Originally posted by Pool-BoyI still can't fathom the train of thought that says we are not supposed to do right today because we have done wrong in the past...
I honestly hope that we go after EVERY nation with terrorist ties after this. One at a time...
Can't be done. Even if you drafted every single man who could serve, going after terrorist nations would break our armed forces. We're spread pretty thin already.
The goal during the 90s was to have our armed forces capable of successfully fighting two wars at once. And we are--in Afghanistan and Iraq. To even think of going into Iran (a huge country, most of it mountainous and difficult to traverse) is the same sort of arrogant foolhardiness that someone apparently fed Rumsfeld that led him to think air power could win the war in Iraq.
We see where that got us.
-LS "I don't know if we can beat these bastards." "Maybe not, but we don't have to JOIN them."
Originally posted by Pool-BoyI honestly hope that we go after EVERY nation with terrorist ties after this. One at a time...
That's great, but... What are Iraq's terrorist ties again?
I thought this was about freeing the Iraqi people?
Do a little bit of research. Should take you about 5 minutes. I am not going to rehash this shit over and over again, to those who refuse to listen. Or, turn on the news. They bring up every hour or so the terrorist cells (Al Quaida and Hamas)who are troops have been engaging, or the details of Saddaams payment to suicide bombers in Palestine.
And yes, it is about feeding the Iraqi people. Sometimes, it is possible to have more than one motivation for action.
Originally posted by Pool-BoyDo a little bit of research. Should take you about 5 minutes. I am not going to rehash this shit over and over again, to those who refuse to listen. Or, turn on the news. They bring up every hour or so the terrorist cells (Al Quaida and Hamas)who are troops have been engaging, or the details of Saddaams payment to suicide bombers in Palestine.
And yes, it is about feeding the Iraqi people. Sometimes, it is possible to have more than one motivation for action.
I guess I have to begrudgingly admire the incredible amount of determined ignorance necessary to, at this point, still cling to the belief that Saddam shouldn't be taken out.
George Washington gave his signature The Government gave its hand They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land
"As long as the moon shall rise" "As long as the rivers flow" "As long as the sun will shine" "As long as the grass shall grow"
Originally posted by Pool-BoyDo a little bit of research. Should take you about 5 minutes. I am not going to rehash this shit over and over again, to those who refuse to listen. Or, turn on the news. They bring up every hour or so the terrorist cells (Al Quaida and Hamas)who are troops have been engaging, or the details of Saddaams payment to suicide bombers in Palestine.
And yes, it is about feeding the Iraqi people. Sometimes, it is possible to have more than one motivation for action.
Yeah, the kind of research that you can do in five minutes is guaranteed to be rock solid. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but just because you see it on FOX News doesn't mean it's true.
If I recall, there were Al Qaeda in this country, too. Should we bomb the fuck out of ourselves?
To quote JR, "Mah God! Carson Daly has joined the Taliban!"
I work at a restaurant, and it's become a running gag amongst both my co-workers and some of our regular customers to use "Freedom" for every single food that includes a national name. For example, you've got Freedom Fries, Freedom (Canadian) Bacon, Freedom (English) Muffins, 64 slices of Freedom Cheese, Freedomilia Nuts, etc. Very ironic place, my restaurant.
"I have no intention of uttering my last words on the stage. Room service and a couple of depraved young women will do me quite nicely for an exit."-- Peter O'Toole
"I'm gonna rip the eyes out of your head, and piss down your dead skull!" -- Jack Nicholson, in A Few Good Men
We don't have an issue of being spread too thin, I mean, if we wanted to end the war with Iraq tomorrow, we could, we have the firepower, but we're trying to keep structures standing, and we're trying to avoid civilian casualties at all costs (including our own boys).
Originally posted by Pool-BoyDo a little bit of research. Should take you about 5 minutes. I am not going to rehash this shit over and over again, to those who refuse to listen. Or, turn on the news. They bring up every hour or so the terrorist cells (Al Quaida and Hamas)who are troops have been engaging, or the details of Saddaams payment to suicide bombers in Palestine.
And yes, it is about feeding the Iraqi people. Sometimes, it is possible to have more than one motivation for action.
Yeah, the kind of research that you can do in five minutes is guaranteed to be rock solid. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but just because you see it on FOX News doesn't mean it's true.
If I recall, there were Al Qaeda in this country, too. Should we bomb the fuck out of ourselves?
The argument is not that Al Qaeda is there. The argument is that Al Qaeda is being harbored and encouraged. We don't need to bomb other countries looking for terrorists because those countries (some of them) will help us out, and use their police to find terrorist cells. We're not going to get that kind of cooperation in Iraq, or really anywhere else in the Middle East, 'cept maybe Pakistan, and for who knows how long.
"May God bless our country and all who defend her."
Originally posted by PalpatineWThe argument is not that Al Qaeda is there. The argument is that Al Qaeda is being harbored and encouraged. We don't need to bomb other countries looking for terrorists because those countries (some of them) will help us out, and use their police to find terrorist cells. We're not going to get that kind of cooperation in Iraq, or really anywhere else in the Middle East, 'cept maybe Pakistan, and for who knows how long.
Hold up a sec here. Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization of Osama Bin Laden, who has been rather vocal about his dislike of Saddam and the Iraqi government in general, is being "harbored and encouraged" by that same government, and they're LETTING them?
Don't get me wrong, I mean, it wouldn't particularly surprise me (we've done the same thing throughout history, and so's just about any nation on earth) but it still seems a bit fishy, somehow. Of all the places in that area, why pick THAT one?
Kansas-born and deeply ashamed The last living La Parka Marka
"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Have we captured any Al Qaeda operatives inside Iraq? Found any secret nuclear, biological, chemical Al Qaeda weapons stashes? Or any NBC weapons at all, for that matter?
The argument seems to be: "We know they're there, so sit down and shut the fuck up. Don't ask questions. the government knows what's best. We're your leaders. "
there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained.
There were indications, however, that the group has getting help from inside neighboring Iran.
The article then goes on to talk about the ties between Iran (note the "N") and a group that might have ties to Al-Queda.
Did you actually read that article, or just link based on the headline?
It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
Claim Thursday 27 March, 12.59am US President George Bush says US troops had destroyed a terrorist camp in northern Iraq but fails to elaborate during a briefing about the progress of the Iraqi invasion. "Day by day, Saddam Hussein is losing his grip on Iraq," Bush said.
Claim reinforced Sunday 30 March, 5.07pm More reports that allied forces secure much of north of Iraq and overrun a notorious terrorist camp alleged to be a haven for al-Qaida militants. Washington accuses the Ansar al-Islam group, believed to be behind the camp, of working to make chemical weapons with help from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.
Claim amplified Monday 31 March Papers report that US forces seize the chemical weapons training camp in Ansar al-Islam, in northern Iraq. Sun splashes with the story and says war justified now that Saddam Hussein's weapons of horror had been discovered. Veteran UK intelligence expert Chris Dobson says the deadly poison ricin found recently in London most likely came from the camp and was evidence of Saddam's links with terrorists intent on striking Britain.
Admission claim never verified Tuesday 1 April, 1.39pm A US commander in the Gulf, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, tells a news conference that troops had yet to find any banned weapons of mass destruction in captured Iraqi territory. US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld says Iraq's banned weapons are stockpiled in Baghdad and Tikrit.
EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONRY
Claim Monday March 31, 1.38pm Chemical protection suits and decontamination equipment found among a large Iraqi arms cache seized near the city of Nassiriya. "The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force seized a large weapons cache, about 40 buildings worth, containing ammunition, chemical decontamination equipment...chemical suits and unidentified artillery munitions," Brigadier General Vincent Brooks told a central command briefing in Qatar.
Slight back-pedalling Monday March 31, 4pm British Armed Forces minister Adam Ingram forced to backtrack on claims. Queried about reports that troops had stumbled across firm evidence, he initially said: "We have discovered stocks of chemical weapons and other aspects related to nuclear, biological and chemical threats". Responding to concerned rumblings from MPs, he modified his claims to say he was referring to the discovery of protective suits left behind by Iraqi forces.
He said: "Well, OK, certainly chemical and biological threats in terms of those particular suits.
"He has the capability. That is why we're there in the first instance and it must remain our assessment that he has an intent to use those weapons he has," he said. The suits were dated September 2001, a date seized upon as evidence that Saddam was preparing for chemical warfare.
He was pressed by Labour's Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow), who asked: "How many sites identified by US or UK intelligence as having stocks of chemical weapons stored have so far been inspected and what has been found?"
Mr Ingram told him: "That type of verification is not yet available to us. I just hope you share my views on this that Saddam Hussein has been developing that capability. That was the conclusion of Hans Blix in the document he produced on March 7 ... it is only a matter of time before we find those weapons and verify accordingly."
Why do I get the idea that one of those really poorly-acted dramatizations of a cop planting evidence is in Iraq's near future?
I can see it now... Rumsfeld, or more likely one of the generals, wandering around a factory that's clearly been abandoned since the Carter administration...
*thud* "Well, well, well, look-at-what-we-have-here. A bag, labeled Anthrax for use against innocent American puppies. Looks like Mr. Blix wasn't so thorough, har har!"
Kansas-born and deeply ashamed The last living La Parka Marka
"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin