk posts is condesending and insultive and IMO breaks the rules as much as name calling sometimes.? Just a simple statement.? As for the racial slurs, well I have said it before and will repeat it for it.? I hardly think anyone will hold it against me for using the term "towelheads" to desscribe terrorists in the days and weeks following 9/11.? Again, I lost friends in 9/11.? If you are insulted by the use of the term 'towelhead' in the emotionally heated days following 9/11, then you are way way too sensitive, period. 

And I take it from your post that you want to take the terrorists word for it when they say they will leave if we do?? Is that your plan?? "Well, they said they are there just because we are.? So let's leave and they promised they will."? ?Good, clear thinking there.

I agree with Bush.? Setting a timetable would definately send the wrong message.? If he says 12/31/06 for example, the insurgents will have a day to wait it out for.? If we don't get out by that specified date then we look even worse...if we do, then they know the date they have the country won.? It is the same reason Axl won't set a date for CD.? That way he doesn't build false hope and then have to explain why that date doesn't bring CD when it gets delayed.? How is it that you don't see the logic in this.? I'd be upset if we had a leader crumbling the way you libs want him to.

I think you are starting to see a turn in this way.  It will be intersting to see if you libs have the nuts to recognize good things when they happen to or by the US military.  I think it will go a long way to seeing whois truly anti-American and who are the intelligent liberals.

[jarmo]

As for the racial slurs, well I have said it before and will repeat it for it.? I hardly think anyone will hold it against me for using the term "towelheads" to desscribe terrorists in the days and weeks following 9/11.? Again, I lost friends in 9/11.? If you are insulted by the use of the term 'towelhead' in the emotionally heated days following 9/11, then you are way way too sensitive, period.?

October 31, 2004 isn't "in the days and weeks following 9/11". 





/jarmo

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Nice post Charity Case.

Many people have forgotten the impact and meaning of 9/11. Many wish to go back in time and pretend 9/11 diddnt happen.

One thing to keep in perspective- not all muslims are terrorists, so calling them towelheads really doesnt help with your arguement. It doesnt offend me, but it does offend muslims.

But I do agree some people have become a little too sensitive lately, it is gotten out of hand. I can not understand how people are finding Christmas offensive. We should embrace the different religious holiday observances from all faiths, not sanitize society. The diversity of cultures is what makes this country great. Why not celebrate it instead of erasing it? But that is another topic..........

[shades]

The Bush plan is we will leave when we are done.
Thats what he said when we first went in, and thats what he is saying now.
When the Iraqi forces can fend for themselves, OR when they ask us to leave, whichever comes first, then we will leave and not a moment sooner.
Not when John Kerry says we should leave, not when the clueless lot of liberals that call themselves public servants who are politicizing a war where men and women are dieing say we should leave.
WHEN WE ARE DONE. Why is that so hard to follow that you press the man into having to write it down.

You cant put a date on leaving, are you fuckin insane.
If you dont think the terrorists would just lay low until we left then you really are not aware of exactly what it is we are dealing with over there.
These thugs are making their last stand. Democracy and open dialogue with the west spells the end for them, and they know it.
They have no objective, they hold  no territory and they have no plan except to kill their own people to make their point.
That will wear thin with the people of Iraq as soon as they see Saddam hanging from a tree and they are convinced we arent going to turn tail and leave them hanging....again..

And, rest assured Spunk and pillpopper, no one has threatened you or your little sister with physical violence.
And calling either one of you little girls is like telling people the pope is catholic.

I see te way you guys operate on here, One of you says something, then the other chimes in and legitimizes it. Weak.
And you talk back and forth like no one else is in the forum with your, "What do you think pilferk, shall we bother, I think not"
Look at yourselves, come on man, grow a set.

[pilferk]

Why is my opinion not relevant?? Everyone's opinion, by nature, is biased.? It's a fundamental part of someone's opinion.? So why is your biased opinion more relevant than mine?? See that's a perfect example of your 'uppity' approach to posting.

Because you're not the administrator of the board, that's why.

As for what you consistently term my "uppity" approach to posting, I've said it before, and will say it again.? Don't like the way I write...don't read it.? If someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read what I write, by all means, let us know.? I'll call the local authorities for you.

I have not read your whole discussion with shades so I really can't comment on this.? But from my knowledge of how you write, you are very condensending and uppity toward people.? As a matter of fact you hide behind that to some extent.? Do I find it insulting, well only by definition, because it doesn't make much difference in this world, all thing considered.? I find it funny that you think being condesending is ok is not insulting.

But you DID comment on it, now didin't you?

As for your knowledge of how I write, again, I'd say your opinion on the matter is more than a bit biased, and not particularly relevant (this time because a) you're not me, b) I don't care if you like it and c) your "knowledge" of how I write is limited to a very small, very directed interaction with me so is uninformed).? If you think being verbose and using "big words" is condesending, that's your issue.?I expect we're all adults in this conversation, and I write to you, and the rest of those involved, like you're an adult, and not a 4th grader. I staunchly refuse to dumb down my posts because, quite frankly, doing so feels foreign to me.  This is the way I write, it's the way I've always written, and it's the way I will always write.  Again, don't like the way I write...don't read it.

I think based on some of slc's posts and the insults he has repeatedly hurled here and his never being punished for them, and the fact that the only people punished in this section are conservatives, I'd say that people are not treated fairly here.? You'd actually dsagree with this?? You seem to smart to actually diagree with something so obvious.? As for knowing where the door is, well that's obvious.? If I thought it was untolerable I'd be gone by now.? But please don't be so naive as to think there is equity in the length of rope given to liberal and conservatives on this forum.

I sure do disagree with it.? And if you feel that way, please, by all means...leave.? Why someone would post in a place they feel treats them so unfairly is beyond me...unless you're a sadist.

How someone who used a racial insult, was banned, and then ALLOWED TO COME BACK can make accusations of being treated unfairly is beyond the scope of my ability to understand.

[pilferk]

SLC, if you're gonna bait me with that lame excuse of a signature, at least be qualifed in your accusations.? You know dick shit about me, the military (daddy's service doesn't count - it's not genetic) and you sure as hell don't know anything about Iraq.? You've probably never done a hard thing in your life and your general lack of concern for others and general well-being is upsetting to say the least.? You sir don't give two shits about American servicemen or Iraqis.? You'd sacrifice the lives of millions all to proove a point.? I'd survive in Iraq because I understand the concept of teamwork and comradery; my buds wouldn't shoot me and leave me for dead.? You're a coward because you bark like a big dog but your actions remain silent.? If what you've said is true and your family is ex-military and Republican, then you're the classic case of adolescent rebellion gone to far.? All I know is that if your father is military, he must silently cry himself to sleep at night knowing he has a loud mouth like you for offspring.?

1) Insulting posters is against the rules.

2) This is off topic.

3) You say he knows dick shit about you...and then go on to make the same sort of assumptions about him.  Pot. Kettle. Black.

[pilferk]

I agree with Bush.? Setting a timetable would definately send the wrong message.? If he says 12/31/06 for example, the insurgents will have a day to wait it out for.? If we don't get out by that specified date then we look even worse...if we do, then they know the date they have the country won.? It is the same reason Axl won't set a date for CD.? That way he doesn't build false hope and then have to explain why that date doesn't bring CD when it gets delayed.? How is it that you don't see the logic in this.? I'd be upset if we had a leader crumbling the way you libs want him to.

There are timetables and there are timetables.

I don't think we could reasonably expect Bush to say "Hey, we're pulling out on 12/31/06".

What I would expect is a clear, objective based, detailed exit strategy.  For example "When such and such a number of Iraqi batallions are trained, we pull out this number of troops" and "When the democratically elected govt is put in place and stable, we pull out this number of troops".  Bush refuses to do anything even close to that.

[pilferk]

The Bush plan is we will leave when we are done.
Thats what he said when we first went in, and thats what he is saying now.
When the Iraqi forces can fend for themselves, OR when they ask us to leave, whichever comes first, then we will leave and not a moment sooner.
Not when John Kerry says we should leave, not when the clueless lot of liberals that call themselves public servants who are politicizing a war where men and women are dieing say we should leave.
WHEN WE ARE DONE. Why is that so hard to follow that you press the man into having to write it down.

THAT'S what you call a timetable?  So, what you're saying is...you don't really understand what a timetable is.  Gotcha.

Proven wrong again..by his own words.

And, rest assured Spunk and pillpopper, no one has threatened you or your little sister with physical violence.
And calling either one of you little girls is like telling people the pope is catholic.

Ahh, another insult.  How very droll.

Must I quote you to show you the "threat of physical violence"? Or are you going to deny it?

Oh, and I don't have a little sister.  And my "little" brother....heh heh....I'd like to see you try.  THAT would be funny.

I see te way you guys operate on here, One of you says something, then the other chimes in and legitimizes it. Weak.
And you talk back and forth like no one else is in the forum with your, "What do you think pilferk, shall we bother, I think not"
Look at yourselves, come on man, grow a set.

"When we're done" isn't a timetable, it's a cop out.

And, again, it takes some set to sit behind a screen and hurl childish insults.  And maturity too.

But thanks for proving my point.

[pilferk]

Nice post Charity Case.

Many people have forgotten the impact and meaning of 9/11. Many wish to go back in time and pretend 9/11 diddnt happen.

Except he did it 3 years later.....AND jarmo let him come back.

[Surfrider]

No hype needed: Saddam, al-Qaida linked

By Victor Davis Hanson
 


 
As American casualties mount in Iraq, politicians at home now fight over who said what and when about weapons of mass destruction and the need for going to war. One of the most frequent charges is that President Bush hyped a non-existent link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida ? and that as a result, we diverted our efforts from finishing off the real terrorists to start a new and costly war to replace a secular dictator.

This charge is false for several reasons ? and illogical for even more. Almost every responsible U.S. government body had long warned about Saddam's links to al-Qaida terrorists. In 1998, for example, when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the writ read: "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Then in October 2002, George Tenet, the Clinton-appointed CIA director, warned the Senate in similar terms: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade." Seventy-seven senators apparently agreed ? including a majority of Democrats ? and cited just that connection a few days later as a cause to go to war against Saddam: " ... Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

The bipartisan consensus about this unholy alliance was not based on intriguing but unconfirmed rumors of meetings between Saddam's intelligence agents and al-Qaida operatives such as Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Nor did the senators or the president ever claim that Saddam himself planned the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead, the Justice Department, the Senate and two administrations were alarmed by terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate that established bases in Iraqi Kurdistan.

More importantly, one of the masterminds of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad to find sanctuary with Saddam after the attack. And after the U.S.'s successful war against the Taliban, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the present murderous al-Qaida leader in Iraq, reportedly escaped from Afghanistan to gain a reprieve from Saddam.

All of this is understandable since Saddam had a long history of promoting and sheltering anti-Western terrorists. That's why both Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas ? terrorist banes of the 1970s and 1980s ? were in Baghdad prior to the U.S. invasion and why the families of West Bank suicide bombers were given $25,000 rewards by the Iraqi government.

Saddam worried little over the agendas of these diverse terrorist groups, only that they shared his own generic hatred of Western governments. This kind of support from leaders such as Saddam has proven crucial to radical, violent Islamicists' efforts.

After Sept. 11, it became clear that these enemies can only resort to terrorism to weaken American resolve and gain concessions ? and can't even do that without the clandestine help of illegitimate regimes (from Saddam in Iraq to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the theocracy in Iran, Bashar Assad in Syria and others) who provide money and sanctuary while denying culpability.

Middle Eastern terrorists and tyrants feed on one another. The Saddams and Assads of the region ? and to a less extent the Saudi royal family and the Mubarak dynasty ? deflected popular anger over their own failures onto the United States by allowing terrorists to scapegoat the Americans.

Yet, for a quarter-century, oil, professed anti-communism and loud promises to "fight terror" earned various reprieves from the West for these dictatorships, who were deathly afraid that one day America might catch on and do something other than shoot a cruise missile at enemies while sternly lecturing "friends."

That day came after Sept. 11. To end the old pathology, we took out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, pressured the Syrians to leave Lebanon, encouraged Lebanese democracy, hectored the Egyptians about elections, told Libya's Moammar Gaddafi to come clean about his nuclear plans, and risked oil supplies by jawboning the Persian Gulf monarchies to liberalize.

The theory behind all these messy and often caricatured efforts was not the desire for endless war ? we removed by force only the two worst regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq ? but to allow Middle Easterners a third alternative between Islamic radicalism and secular dictatorship. No wonder that wherever there are elections in the Middle East ? Afghanistan and Iraq ? legitimate governments there have the moral authority and the desire to fight Islamic terrorism.

Americans can blame one another all we want over the cost in lives and treasure in Iraq. But the irony is that not long ago everyone from Bill Clinton to George Bush, senators, CIA directors and federal prosecutors all agreed that Saddam had offered assistance to al-Qaida, the organization that murdered 3,000 Americans. That was one of the many reasons we went into Iraq, why Zarqawi and ex-Baathists side-by-side now attack American soldiers ? and why an elected Iraqi government is fighting with us.

[Surfrider]

I heard someone else drop the terms illegal and unconstitutional about the war in Iraq.  Do people honestly believe the war was unconstitutional or do they simply just take the crap on the far left sites as facts?

[pilferk]

No hype needed: Saddam, al-Qaida linked

By Victor Davis Hanson
 
?

1) Can you provide a direct link to the article.

2) Some of the claims and correlations made in the article I've seen directly refuted (which is one of the reasons I'm asking for a link..I'm wondering what the timing is on the article).

As an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
 
There's lots of other refutations of the connection, as well...this was just the most obvious to find.  There's other points that the author brings up as fact that are not quite such, and are hotly contested.

[RichardNixon]

Iraq was not behind 911, period.

As for Bush's speech? Well, it changed my mind. Stay the course to nowhere, works for me...

[SLCPUNK]

No hype needed: Saddam, al-Qaida linked

By Victor Davis Hanson
 
 

1) Can you provide a direct link to the article.

Check Snopes........

You guys, especially GNRNIGHTTRAIN always post these articles from right wing websites the refuse to put the link up. If you post the article, why do you hide where it came from?

[shades]

Every last one of those statements in Mr Hansons staement, or whomever wrote it....it is true, they are facts.
Your main stream media chose to say them once then brush them under the table.
Like they do every other fact that would promote a sucessful Bush presidency.
You may grow tired of yourself if you keep it up. And Thats exactly why Bush doesnt state the obvious over and over and over.
Its condescending to his base. And Bush knows his base is intact. Let the other side whine and snivel and we get stronger.
Thats what won the 2004 election.
Hold the same election today, same results. No ifs ands or butts about it.
WE dont Waiver when it comes to protecting the homeland.
And all the other issues are moot if you dont take care of that one.

and the most important of Mr Hansons statements summarizes why the war in Iraq IS part of the war on terror

to allow Middle Easterners a third alternative between Islamic radicalism and secular dictatorship. 

Have any of you Bush haters ever asked yourself what it really is you hate about the man?
Or, if you could name one thing we are doing in Iraq that isnt a good thing?
You may not agree with the method but its all in the name of improvement both to the Iraqi people as well as Peace in the region
and the world.

What do you think all those insurgents were doing before we went into Iraq?
honest hard working citizens? Please.
They are so stupid, luckily that they have and are continueing to walk right into the path we want them on.
Every strike they make we either lose one of their sorry asses and or gather intelligence leading us to another one.
A slow process but were winning, make no mistake about it.

[pilferk]

Every last one of those statements in Mr Hansons staement, or whomever wrote it....it is true, they are facts.

Again, there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary...so, since you've said they are facts...

Prove 'em.

Nobody else has been able to...not this administration, certainly, or they would be shouting it from the rooftops.

I'd LOVE to see you prove he'd still win an election, and justify that proof with his approval ratings in the tiolet.  Hell, the REST of the Republican leadership sure doesn't agree with you....which is why you see them actually disagreeing with this administration, in hopes of preserving their majority come the '06 elections.

[Charity Case]

Nice post Charity Case.

Many people have forgotten the impact and meaning of 9/11. Many wish to go back in time and pretend 9/11 diddnt happen.

Except he did it 3 years later.....AND jarmo let him come back.

Two points:

1.  I don't care how much time goes by, my feelings regarding terrorists will not change.  I will not sympathize or chnage my reference to them for the sake of political correctness.  They don't deserve any better.

2.  In jarmo's defense, it is very hard to ban someone permanently from an smf board.  He did not ban my account, only my ability to post.  My assumption is that he thought, maybe subconciously, that my offense wasn't worth a full banning.  Hell, there are no word horrible enough to describe terrorists.  Certainly 'towelhead' is about the least offensive of the possible terms.

Does this offend you pilferk?  Does the use of bad words to describe mass murderers offend you?  Wouyld you prefer political correctness?  Shit man, they are mass murderers...they don't deserve your liberals' political correctness.

As for the article above....instead of asking him to prove it....since it was a contention of the Bush administration all along....why don't you disprove it.  Doesn't it make more sense that there would be some kind of connection between al qaeda and Iraq (who both hate America)?  I would tend to think there had been some understanding between the two, as was contended by the Bush administration.  I have seen nothing all that convincing to disprove it.

[Booker Floyd]

1) Can you provide a direct link to the article.

2) Some of the claims and correlations made in the article I've seen directly refuted (which is one of the reasons I'm asking for a link..I'm wondering what the timing is on the article).

As an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
?
There's lots of other refutations of the connection, as well...this was just the most obvious to find.? There's other points that the author brings up as fact that are not quite such, and are hotly contested.

Excerpts from Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The most explosive of allegations came from Cheney, who said that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center, had met in Prague, in the Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, five months before the attacks. On December 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press: "It's pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in [the Czech Republic] last April, several months before the attack."

Cheney continued to make the charge, even after he was briefed, according to government records and officials, that both the CIA and the FBI discounted the possibility of such a meeting.

...

And how much of this was shared with Congress?? Because, you know, they had the same intelligence, right?

[Booker Floyd]

More hype, more misleading:

The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year?s assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army ? with six Iraqi battalions supporting them?This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces ? 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support.

TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who was embedded with the U.S. troops in Iraq during the Tal Afar battle:

WARE: I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing.