« BusinessWeek Slideshow : 10 Green Technologies That Could Change Your Life | Main | Why I Want Oil to Hit $120 per Barrel »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452455969e200e54ede64c28833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Victory in Iraq in 2008 : A Half-Time Update:

Comments

jeffolie

"Thus, at this half-way point, I am re-affirming my prediction that we will see victory in Iraq by 2008."

I doubt it, but that would be great.

World Citizen

"indicating the near-complete ideological convergence between anti-US fifth-columnists and Al-Qaeda. "

mmm... utter nonsense.

it's so funny to me the way you label people who disagree with the war in Iraq as anti-US. Common man, if people disagree with the current administration, it does not mean they hate their own country and the citizens.

whatever happens in Iraq, you will call a victory in either way, I'm sure of it. ;)

The real truth will come surface in 10-50 years when the documents become available to the public, then we judge who is the winner, and who is the loser. Right now, IMHO, the loser is US budget which grow in deficit day by day and baby boomers who will see cuts in their social security, and the winning party is the war profiteers who make millions daily in Iraq from US budget and Iraqi oil deposits...

GK

World Citizen, (what an absurd name)

mmm... utter nonsense.

How so? You will have to be more specific on which aspects of Al-Qaeda you disapprove of.

if people disagree with the current administration, it does not mean they hate their own country and the citizens.

It does if you downplay the good news about the war, and are happy to hear bad news, or even make up bad news.

If you think this does not apply to you, then surely you have some better ideas about how to defeat Al-Qaeda.

So let's hear them. The burden of providing better ideas falls on you.

Right now, IMHO, the loser is US budget which grow in deficit day by day and baby boomers

Wrong. The US budget deficit is the lowest in 5 years.

Plus, if you believe that, that means you oppose ALL US wars, not just the Iraq War. You also would have to oppose the War in Afghanistan, and Clinton's wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, etc. All of those cost money too, you know. Or did you think that wars other than Iraq don't cost money?

Dave

'the loser is US budget which grow in deficit day by day and baby boomers who will see cuts in their social security, and the winning party is the war profiteers who make millions daily in Iraq from US budget and Iraqi oil deposits...'
The loser is US budget? Check your grammar first there pal. Second, if a man and woman need social security coming out of my paycheck to feed the outcome of their 'romp in the hay', then they should not have had the child or children to begin with. That is just irresponsible. Now let's digress for a second. You say the war is eating money? The war that is being fought so that you may maintain the freedom to shoot your mouth off at the expense of our brave fighting men and woman is unacceptable, but the massive amounts of money being spent on helping those people out there who just can't seem to keep their pants zipped is? Coming from every working class schmuck like me out there who does live within their means? Sir, not only are you the most blind and un-greatful ass I have ever had the dis-pleasure of exchanging words with, but a babbling idiot to boot. To make matters even worse, you make accusations of war profiteering and poor budgeting, but you stand for an even more vile ideal- IGNORANCE! Sorry bub, but I know many brave souls over there, and they have realized that once you grab a tiger by the tail, you cannot let go until you have finished it, or it will turn and maul you to death. But it is blatantly obvious that this is something you would love to see happen, just so that you would be proven right! You sicken and annoy me, and I wish you would crawl back into whatever hole you came from. While your at it, grow ears so that you may take in ALL the facts around you (not just the ones you WANT to), and some eyes as well so that you may read the WHOLE truth behind things, not just what you CHOOSE to see. I am out.

Steve

Assisting the Iraqis in their quest for freedom and liberty will benefit all of humanity. We should not be ignorant of the lessons of appeasement. Appeasement has always induced more violence, more bloodshed and, often times, bloodier wars.
Iraq will in the long run be a far better place than before when the vast majority of Iraqis were enslaved by the previous regime.

Dave

"The biggest challenge will be convincing enough people that it is indeed a victory as per the measures above..."

Well, yeah.  That's the real challenge, given that most people get their news from the MSM, the nation's leftist newspapers and news networks will not report positive events in Iraq, or if they do, they'll hide it in a big dollop of negative spin.

There's no way the U.S. and it's allies could have been victorious in WW2 with today's media.

World Citizen

Wow, wow

So much for the personal insult... I thought I had a conversation with adults, not teens... Can we discuss our points of view without personal attacks?

First off, I know what's going on in Iraq from first hands, my relative happens to be there third term, front line, just to let you know that I'm not just planting theories here.

He was like you, Dave, same ideas, after second term in Iraq, when he came home, he changed. I guess, you can call him anti-US now by your means... And there are a lot of soldiers (growing majority) who really thinks it's going nowhere, just waste of tax money and the field for war profiteers. Go figure.


World Citizen

The US budget deficit is the lowest in 5 years.

Oh, yeah?! It was recently 9 trillion, a new record in US history.
Visit this site of National Treasury and check the history of US Debt:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Check also this: http://www.federalbudget.com/

5 years is not long enough to judge the economy health, the current debt will take man-many years to get rid of.

www.DividedWeFail.com ;)

GK

World Citizen,

It appears you do not know the difference between the budget deficit (an annual measure, that is rapidly shrinking) and the national debt (a cumulative measure).

The $9 trillion debt is the same percentage of GDP has 15 years ago. The US GDP, at $14 trillion is also a record (the US stock market also hit many records this year). You cannot talk about the debt without taking it in proportion to the size of the economy.

Read">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_national_debt">Read this from wikipedia to educate yourself about the National Debt.

Plus, here you can see that the US debt is actually lower than Japan, France, Italy, and Canada relative to the size of the economy (as per the CIA World Factbook).

Now, you still have to answer my other questions :

1) What specific aspects of Al-Qaeda do you disapprove of?

2) If you oppose military action, what are your better ideas on how to defeat Al-Qaeda.

3) Do you also oppose the US War in Afghanistan, as well as Clinton's wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and his shooting of missiles at Sudan, and his bombing of Saddam in 1993 and 1998?

Answer these 3 questions, if you have the courage.

World Citizen

It appears you do not know the difference between the budget deficit

hmmm... I actually do, and both of those measures are showing the degradation.

Read this from wikipedia to educate yourself about the National Debt.
Great, we do worse then Kazakhstan :) Borat should be proud.

1) What specific aspects of Al-Qaeda do you disapprove of?

I disapprove all of them, especially their tactics, as Extream Islamism and Evangelical Catholicism are institutions against the humanity.
I may consider Al-Qaeda as an artificial virtual organization created to serve the needs of some elephant party members ;) because all the news about that organization somehow come from those party members, not independent news channels.
However, after all that turmoil with Islamic people, similar organizations may appear, and all their actions may be claimed as "Al-Qaeda" actions.
Something makes me believe that Bin Laden is a salaried employee of CIA. Interesting enough, all the "legitimate tapes" of Bin Laden speeches were "revealed" by CIA, not any other international organization like InterPol.

2) If you oppose military action, what are your better ideas on how to defeat Al-Qaeda.

Who says it will be defeated by wide military action? They are partisans.
2 possible actions:
1) Covert Ops to remove the key people.
2) Diplomacy still works if executed properly, and proved to work better in long term then aggressive military action. Everybody has their own needs, it's always possible to reach the golden point.

3) Do you also oppose the US War in Afghanistan, as well as Clinton's wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and his shooting of missiles at Sudan, and his bombing of Saddam in 1993 and 1998?
Let's say, I think the previous war in Afganistan was merely stand off against Soviet Union, and the current war there is a waste of money.
The bloody shed in Bosnia and Kosovo was a sad event, and a mistake. Somalia was a disgrace for our generals, very bad executed and useless.
Bombing of Saddam - did not do any good.

All those wars just show how we do not respect our own Constitution. And how shortsighted we are.

That's my opinion, like it or not.

GK

World Citizen,

I actually do, and both of those measures are showing the degradation.

Nope. They aren't, and I already provided links. You are trying to avoid facts that are inconvenient to your pre-conceived views.

Great, we do worse then Kazakhstan

But I already stated that we do better than Canada, France, Italy, and Japan. You ignored that because the facts are inconvenient to you (anyone see a pattern here)?

Now, as for the questions.

1) So you actually think Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA? How do you explain all the terror attacks in London, Madrid, Bombay, Bali, Beslan, Turkey, Jordan, and Morocco? What about attacks in the 1990s (1993 WTC bombing, USS Cole, Kenya/Tanzania embassies), that were before Bush was President?

2) 1) Covert Ops to remove the key people.

OK, so you approve of assassination of key people. I support this too. But note that this violates 'international law'.

3) So you oppose ALL US wars? How is Afghanistan a waste of money? Are you saying the US should not have interfered in Bosnia and Kosovo?

That's my opinion, like it or not.

A stubbornly uninformed opinion is not one deserving of serious consideration.

World Citizen

So you oppose ALL US wars

Not all, I approve WWI, WWII and Civil War.

Are you saying the US should not have interfered in Bosnia and Kosovo?
Not that way. You cannot just go there and bomb civilians just because they have a religious/land dispute, without actually studying the situation.

OK, so you approve of assassination of key people. I support this too. But note that this violates 'international law'.
If a person proved to be a criminal, a case filled in Interpol, then the operation can be approved by NATO. We already have such cases, I just have no time to dig.

But I already stated that we do better than Canada, France, Italy, and Japan. You ignored that because the facts are inconvenient to you (anyone see a pattern here)?

There are patterns on my side as well as on your side as well, nothing unusual.

My point is - Kazakhstan is a developing country, and even they have less debt then "developed" US.

France, Italy, and Japan - they all have much weaker economies due to the historical events (like WWI and WWII), but even despite being completely ruined, they managed to get back on the track. Canada is just 0.7% behind, dont forget they have less people to pay taxes.

I'm amazed that Russia (and most of Baltic countries) has very low public debt despite their crisis in '90s.

So you actually think Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA?

Yes I do. Bite me.

GK

World Citizen,

If a person proved to be a criminal, a case filled in Interpol, then the operation can be approved by NATO

So how do you actually PREVENT terrorism, under this plan? How do you extinguish the root causes?

France, Italy, and Japan - they all have much weaker economies due to the historical events (like WWI and WWII), but even despite being completely ruined, they managed to get back on the track.

With total US help, of course. Plus, events of 60 years ago are not the cause of debt today. Note that Japan saves money by having the US defend it to this day.

A rich person with a $1 million mortgage on a $2 million house has more debt than a poor person who lives in an apartment with roommates, you know. But which of the two would you rather be?

Canada is just 0.7% behind, dont forget they have less people to pay taxes.

I think you don't understand the concept of 'per capita'. Canada's debt, in relation to the size of its economy, is larger than the US. Period. This, despite the fact that Canada saves a lot of money on defense due to the US.

Yes I do. Bite me.

So why do no Democrat congressmen share this view? If your theory had any basis in reality whatsoever, why isn't there a single Democrat that believes this, even though they have to most to gain if it is true?

Also, why aren't you writing letters to Democrat congressmen to investigate what you have discovered about Al-Qaeda and the CIA?

Believing in deranged conspiracy theories that not one elected official believes in is nothing to be proud of.

Steve

Three important points to consider:

1. America has always sought to end conquest, and to advance liberty. America and other freedom-loving peoples are one of the principal reasons why most of the world is free.

2. Shall we lend a hand to people in their quest for individual liberty?

Europe, and most of Asia are free due to the direct engagement of America throughout the past 75 years.

If we do lend a hand to assist people in their quest for individual liberty, how should we do so? Shall we allow a totalitarian regime to continue to slaughter their own citizens?

Whether in Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, Belgium, France, Korea, and Vietnam--and so many other places where American GI's have assisted humanity--in each and every case, we have sought to liberate an enslaved citizenry.

We can debate the actual specific actions in each of the above situations, but the central theme of our action was assistance to oppressed people from tyrannical governments.

3. Al-Qaeda was a creation of two people: Abdullah Azzam and Osama Bin Laden. Azzam is the ideological father of Al-Qaeda, who created the organization around 1987. Azzam and Bin Laden extended the spiritual struggle of Jihad into a violent strain of Jihad, so called holy war. After Azzam was blown up, with his two sons in a car in 1989, Bin Laden took over all managerial authority of Al-Qaeda, a criminal run organization that is abhorent to the principles of a free society. No organ of America's institutions gave assistance to the creation or the running of Al-Qaeda.

During the 1990's, America through neglect, after not responding to Al-Qaeda killing Americans in the WTC (1993), Somalia (1993), assassination attempts of Pope John Paul II and President Clinton (1994), and Riyadh (1995)--allowed Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations to flourish.

Rohan Gunaratna's excellent book on 'Inside Al Qaeda' is an excellent primer on Al Qaeda itself and the rise of other anti-liberty ideologies of our day.

Thanks.

Dave

World Citizen,
Without personnel attacks, I will once again make my point . 1- I am not a teen. I have served in the army for over 9 years now, been around the world (literally) 3 times, lived in 4 different countries where I learned the language and culture, and have a moderate level of civilian education as well. The extent of your education seems to wikipedia. Which seems to work for you considering it bans anything it disagrees with. So, once again, you spoke from ignorance, something which I should have expected coming from your hypocritical mouth.

'First off, I know what's going on in Iraq from first hands, my relative happens to be there third term, front line, just to let you know that I'm not just planting theories here'. Bulls****. Any troop away from his home for that long will question why he is there. Especially a 'college grunt'(a term I use to refer to soldiers who use the army to get college money, and then get suprised that work is involved, I have seen it alot in my time in, and it sickens me). First off, if your opinion is coming from such a person (who you confirmed in your own words to be the case), then you are even more the blind idiot I referred to previously.

ANSWER ME "WORLD MORON"-
How do you justify giving women who cant keep their pants zipped on multiple occassions money that comes out of the paychecks of the rest of us hard working Americans, but not the money it takes to secure your freedom?!

THINK about it IF YOU CAN! Not every soldier or every American will understand why we do anything in this country. YOU are a prime example. You have the entire internet, entire libraries to visit, and the entire world to explore (which it sounds by your ridiculous screen name that you have done), and this is the best you can do?!

When I was an MP, I learned how two people involved in a incident can tell two differant stories, but when you put them together, it makes perfect sense. You on the other hand, would be the moron to see only one side, and assume that it is the whole truth. This is evident by your own postings sir.

A 'World Citizen?!' I bet you are, because you sure as hell aren't one of us!

usnjay

Good article. I posted your original article on my site, but now I'm worried you may be wrong. We may have victory BEFORE 2008.

I'm kidding, but the progress of the surge has been remarkable. The 'surge of operations' has only been going on since mid-June, yet we've seen a dramatic drop in civilian attacks and ethno-sectarian deaths.

The up to date version of Petraeus' graph shows a continuation of the drop in violence (original is here: ( http://appealforcourage.org/public/Graphs/Graphs.aspx ). Also, we'll have about the same number of forces for 3 more months, with steadily rising numbers of increasingly competent Iraqi police and military.

Various anti-American groups have controlled the debate while the Iraqi democracy was being formed, they'll have a harder time of it now that is becoming stronger.

GK

usnjay,

I have linked to your link, within the article. The good news is - the public's support is rising.

Why? Containment of Nuclear Pakistan and Iran.
Simple.

Knock aside two dangerous bullies, and point tanks
at the alQaeda cartel's paymasters. Go ahead, send your mercenary contractors again.

Devious Saudi Arabia, tottering Egypt, and
wavering Turkey aren't nuclear...yet.

Islam breeds and sells soldiers. The Iraq theater is a quagmire- for THEM. We will be there till the wells run dry- about 20 years.

The Islamic Ummah (global nation) has always bred soldiers and financed it through slavery and imperialism. British borders and Nazi/Soviet trained dictators are only modern developments.

Afghanistan Taliban was merely a puppet government, created by Pakistan, and installed in Afghanistan after the Russians were run out. China has built at least one nuclear reactor and is building stealth subs in the port of Acer, Pakistan.
Glad to see your article on unnoticed Pakistan- Iran won't last.

Saddam was NEVER an ally, nor did he wish to join the "Western Club". Sanctions only work if you want in. Instead, Oil-for-Food paid for multiple attacks in the US, by a small cell as it moved from city to city. All blamed on Christian militias, airline fuel tanks, an anti-abortionist, and Osama bin Laden.

How contrived. How convenient. How politically correct.

Russia and China, revitalized by the previous administration, have been arming the jihadi Ummah. Soviet military has been training Middle Eastern armies since Stalin.

This is classic Cold War maneuvering.

Saul Wall

"First off, I know what's going on in Iraq from first hands, my relative happens to be there third term, front line,"

Drafted was he? Or does he enjoy working for a project that was doomed to failure from the start as some seem to wish?

Would you like to know why many people lump anti-war people in with al Qaeda? In my case it is because I listen to both groups and I am not alone in noticing that:

A) The anti-war folk see Christians (a group that I am personally very critical of myself) as no different than terrorist groups and theocratic totalitarians like the Taliban (i.e. These peace advocates are as insane as AQ).

B) They are politically and emotionally invested in a US failure in Iraq and a collapse of the democratically elected government in that nation to the point that news of progress there is offensive enough to drive them from the room or provoke derision and condemnation.

C) They publish and produce daydreams about assassinating the President and of American forces being chased out of Iraq from the roof of the embassy in a helicopter (hearkening back to that other nation that was liberated from tyranny only to be betrayed and surrendered to the enemy as I am sure South Koreans would have been if the anti-war Boomers had been old enough to wave the white flag).

D) When AQ makes an accusation and the US or Iraqi governments refute it the AQ version is always taken as the true version of events by the anti-war community.

Those are my top reasons.

Dave

Saul,
I do not agree with everything you have said, but I must say Bravo! Finally someone who sees a behavioral connection and shares it.

As for the points I disagree with- Here is why-

You say that 'a project doomed from the start'. What project are you referring to? If you are referring to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then let me ask you this- Why has no attack been made on US soil if the project is so doomed since 9-1-1? Also, please take into consideration that neither you nor I know everything that is going on behind the scenes. You can read conspiracy theories, one after another, and still be either back at square one, or down the wrong street completely, wrapped up in the BS that in truth, has less effect on your life then what would have been had 9-1-1 not happened at all.

2- I am a Christian (albeit not in the conventional form), and do not either support, or oppose any war. Wars have been part of our history as far back as we were in existence. Sure I wish that all those people did not have to die, but hey, gotta balance out the baby boomers somehow I guess.

2-Love what you said in point B, and agree with it. Great point :-)

3- Love C too. I feel inclined though to add though that some people do not want to see us lose, but from where they sit, the US pulling from Iraq would be a victory for the US. That many blind people makes you sad huh?

4-'True version of events'. I posted earlier how when I was an MP, two people involved in an incident can tell you two seemingly opposing stories, but if you actually sit down and think about, usually they were both telling the truth based on their point of view. This applies here to, only on a much more complex scale. Entire nations of many different minded people are involved, so of course each individual will have their own view point as to what is really going on. My way of looking at it, is that unless you have truly run a mission as a soldier, filed the intel reports, or analyzed the situation as whole, that you should not comment on it for bad or good. The problem is people who are not involved telling congress what to do because their sensibilities were offended. This of course makes an even larger debacle as the politicians force the generals to do what 'the American people want', ignorant of what is really going on, or ignoring what really needs to happen. I am a network technician, and I do my job, I will let them do theirs. Fight when you must, and make peace when you must. Enough said.

Dave

Saul,
I forgot to add:
It is not good to fight and kill with no good reason. However when the situation merits, it should not be an ignored course of action.

Also, the fact that your name is Saul, and that you are critical of Christians is very ironic. You see in the bible, a man named Saul used to flat out persecute Christians. One day he was struck blind for awhile and rethought his life. Later he became an apostle to Jesus and his name was changed to Paul. Or if your Catholic, St. Paul. LOL

GK

Saul,

You are right. As you know, I have been talking about the fifth-column in the US (8-10% of the US population), that has ideological common ground with AQ. Bin Laden's attempt to reach out to these potential allies of his is well-known.

SanFranciscoJim

So I take it this means that you have parted ways with the White House, which defines victory in Iraq as the following:

Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

I guess with your extremely limited goals now, there is a slight chance they will be achieved. The truth is, you will continue to lower the bar until you can claim "victory."

It would be a great thing if there was a peaceful, democratic, united and economically thriving Iraq by 2008. It would also be great if the Tooth Fairy came by and waved her magic wand and gave me $1M. Both are about equally likely to happen.

GK

Look how 'World Citizen' ran away once I pointed out that no elected Democrat in congress believes that Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA in order to get the Republicans elected.

GK

SFJim,

As usual, you are wrong again. I have not lowered the bar in any of my predictions (nor have any predictions turned out to be wrong yet).

I just said all of Iraq will not be sfe enough for tourism in 2008, although the Kurdish areas already are. They even have a casino.

You have never answered any of my questions regarding how to win the WoT, if you oppose the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so much. Since you have provided none, and display palpable glee in hoping for things to go worse in Iraq, shows that you are rooting for America to fail.

I support the war just as moderates like Joe Lieberman, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani do. That is the moderate position, as opposed to your anti-US one. Joe Lieberman was actually the Democrat's VP candidate in 2000, you know.

Here is a blog from military people that actually shows the progress being made from the Surge. Too bad they have individuals like you hoping for them to fail.


SanFranciscoJim

If I corrected all the nonsense you posted here, I would not have time for anything else. Particularly since you ignore the things I say and continue to project your own insecurities and fantasies on others.

There is no such thing as "War on Terror", it is entirely a political fiction created by the GOP to win votes. In this fashion, it is very similar to the "War on Drugs." Both exist primarily to frighten voters into supporting policy that is not in their best interest. As a "positive" side effect (from the pro-War point of view) they allow the GOP to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pocket of favored constituencies, who then return the favor with campaign contributions.

The best way to "win" an ideological conflict, which is what the ongoing 1000 year struggle between the forces of Liberalism and the forces of religious extremism is, is to demonstrate the superiority of your belief system. In The West, we had the Renaissance and the The Enlightenment, which finally demonstrated the power of rationalism and logic over superstition. Though we continually struggle with religious extremism and its consequences, especially here in America, we seem to have banished Theocracy for good.

Other societies will have to come to their own realizations about the best way to organize and manage their affairs. We can provide a good example and give economic incentives, but trying to change a society's fundamental way of organizing and thinking of itself by the use of force is doomed to folly. Short of genocide, or at least threatened and partially carried out genocide, I cannot think of a single historical example where this has worked. Can you?

What you imagine to be the "War on Terror" is more accurately realized as a battle in the long struggle between Islam and The West. The first nine crusades were failures. By what hubris did you think that the 10th would lead to success?

In fact, the War on Iraq has precisely accomplished the opposite of its stated goals:

1) It has emboldened the enemies of America and held them up to the Islamic world as defenders of The Faith against the "Great Satan" the United States.

2) It has weakened America politically, economically and militarily.

3) It has offended our allies and loosened the bonds of alliance with our natural partners in Europe.

4) It has distracted us in the global competition for resources and influence with China, which is a much more important competition.

This was all predictable (and predicted) before even the first shot was fired. Unfortunately, anger and emotionalism prevailed over common sense. But now an overwhelming majority of Americans have realized that the Iraq war has made us less safe. Maybe eventually you will come around to see it too.

SanFranciscoJim

If I corrected all the nonsense you posted here, I would not have time for anything else. Particularly since you ignore the things I say and continue to project your own insecurities and fantasies on others.

There is no such thing as "War on Terror", it is entirely a political fiction created by the GOP to win votes. In this fashion, it is very similar to the "War on Drugs." Both exist primarily to frighten voters into supporting policy that is not in their best interest. As a "positive" side effect (from the pro-War point of view) they allow the GOP to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pocket of favored constituencies, who then return the favor with campaign contributions.

The best way to "win" an ideological conflict, which is what the ongoing 1000 year struggle between the forces of Liberalism and the forces of religious extremism is, is to demonstrate the superiority of your belief system. In The West, we had the Renaissance and the The Enlightenment, which finally demonstrated the power of rationalism and logic over superstition. Though we continually struggle with religious extremism and its consequences, especially here in America, we seem to have banished Theocracy for good.

Other societies will have to come to their own realizations about the best way to organize and manage their affairs. We can provide a good example and give economic incentives, but trying to change a society's fundamental way of organizing and thinking of itself by the use of force is doomed to folly. Short of genocide, or at least threatened and partially carried out genocide, I cannot think of a single historical example where this has worked. Can you?

What you imagine to be the "War on Terror" is more accurately realized as a battle in the long struggle between Islam and The West. The first nine crusades were failures. By what hubris did you think that the 10th would lead to success?

In fact, the War on Iraq has precisely accomplished the opposite of its stated goals:

1) It has emboldened the enemies of America and held them up to the Islamic world as defenders of The Faith against the "Great Satan" the United States.

2) It has weakened America politically, economically and militarily.

3) It has offended our allies and loosened the bonds of alliance with our natural partners in Europe.

4) It has distracted us in the global competition for resources and influence with China, which is a much more important competition.

This was all predictable (and predicted) before even the first shot was fired. Unfortunately, anger and emotionalism prevailed over common sense. But now an overwhelming majority of Americans have realized that the Iraq war has made us less safe. Maybe eventually you will come around to see it too.

GK

SFJim,

If I corrected all the nonsense you posted here, I would not have time for anything else.

Bull. You have posted 20+ messages all over here, and nowhere do you answer simple questions. Time is certainly not your constraint.

This is a pretty cowardly way for you to surrender to defeat, but you have.

There is no such thing as "War on Terror", it is entirely a political fiction created by the GOP to win votes.

It appears inconvenient for you to acknowledge the many terrorist attacks before Bush was President : 1993 WTC bombing, the Kenya/Tanzania embassies, the 1983 Marine Barracks, the 1996 Khobar towers, the 2000 USS Cole, etc.

So what is your answer to that?

I cannot think of a single historical example where this has worked. Can you?

Germany, Japan, South Korea. You will probably quibble about the details, but what we are accomplishing in Afghanistan and Iraq is similar.

Plus, you still can provide no alternative ideas on how to better win against the terrorists. You have no business criticizing the current actions, then.

is more accurately realized as a battle in the long struggle between Islam and The West.

Not quite accurate. Thailand, India, etc. also suffer from terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists.

In fact, the War on Iraq has precisely accomplished the opposite of its stated goals:

1) It has emboldened the enemies of America and held them up to the Islamic world as defenders of The Faith against the "Great Satan" the United States.

Nope. Why are Iraqis more cooperative now that at any time in the last 5 years? Because they recognize that Al-Qaeda represents a far worse fate for them.

2) It has weakened America politically, economically and militarily.

Based on what? Simply chanting something you deeply wish for does not make it true. What facts do you have to support this?

3) It has offended our allies and loosened the bonds of alliance with our natural partners in Europe.

Wrong again. France and Germany voted out anti-US leaders and voted in pro-US leaders. Sarkozy of France actually wants to support us in military action against Iran.

Europe has moved much closer to a pro-US ideology in the last 2 years.

This was all predictable (and predicted) before even the first shot was fired.

Again, this proves you oppose even the War in Afghanistan, thus disagreeing with the 90% of the US population that supports the invasion of Afghanistan.

This makes you not anti-Iraq War, but anti-US in general.

But now an overwhelming majority of Americans have realized that the Iraq war has made us less safe.

You keep saying this without any proof or logic whatsoever. I have proven time and again with credible sources that your opinion is a small minority, and that more people are positive on the war than are negative (43-38 to be exact).

How do you account for the fact that the US has had no terrorist attacks int he last 6 years? It is hard to argue (intelligently) with such a resounding success.

Dave

SF Jim,
I think GK did an excellent job answering your last nonsensical pout. However I must add this:

You said 'There is no such thing as "War on Terror", it is entirely a political fiction created by the GOP to win votes.'
This has actually lost the GOP votes over the last 5 years (but they are starting to show up again). The polls speak for that. Any politician knows that growing into a war in which they cannot present all the facts to the public before doing so, will kill their career. So the reason for many of these on going wars was certainly not votes.

You also say 'they allow the GOP to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pocket of favored constituencies, who then return the favor with campaign contributions'. Favorite constituencies? Do you even know what that word means? I suggest you look it up. In a nutshell, it means a body of voters, a group of supporters, or a clientele. The money did not go back into my pocket, I will tell you that, so it can't be the voter option. It would not go to a group of supporters because that would be not only illegal, but edging on bribery on a MASS scale, so this leaves clientele. If you are referring to Halliburton, another defense contractor, or a really ballsy (pardon my French) construction company, then you need to do your homework, or at the very least learn to put two and two together. I will explain starting with Halliburton.
Halliburton was a company who accepted the job to 'rebuild Iraq', and needed a lot of capitol to do so for many reasons. I need only name two for you to get the idea- 1-You need to pay employees a lot to do ANYTHING in a hot zone. 2-Mostly after you rebuild something, the terrorists will do their best to knock it down again, thus making material highly expensive. These two do not even take into account the shipping and maintenance of both 1&2. Their stock never did reach an unreasonable hike as much of their profit was going towards recruiting and the previously mentioned points. Are they going to turn around and give back in contributions that made all this possible for them? YES THEY WOULD! Furthermore, if I had a company like that was doing a job that very few other companies would (and I mean actually go over there and do the job ,not just opening their mouths and talking big about what they would do), and made a nice profit on it, I would to! This goes back to an age old saying 'do not bite the hand that feeds you'. As for the other companies, they are in the same boat, and if you disagree with what I posted, then you stand against capitalism, one of the greatest freedoms (albeit the most abused), of this country.

'The best way to "win" an ideological conflict, which is what the ongoing 1000 year struggle between the forces of Liberalism and the forces of religious extremism is, is to demonstrate the superiority of your belief system.
Fair enough. Let me give you a better example then the BS ones you gave that were completely out of context given the culture and history of both.
To demonstrate your superiority due to your belief system does not necessarily mean that others will see it as superior. Remember that different cultures see things different ways. In Iraq, and through out many countries in the middle east, war has been flaring for thousands of years. If you wave a peace flag, you will either be shot, or evicted from such a place. Then came Saddam. He showed them a ‘Superior Belief’ alright- ‘Do as I say, or die!’. Well, obviously they chose to die (which was inevitable given circumstance). So, a forced peace was spread that lasted only through tyranny. Years later Saddam is out of power, and the 3 major religious based ‘tribes’, are fighting again. Fighting is mostly in their blood. To appeal to a fighter, one must fight. Call it a trial by combat if you will. The weak, or those who do not believe in fighting, look up to us for help. Those who continue to fight, need our help. Those who fight against us, and their fellow countrymen, must fight or die. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is the only way to stop a people who are bent on destruction (like GK said, witness WWII). Your problem is, you try to argue an ancient conflict, with a more modern ideal that was in a much different society with a completely different mindset. I am not trying to be rude when I tell you that I believe that you should start studying more history (trying to keep it relevant to the times and cultures) and remember to the ‘Human Element’. Also remember, in the real world Ideology + Realism= Idiocy that dooms itself to a certain end.

‘In The West, we had the Renaissance and the The Enlightenment, which finally demonstrated the power of rationalism and logic over superstition. Though we continually struggle with religious extremism and its consequences, especially here in America, we seem to have banished Theocracy for good'
The Renaissance was preceded by the black death. The Enlightenment was heralded by many bloody wars. In either case, both periods of peace were ushered in by very grotesque acts and disease with a total death toll that was unmatched in both Iraq and Afghanistan on a ratio basis. This is a swing in history my friend. History has never found a balance, but is more like a pendulum that swings from side to side. To reach an era of peace in any nation, that nation must grow through ‘growing pains’ if you will. This is not merely my opinion, but a fact demonstrated time and time again throughout history. Religious extremes??? Where did you come up with this conclusion? What other country can you go to where you can be Islamic, Christian, Mormon, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever, and find a place to worship (or not) with major persecution regardless of your belief? Religious extremes, is actually the opposite of what is. Religious extremes is what the terrorists practice. And in their religion, it may not be even considered extreme. Where they have a zero tolerance policy against other religions, we have the policy of complete religious freedom. This however might be one of America’s undoing’s because different religious outlooks breeds different mentalities which in turn breeds a divided nation. Yes, America has kind of shot itself in the foot on that one, but hey, abused freedom is the only thing that is making this country eat itself from the inside out.

GK,
Sorry for wasting your webspace..I’ll shut up now

John Bull

Interesting to see the same pointed arguments used by GK over & over again on the political postings on his blog. And of course when the rationalism gets too much there's always judicious use of the delete comment functionality.

The surge has apparently been moderately successful in stemming the enormous tide of sectarian violence that was, let's not forget, unleashed by the US-led invasion & occupation. It remains to be seen whether the violence returns when the troops leave, as many have predicted. This seems an especially pertinent fear since, as even GK notes, the Iraqi (puppet) government's control is weak.

It does seem likley that the US will have to have a sizeable contigent of troops in Iraq for some time, rather than being confident enough in the new (nominal) democratic structures installed to simply leave. So how can a decades long (somewhat reduced) occupation be considered an overall victory?

All the talk of al-Qaeda on an Iraq post is sophistry on GK's (& others') part. Never forget that there was not one shred of evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda or linking Iraq to any of the terrorist attacks that GK relexively trots out. (GK may now say that Saddam allegedly funded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.)

It is now undeniable that since the invasion & during the subsequent occupation, terrorist cells have been imported & trained in Iraq where there were none before. One could argue, as many Americans do, that it's better to fight & destory another country, than to risk another attack on US soil; from this perspective the invasion has been massively successful, although 3000+ US soldiers' lives have been lost (as well as untold [& ignored] Iraqi casualties).

It seems to me that yes, things might be marginally improving, or 'trending', but that this is because things couldn't have been any worse.

GK

John Bull, (an appropriate surname.... tee hee)

Interesting to see the same pointed arguments used by GK over & over again on the political postings on his blog.

Why change an effective winning strategy?

And of course when the rationalism gets too much there's always judicious use of the delete comment functionality.

Hold it right there. I have never deleted any non-profane comments here. Certainly, I have never deleted any of yours - I didn't need to when winning the debate was so easy.

That is a blatant lie. You are still bitter over thrashings I gave you months ago, it appears.

unleashed by the US-led invasion & occupation.

Of course, Saddam killing far greater numbers of people before 2003 is acceptable to you.

So how can a decades long (somewhat reduced) occupation be considered an overall victory?

By that measure, the fact that we still have tens of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan proves that there was no victory there. Thus, your point is weak.

not one shred of evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda

Wrong again. Names like Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are familiar to people knowledgeable about the subject. There was also the Salman Pak training camp. Plus, Saddam also had fingerprints all over the 1993 WTC bombing.

Furthermore, you avoid the inconvenient fact that Clinton bombed Saddam extensively in 1998 due to Saddam's WMD programs, and ties to the 1993 WTC bombing. Go educate yourself about Operation Desert Fox.

However, these facts will simply be ignored by someone too heavily invested in a US failure. Thus, I pose the same question that usually trips up people of your ilk :

If you disagree with the course taken, what are your better ideas for winning the War against Al-Qaeda and similar groups of terrorists?

John Bull

"I have never deleted any non-profane comments here. "...exactly my point, you do delete when the 'profanity' threatens to expose your so-called 'winning strategy'.

Do you think Saddam would have killed as many people since 2003 as the American-led invasion has? America's action resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands is better than deaths at the hands of Saddam?

So you're saying the troops in Germany & other parts of Europe are an occupying force? You don't seem to know much about troop movements or military strategy.

Followed by, as predicted, some tenuous 'links' (in your mind at least) to a couple of Palestinian terrorists, none of them supported by the Saddam government. The absolute lack of an al-Qaeda to Saddam link is not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the Senate too.

What has Clinton's bombing of Iraq got to do with al-Qaeda links to Saddam's Iraq? Why would I explain a point for you, unless you are clueless about it.

How do I become "heavily invested in a US failure" when acknowledging that things have improved with the surge whilst maintaining caution that things will improve once the surge is over, & whilst deploring the great loss of life, both US & Iraqi?
I think most sensible, realistic & compassionate human beings, unlike you, would do the same?

Dave

John Bull,
You are way out of your element here son. I explained in my last post how if your going to use a prior example in history or the like, that it needs to be relevant to the culture, time, and history of the nation in debate. Just like 'World Moron', you use examples and tabloid crap from CNN (the communist news network) that has no bearing on reality, and the only people who actually believe it, are people like you. John Bull as in full of bull s***, or John Bull with the thick skull of the animal and the intelligence level to match? I am not agreeing with GK just to agree, I actually do not agree with everything, but morons like yourself make it impossible not to.
For instance:
‘It remains to be seen whether the violence returns when the troops leave, as many have predicted. This seems an especially pertinent fear since, as even GK notes, the Iraqi (puppet) government's control is weak.’
This further proves the point I made awhile ago ‘once you grab a tiger by the tail, you must either hang on or stab away until it is dead, or it will turn and kill you’. Think about what you said. If we did not go to Iraq for terrorists and WMD’s, then that leaves one of two things: oil or liberating Iraq. Take oil- we have more then enough. Do you honestly believe that the US needs Iraq’s oil? Remember that Iraq was torching their own oil fields for almost a decade and a half now for internal political positioning of money and power. Why would have waited until 04’ to do something about it? Why would the US spend billions of dollars monthly to save a few billion in oil a year? Think about it, it wouldn’t! We sure did not go over there to free Iraq because they asked us to I will tell you that much. Think about that also. This leaves the original terrorist, or WMD’s. Both can easily go hand in hand. You have over 6000 square miles of desert. Hiding anything is not that difficult. Even with satellite surveillance, there is no way to see everything. Also keep in mind that because Al Qaeda is not a sect of people, but a religion-gone-wrong based threat. Therefore it is not secluded to a particular country. Keeping this fact in mind, remember that the terrorist were buying weapons from Saddam. Thus forming a symbiotic relationship between the two. If the US were to pull out of Iraq right now, the terrorist would take advantage of the weakened moral, economy, and military of Iraq, and through subversion, gain ground and support from them. You are right to say that their government is weak right now, but foolish to assume that it will remain that way. You are looking at the current state only, and ignoring the progress already made, and that continues to happen daily.

The rest of your idiotic remarks were handled quite well already, so I will stop here, but at least try to say something intelligent the next time you decide to let out some hot air.

Dave

J Bull brain,
'So you're saying the troops in Germany & other parts of Europe are an occupying force? You don't seem to know much about troop movements or military strategy'

Neither do you it appears. Once again, read history before spouting a portion of it like you actually know something.

Troops in Germany and Europe did in fact start out as ‘occupying force’. Yet even today, we train with them, give them an economical hand, and like GK pointed out, give them free security. This is also a great benefit to us in international relations. I know I lived there for some time. If you had half a clue what you were talking about, you would not have said what you just did.

Timeline went like this- War started. America goes in and did it’s thing with the help it’s allies. Main troop bodies pull out leaving what is called ‘contingency forces’. These forces then aided Germany in rebuilding, fending off potential parasites who would feed off of the host nation, and over 40 years later, are still there doing the above mentioned tasks, with the above mentioned benefits. The only difference now is that the enemy has changed. Germans fought bravely in WWII, and after getting to know many of them, they have my respect. Terrorists on the other hand go for unarmed targets mostly civilians. Instead of using the ‘steel against steel method’, they use the ‘kill the innocent and unwary’. They use this as a method to strike at what hurts most- forcing the loss of a loved one which is the most moral damaging thing you can do to make the enemy lose their cool. However the end result will be the same. They will be driven out eventually, and then things will happen just like they did in Germany, Europe etc. You idiot.

‘Followed by, as predicted, some tenuous 'links' (in your mind at least) to a couple of Palestinian terrorists, none of them supported by the Saddam government. The absolute lack of an al-Qaeda to Saddam link is not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the Senate too.’

GK has posted his sources and truth. Where are yours? Besides, remember that the senate controls the media by telling them what they want to hear at the time. Then people like like you listen and believe it with no further investigation on both sides of the fence, and start stupid rallies and protests that amount to nothing. Less then 7 months ago the senate was threatening to VETO Bush’s spending bill. Yet once the voting time was in, notice how quickly many changed their minds? Besides, I guarantee that you have not read a single paragraph out of that bill have you? Do me a favor. Read it and get back to me and then tell me what you think.

HAND

GK

exactly my point, you do delete when the 'profanity' threatens to expose your so-called 'winning strategy'.

No I don't. I have not deleted anything at all in ages, you cowardly liar. I don't need to - your illogical mind implodes upon itself.

Do you think Saddam would have killed as many people since 2003 as the American-led invasion has?

Yes, I do, as he was for decades. You are actually defending Saddam, who used chemical weapons against his own people. I know that leftists love it when brown people kill other brown people, but this is going too far.

America's action resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands is better than deaths at the hands of Saddam?

Saddam killed about 4 million. America has actually saved the lives of millions just by stopping the Oil-for-Food scandal. Those dying in Iraq today are being killed by terrorists, not by US troops. Why do you excuse the terrorists?

The absolute lack of an al-Qaeda to Saddam link is not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the Senate too.

Wrong. The Senate repeated said there ARE links, which is why Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards voted for the war. Even Al Gore spoke of Saddam's links to terror as far back as 1992.

So how are you going to avoid explaining this Al Gore video? Then again, we have established that you will go to great lengths to excuse and justify Al-Qaeda actions.

What has Clinton's bombing of Iraq got to do with al-Qaeda links to Saddam's Iraq?

er..that Clinton was concerned about Saddam's terror ties, which Gore was talking about since 1992. Pay attention, kiddo.

Lastly, you were too cowardly to answer my simple question :

If you disagree with the course taken, what are your better ideas for winning the War against Al-Qaeda and similar groups of terrorists?

You can't even answer simple questions, ignore solid sources (including video) that prove you to be wrong while simultaneously providing no sources of your own, and yet have to lie that I delete messages rather than admit to suffering a painfully visible defeat. My god, how do you even function out in the real world?

John Bull

Dave, you don't appear to know what ad hominem is? Here's an example: try putting down your "chicks with guns" magazine, read around, maybe some latin terms & try to overcome your obvious military brain-washing to make a point. Maybe those loose-zippered women you're so fascinated with, will like you a bit more if you do.

***

I always find it undermines the perpetrator's arguments, dumbs down the debate & feels a bit grubby, even GK doesn't usually employ it. Occasionally it's just too hard to resist though isn't it?

Watch this one get deleted by GK.

John Bull

"I have not deleted anything at all in ages" again reinforces my point that you do delete comments. You apparently use it as a tactic to hide 'profanity' yet surely if a contributor starts using profanity or calling names, they have lost & the best way to show that is to leave their comments up in full? I know I am happy to have everyone of my comments on show forever more.
We're all adults here, so deleting comments is obviously for a more insidious reason than profanity GK?

No, I am not defending Saddam but merely highlighting your moral dualism when it comes to the US inflicting deaths on a population against indigenous dictators inflicting deaths on a population.
So it's some how fine if people die by American hands in your eyes?

You cling so preciously to your beliefs, it's hard to fathom how clearly the no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda has to be stated for you to admit you are wrong. I admit I cannot encapsulate what the extensively researched, expertly verified & internationally agreed upon reports contain in an effort to make you see my point.
Most people have however woken up to the fact that they were deceived, but if you know better than the CIA who "confirmed...that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two [Saddam & al-Qaeda]" then be sure to correct me.
Do you know better than the Senate & the CIA?

A 10 minute youtube clip is evidence of Saddam links to some terrorist conspiracies that were concieved by an opposition politician in 1992, fully 15 years ago? This is one year after the first Gulf War; don't you think that the situation changed in that time & up to 9/11?
I have no interest in explaining & re-interpreting events from 15 years ago to fit the framework, at all costs, of my beliefs as you apparently do, but how does this dated clip prove a link between Saddam & al-Qaeda?

I couldn't persuade you of an alternative course of action in The War Against Terror if I typed solidly for the next week, that much is obvious! There are too many ambiguities & grey areas for someone like you to even begin to understand, let alone absorb & build upon.

What solid sources have you provided other than a 15 year old video clip? I provided mention of a Senate report compiled with CIA intelligence along with paraphrased thoughts of some of the generals on the ground in Iraq. And you have also admitted to deleting messages, it's there for all to see...at least it is at the moment.

GK

John Bull,

Quit lying that I delete comments. I certainly have not deleted any of yours. I don't need to - you demonstrate your stupidity in tremendous detail.

I realize that low-IQ leftists like you are not capable of telling the truth even if someone paid you, but this is something even other leftists don't stoop to.

1) You excuse Saddam's deliberate massacre of millions, and even to this day, refuse to acknowledge that bombs in markets, schools, etc. are from Al-Qaeda, not the us. Yet you laughably claim to be 'compassionate'.

2) The links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda go back 15 years, which is why Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry voted for the war.

This video clip of Al Gore shows that this was widely known to everyone since 1992. AL GORE. He was the Democratic VP for 8 years, and lmost became President in 2000, you know. This is strong proof that demolishes your argument. I provided rock-solid proof, now deal with it, loser.

I could mention that Tony Blair, Vladimir Putin, Bill Clinton, etc. also knew of Saddam's ties more recently than 1992, but if you deny the proof of even a video link, I don't see much value stating additional facts.

don't you think that the situation changed in that time & up to 9/11?

Oh yeah, it sure would make sense that Saddam's links to terrorism would thus miraculously become less by 2002, when his 1992 activities were going unchecked. Your beloved Saddam would never continue terrorism without reporting it honestly.

You are probably the 1 in a million people that gets swindled by those Nigerian scam emails, aren't you?

Meanwhile, you weakly wheeze that 'the Senate says there are no links', without providing any source. You merely 'mention' such a report as if that makes it true. Pathetic. You have lost this point as well.

3) You still dodge the simple question :

If you disagree with the course taken, what are your better ideas for winning the War against Al-Qaeda and similar groups of terrorists?

This question always trips up the anti-US crowd.

It is obvious that you want America to lose the War on Terror, as evidenced by your unwillingness to provide any constructive ideas to win it. Yet you are too cowardly to even admit your true allegiance.

Again, I restate :

You can't even answer simple questions, ignore solid sources (including video) that prove you to be wrong while simultaneously providing no sources of your own, and yet have to lie that I delete messages rather than admit to suffering a painfully visible defeat. My god, how do you even function out in the real world?


Democrats=Homocrats=Faggots

What an increasing magnitude of faggots we have here.

First, 'World Citizen', a faggotty name for sure.

Then, 'San Francisco Jim', a man who chooses for his name the most faggotty city in the world - a true haven of faggotism.

Lastly, 'John Bull', the most disease-laden faggot of them all. This faggot is so dumb that he will deny that the sky is blue, even if people point him straight to it (as John Bull is not 'straight' - get it? he he).

Liberalism/faggotism is rapidly being flushed down the toilet of history. It is currently clogging the toilet (John Bull(shit) is the metaphorical piece of shit here - get it? ha ha), and the progress of freedom and capitalism to Iraq will act as heterosexual drano to flush it down permanently, where it belongs. This is a brilliantly accurate analogy - ha ha ha ha.

Stupid faggots..

Dave

John Full of Bull,
‘You cling so preciously to your beliefs, it's hard to fathom how clearly the no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda has to be stated for you to admit you are wrong.’
You can state something all you want. It doesn’t make it true.

‘I admit I cannot encapsulate what the extensively researched, expertly verified & internationally agreed upon reports contain in an effort to make you see my point.’
That is because you have taken the reports out of context. You should know that the CIA and Senate rarely straight up lie. Mis-perception is much more effective at keeping the enemy from reading our media, and interpreting it. Think about it. The senate and CIA know quite a bit. What you need to remember is that the dumbest of them is smarter then you. I say this because with your mind set, you are obviously unable to find the truth mixed up through out many multi-national points of view as I will further point upon below.

‘Most people have however woken up to the fact that they were deceived, but if you know better than the CIA who "confirmed...that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two [Saddam & al-Qaeda]" then be sure to correct me.’
Note the key phrase -‘No evidence of Operational Co-Operation’. Think about it. This statement means (or at the bear minimum implies), two completely different organizations not co-operating to complete an operation. Now let me ask you this- If a rich actor buys thousands of dollars in drugs, then is he responsible for the dealer using that money to go buy a gun, and shoot someone who looked at him wrong? I posed this question to you because this is precisely what happened. A rich dictator bought a product from a terrorist cell at some point in time. The terrorist cell then takes the money, and goes to kill innocent people because they are too cowardly to outright fight, and that is a strong mans only weakness. So even though the CIA and Senate said that they never operated together( the English version of the above stated issue), they never said that one never provided funding for another in one way shape or form.

‘A 10 minute youtube clip is evidence of Saddam links to some terrorist conspiracies that were conceived by an opposition politician in 1992, fully 15 years ago? This is one year after the first Gulf War; don't you think that the situation changed in that time & up to 9/11?I have no interest in explaining & re-interpreting events from 15 years ago to fit the framework, at all costs, of my beliefs as you apparently do, but how does this dated clip prove a link between Saddam & al-Qaeda?’
Once again you misinterpret events and do not take cultural differences into account. When we ground Saddams army into nothingness back in Desert Storm, not only was he left with virtually nothing, but worse yet, his image to his people was on shaky ground, and he needed to rebuild fast. Oil being their main export was a viable source of income. More so because by destroying Oil wells in Kuwait, he had successfully made a world wide perception that the price of oil would then sky rocket. Now he had the money, but lacked the resources. All those tanks and weaponry had to come from someplace. If not the terrorists, then were? So obviously there is a link, you are just to blind to see it that’s all. And has the situation changed in the last 15 years? No, because Saddam still had to find arms dealers and place to stash his NBC weapons when we invaded. They were indeed there, but like I posted earlier, ‘With worldwide ties and over 6,000 square miles of desert, it is not that hard to hide anything’. Think about it and get back to me.

John Bull

GK,
Let's back up here, as you seem confused. I stated that you delete the occasional comment & you readily admitted that you have done in the past, ergo, you do delete comments. Why would I need to lie about something you have admitted to? You said it's for profanity, I refute that.

Again let's re-state so you can clear your head. Nowhere did I excuse Saddam 'massacring millions' as you state, I just noted what is self-evident, that a great deal of sectarian violence was unleashed by the invasion. This is one of the main reasons for the 'surge' policy!

To digress, it could even be argued that Saddam's "millions" were as a result of his invasion of sovereign countries in an effort to control more of the oil in the region.

Again I'll restate that there is a wealth of sources which categorically states that there was "no evidence of ties between Saddam & al-Qaeda". Because I know you have limited faculties I'll help you out, although it is astoundingly easy to find evidence that upsets your blinkered worldview. You will also find links to the Senate reports, 9/11 Commission reports, CIA comments, etc. on the link I have provided.

Even Dave can acknowledge the facts in those reports; I have more respect for him as he refutes them, at least he doesn't deny them. It is though, a well-known psychological pathology that people will ignore all evidence to arguments they hold dear.

The clip, hmmm, this is rock solid proof is it? What about this rock solid proof: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." So claimed Al Gore in an August 7 [2003] speech. Again, easy to find.
How do you explain Gore's comments here?

Why would I have a better plan for winning this war? I happily admit that I don't, that's why I'm not a politician! Do you deny my freedom to even have an opinion on it? I am a fervent defender of the freedoms of the western world, including my right to express an opinion, so why would I want to see the US fail? I abhor loss of life, is this the same as wanting the US to fail?

John Bull

Hey homophobe, you are of course aware that it's well-documented in studies, that those who exhibit the most homophobia are those that are most aroused by homosexual images.
I would imagine though that being cooped up in barracks at close-quarters, in hot & sweaty weather, with a lot of great fighting guys on hazardous duty tours, would make you somewhat confused orientation-wise: heck you really care for those guys, so it's understandable, but honestly, less of the hating, it's not healthy.

John Bull

Hey Dave, I guess it took you approximately 47 minutes to write your last post. Either that or you think I was born yesterday?

At least you are more intellectually honest than GK. You refuse to take the evidence on good faith, & have an opinion on why the evidence is presented as it is, which I entirely respect, although I obviously disagree.

GK

John Bull,

Why would I delete comments from someone who is so easily beaten and so unable to answer simple questions.

1) I provided proof of Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda and other terror groups. Period. You did not address my points about many prominent Democrats believing the same for many years. Plus, you did not have the courage to admit to the existence of Abu Nidal, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Abbas, or the Salman Pak training camp. The 9/11 commission report is ONLY about 9/11, not the myriad of other attacks and activities worldwide (Duh!).

Why do you continue to run from the fact that US policy to remove Saddam for his terrorist ties/WMD programs was official US policy since 1998. Have you ever heard of the 1998 'Iraq Liberation Act'? Did you know that 1998 is before Bush was President?

Again Al-Qaeda is MUCH more than just one person (OBL) and one attack (9/11) I think this is the crux of your tunnel vision. Saddam worked with a wide range of terrorists in Al-Qaeda and beyond. Perhaps Osama was not one of the thousands he funded and worked with.

I never claimed Saddam had ties to 9/11. Al-Qaeda is far, far more than just Osama and 9/11. Saddam did have involvment in the 1993 WTC bombings via Ramzi Yusuf.

I presented proof, you refuse to even acknowledge it as it punctures your Saddam-exonerating delusions. I win, you lose.

2) The running theme in all your babbling is that you can't acknowledge anything Saddam has done as bad, whether supporting Al-Qaeda terrorists since 1992, gassing his own people, invading Kuwait, etc. You also cannot seem to admit that innocent deaths in the US are caused by terrorist, not by US soldiers killing innocents (as you claim). Your reluctance to condemn virtually any terrorist is becoming more prominent.

3) Why would I have a better plan for winning this war?

Then what business do you have criticizing current actions? Why does anything you say have any value, other than to recite dogma that you memorize, but deflates with simple proof (that I provide and you flee from). Sure, you have the freedom to advertise your ignorance. I have to freedom to pulverize it into increasingly finer dust.

I notice your increasing proportion of ad hominen attacks and namecalling. This is evidence of your own tacit admission of having lost this debate, and the deepening humilation and shame you are feeling for having such a stubbornly held opinon disproved so thoroughly and easily.

wardog

Modern Wars are simply not winnable. No major power has won a war in modern era.

Dave

Wardog,
Conventionally speaking you are 100% correct. However in that line of thought, very few wars have ever been won. One war spurns retribution. At the very least, leaves hard feelings, etc. Sometime later, the country that was conquered has rose back up to start again. This is not my opinion but historical fact. To say a 'modern war is simply not winnable', is in the eyes of the beholder. Define winning a war. This in and of itself is a highly debated topic among today's leading historians, and I have yet to see a decisive answer. The closest answer that I personally agree with would be this: At the conclusion of the fighting, peace is made, and maintained on both sides for the good of both powers involved. This is possible, but to have it accomplished, needs understanding on both sides of the fence.

Given the culture of the opposing forces involved, this is possible, but as I have hinted to in my previous postings, the US needs to be more stubborn then the terrorists to win it.

What makes terrorism so hard to combat, is the fact that they play on the emotions of fear, a twisted outlook on justice and retribution, and to never play by the rules. They are masters of subversion, and undeniably good at what they do.

Now that I have gotten this far, I feel then need to add a personal frustration of mine. Why are we the only ones who follow the Geneva Conventions as best as we can? Furthermore, how can people call themselves Americans, then have the audacity to criticize our troops and government for 'going to far?'
These people torture, capture and behead, kill and threaten innocents on a daily basis, and much much worse. They disguise themselves as non-combatants, attack our troops, then send a video into CNN showing a troop shooting what appears to be a civilian, but had conveniently dropped his weapon right before the camera zooms in. And of course they leave out the footage of a troop screaming because he just had a leg blown off by an IED that was set off by one of these disguised menaces.
Then you have these 'peace rallies' held by a bunch of college kids who have never lived anywhere on their own save the college campus and mommy and daddies house, saying that the troops are the 'killers of the innocent'. What is worse, is that these same college students in many cases receive extra credit from their professors for going to these rallies! This is a very sickening event that is just as disgusting as two veterans getting charged for tearing down a mexican flag placed above the American flag on US soil (which is a crime itself)! This country needs to place its liberalistic bulls*** behind, and recover the it's self-worth that our forefathers fought so hard for. I tell everyone the truth, any man who condemns this war (started by an unprovoked attack killing not armed troops, but innocent civilians), and shows 'understanding and sympathy' for those who kill our innocents and troops alike, are guilty of subversion, and should be placed in prison. Sure the US has the 'freedom of speech', but this has not only gone to far, but has been abused to the point where it is threatening to rip this country apart from the inside out.

SanFranciscoJim

Which America-hating, leftist extremist made the following remarks?

"There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," he told a group of military reporters, according to a copy of his remarks.

"America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve 'victory' in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," he said.

Without mentioning President George W. Bush by name, he called the president's troop-escalation "surge" strategy a "desperate attempt by an administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war."

"There is no question America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he said.

He aimed his sharpest attacks at the White House National Security Council, headed during his Iraq tenure by now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "Our National Security Council has been a catastrophic failure," he said, blaming the council for adopting a strategy that overly relied on the military and failed to effectively mobilize the government.

"America has not been fully committed to win this war," he said. "Partisan politics have hindered this war effort."

Sanchez said military commanders on the ground would continue to make progress in Iraq, providing time in which a "grand strategy" could be developed. But he predicted the effort would be wasted and in the meantime U.S. troops "will continue to die."

He urged that the U.S. force presence be quickly reduced "given the lack of a grand strategy." But the United States had no choice but to stay in Iraq, given the prospects of regional instability if it withdrew suddenly, he said.

"There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope," he said.

Can you guess who said that?

Dave

SF Jim,
Ex-3 star general Sanchez. I do not know where you are going with this though SF Jim. You are either setting up GK to agree with you then play the 'but he is a general who opposes the war' card, or you genuinely mean what you say. Either way his comments mean nothing. There is a reason he is 'former' pentagon brass.
I have listened to, and read his little speech. Some of it I agree with, and some I do not. I shall explain.
The war started in Iraq for many reason. WMD’s, oil, the spread of democracy, and even to crush it’s support of terrorism. I believe that each one of these played a role in why we went to Iraq, and that each one was in fact a real reason. I think I have already talked about this before in a previous comment, but if not, just let me know, and I will explain further. But I will continue on.
Iraq has never been a stable country since recorded history. It has a long history of forming alliances with other countries to better their position. The government there has never been stable either as it is overthrown just about every 50 or so odd years. In follow up to many of these overthrows, the country experiences a brief period of peace before going back to fighting. Just read the history of this country for the facts, and leave the opinionated BS out, and you will see just how messed up it is.
Sanchez was familiar with the country and it’s history, and probably saw no room for change, making him a ‘History is doomed to repeat itself’. In that line of thought, what he said was absolutely correct. However when foreign powers got involved, and more influence from other countries showed itself, the country began to shift a little to adapt towards a new mindset. This has always been true of any war. Moving on.
Within the next hundred or so years, there is a good chance that Iraq will yet again, ride the wheel of history, and turn on itself again. However in the next 1-10 years, there is a really good chance that they will enjoy learning what it means to be free, and living a more open life with less fear from their government. However the end of that peace will be triggered by an event that will take its toll on the Iraqi people. War, plague, famine, who knows? Anyway, when this event happens, the people will again know fear. And once again, there will be those who will take advantage of it, and plummet the country back into war. This is not my opinion but a historical fact riding the exact same pattern it always has. US influence or not.
Many people berate the US and claim that Iraq has fallen because of us. The truth of the matter is that it was never stable to began with. It has always been a country ruled by fear, where the strong would prey on the weak. What the US did was step in and give it a fighting chance at something it has never truly had before. This new point of view may leave a lasting impact, or it may not. But the truth remains that the US is doing a truly noble (albeit a little stupid thing). True people are dying on a daily basis. But no more then what was already. For the world to blame the US for trying to free Iraq, would be the equivalent to the US blaming England for making us fight for our country. In truth, there is a lesson here in life my friend. This lesson is simple, and can be understood by all- If you want something bad enough, you will fight hard to obtain it. The more tenacious and powerful fighter will win. Just remember- be careful what you fight for as you may just receive it. When you fight, make sure that you know what to do with what you fight for, lest it turn on you later.
The one thing that Sanchez is partly correct on, is that there is no end in sight (in reference to the war). The war will end with a tentative peace in the Iraq area. But as soon as soon one of the events happens as I discussed above, will plummet to war again. Has been that way throughout history, and will certainly not stop now.
GK, what do you think?

GK

Dave,

GK, what do you think?

It turns out that the media misreported Sanchez's words, and he is not quite as anti-US as the fifth-column was hoping.

So SF Jim has made a fool of himself for the umpteenth time.

Those who attempt to present the 2% of Generals that oppose the war (which Sanchez is not among, as per the above) as the majority view, while ignoring the 98% that support it, are silly people who don't assess facts dispassionately, and cherry-pick even the thinnest wisps in order to confirm their ignorant, anti-American narratives.

SF Jim has openly stated that he does not have a problem with MoveOn's 'Betray US' ad. Nevermind that most Democrats did condemn it, and General Petraeus is a non-political figure who is currently in charge of the war.

Regarding freedom in Iraq, after several retrenchments, the tide towards liberty is now irreversible. Muslims across the world have cooled in their opposition to the war due to the real gains they see in Iraq. In fact, the Kurdish Areas have already become what we had hoped they would. The goal now is really just to get the rest of Iraq on par with the Kurdish areas.

Anti-US war protesters are significantly behind the curve here.

US occupation will certainly continue for many years, just as we still have troops in Germany and Japan for 62 years, South Korea for 54 years, Bosnia for 10 years, and Afghanistan for 6 years.

John Bull

Exactly my point again GK, you don't need to delete posts from "easily beaten" people, just those that aren't. I've seen it with my own eyes & that more than all the witless comments makes me wonder why I bother coming back.

But anyway let's rehash again: what proof did you provide of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda? All I saw was a 15 year old movie clip & a scatter of names. In anyone's book but yours that is not evidence, it's conjecture, so provide your readers with a link to an objectively verifiable & credible report which states that Saddam had firm links to al-Qaeda & their attacks.

This is quite tedious but if you even took the time to look up the names you glibly provide you will see that:
Abu Nidal - palestinian terrorist, murdered in Iraq by Saddam's government.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - responsible for post invasion attacks in Iraq.
Abu Abbas - palestinian terrorist.
Your alleged terrorist-traning camp at Salman Pak is no such thing as established by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence...unless you know better than the CIA?
(Maybe you can't tell us as it would blow your cover?)
Operation Desert Fox - failure to comply with UN resolutions, not an attack on terrorists (because there were none there!).

Quite an embarrassment when your 'proof' is so easily seen for what it is: rhetorical hyperbole with no veracity whatsoever. You even partially acknowledge your confusion & the complete lack of any link between Saddam & al-Qaeda: Perhaps Osama was not one of the thousands he funded and worked with.
Perhaps so because Osama is a Saudi billionaire in his own right, with money made from exporting oil to the Western world: did you know this?
If thousands of terrorists had been funded by the Saddam government surely there would be more evidence especially as his regime has now been toppled? Why is there a lack of evidence for your arguments, indeed all the objective investigations show the opposite: no links to terrorist organisations & categorically no links to al-Qaeda

I notice that you have dropped the Al Gore video clip as proof after I provided a quote (11 years after the video clip). Can you explain why you have dropped the argument, because you felt the video clip was crucially important in previous posts?

Which parts of my argument have I memorized? How could I have done if I have spent most of my time exposing the "evidence" you have provided in your previous postings; by its very nature debate is reactive, incompatible to memorization: but why am I even having to point this out?

So you managed to look up ad hominem, please show me where I initiated an ad hominem argument.

This is all a pity because I initally commented to admit I was wrong in expecting the surge policy to be another mistake (on top of so many). I have every right to express my opinion & criticize current actions, both as a free person in a democracy & especially as a taxpayer who pays for the war. Do you seek to deny my rights?

Does the vision of your perfect world deny dissenters a voice if that dissent runs contrary to your opinion? I think that is at the crux of your defensiveness & blinkered world view & why you react so badly to so many comments posted here. Sad.

brokerdavelhr

JB,
‘But anyway let's rehash again: what proof did you provide of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda? All I saw was a 15 year old movie clip & a scatter of names. In anyone's book but yours that is not evidence, it's conjecture, so provide your readers with a link to an objectively verifiable & credible report which states that Saddam had firm links to al-Qaeda & their attacks.’

I have already address this but will do so again. Put simply, Saddam had to get his resources somewhere. After desert storm, he had lost face with his people, and not to mention 90% of his war machine. Tanks do not grow on trees brother. Okay, let me put this another way. He has oil, which is the only true source of income for him. So he has the money. Now, do you honestly believe that Saddam (after getting a complete and utter ass whooping in 91) would turn around, go against UN, and US wishes, and continue to make himself a world class pain in the ass? No. Not unless he had some sort of backing of support from another source to commit himself fully to another engagement with the US. In Clinton’s time, there was no real need to attack, or harass the US. After all, Clinton had pulled back the big bad US forces, allowing Saddam to rebuild. So he bided his time. Now fast forward to the last five years. Even before we caught Saddam, his troops began to once again burn oil fields of not only his country, but the surrounding ones as well. Why would he do that? Why would this guy cut off a lucrative resource that would fund him? The only logical answer- to get the worlds attention to show he is serious. Once again, he knows that if he acts alone, the US will stomp will stop him before he even starts. So, he must have other support. In 02 (about the time a campaign against Iraq was launched) , the US troops were fully committed to Afghanistan and a number of other places around the world. This means that someone was whispering in his ear that we were spread out and unable to take decisive action against him. This would be easily believable considering the fact that the US was just struck a major blow on it’s own soil, and that the US was in a frenzy. This is all in stage one.

Stage two- Saddam now has the worlds attention, and is capitalizing more and more on the situation. Oil prices sky-rocket (back then many on wall-street thought this top be the end of the world). Saddam is told by the US and UN alike that he must allow UN weapon inspectors to come and search his country. He denies the allegations, and 3 months later, finally allows the UN inspectors in. 3 months is more then ample time to break down factories, and move what you have to move to avoid detection. Of course at this point the UN inspector finds nothing but old expended fuel rods, and only faint traces of anything remotely harmful. There’s a big surprise. By the way, all this is well documented throughout not only the public national news, but in many UN and private reports that can be Goggled and read. By now, Saddam knows that the US has nothing to go on, so he intensifies his actions. Much like a two year old testing their limits. Anyway, all these events lead to 3 questions that need to be answered before it can be said that he had no ties to the terrorists. 1- Where did his weaponry come from? 2- Where did the NBC R&D material and product go? 3- Why did a country that has a history of using brute force for warfare, suddenly change tactics to guerilla and terror warfare?

If you will remember correctly, during Desert Strom, and any other Iraq conflict in modern history, Iraq has always done head to head fights. Fast forward once again to 03. The US is in full attack mode and Saddam is now in hiding. His armies lay scattered throughout the desert, many surrendering in droves of thousands. Then it happens. The guerrilla warfare starts. IED’s and ambushes now cover the killing field. This is not an Iraq based tactic. Never has been.

Want to know another theory? How about this: The terrorist know that Saddam has an ego the size of New York city. They also know that he learned a hard lesson the first time. Desert storm proved that Iraq cannot stand 2 months against the US before becoming combat neutralized. So 9-11 happens. They show Saddam that hurting the US is not only possible, but not that hard to do. They also accomplished the goal of making the US attack by making Afghanistan the focal point of the US retribution. They use this as proof to Saddam that they can in effect not only control the US, but to hurt us as well. They know that is not true, but they play upon Saddam’s ego. So Saddam begins to forge ties with them. The US get’s tired of his little games and comes for him. He of course expected this, but knew that he could rely upon the terrorist for support. However before this happens, he is sent into hiding due to the pressure applied when the US searches for him after decimating his armies. The terrorists seize the opportunity to prey upon the weakened Iraq nation and encourage Anarchy. This will not only weaken the already spread to thin US (in their eyes), but give them the fear card to continue establishing support in the now ripped country. Ever wonder why the guerilla tactics did not start full force until after Saddam was captured? Ever wonder why all attempts to unite or bring peace to Iraq is attacked by the terrorists? The answer is simple. If peace is established in Iraq, and a stable gov’t gets into power, then they loose the opportunity to make a strong semi-country of their own. Another clue that points to this theory is this: There are three main religion based tribes in Iraq. The possibility of each one ever being truly happy showing throat to another is nil. They put up with it because they are tired of war, and need a break, but not truly happy. Terrorism is also religion based. The terrorists are crafty enough to use this card also to gain recruits and resources. They will attempt to break up Iraq at all costs, so that they may settle in whatever portion they deem worthy for their needs. How is that for a theory GK?
One thing I think you are completely wacked out about JB, is how much stock you put into what Al Gore says. He is a moron (who won a Nobel Peace Prize based off of politics because there is no scientific truth to his Inconvenient truth at all), and a hypocrite who preaches to others how they need to stop their ways, but continues to go against what he preaches on a daily basis. Find me one speck of truth in anything substantial point he makes, and I will stand corrected. I will put it this way- if you put as much stock in this clown as you do with your objections to GK’s comments, then you need to go back to pre-school with World Jack-Ass and start getting an education from day one.

GK

John Bull,

I've seen it with my own eyes & that more than all the witless comments

Lie as much as you want, I have not deleted anything. There is no need to.

makes me wonder why I bother coming back.

Because your subconscious is forcing you to return to the place where you may receive education about the world in which you reside, despite the squealing resistance your conscious 'mind' exhibits. This is textbook psychology.

You have lost this debate in utterly humiliating manner, and would rather resort to direct avoidance of factual sources provided. The inner agony of this is unbearable for you.

Regarding proof of Al-Qaeda, you choose to simply ignore the rock-solid proof I repeatedly provide. I simply have to copy and paste the same paragraph as before :

"1) I provided proof of Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda and other terror groups. Period. The 9/11 commission report is ONLY about 9/11, not the myriad of other attacks and activities worldwide (Duh!).

Why do you continue to run from the fact that US policy to remove Saddam for his terrorist ties/WMD programs was official US policy since 1998. Have you ever heard of the 1998 'Iraq Liberation Act'? Did you know that 1998 is before Bush was President?"

Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were funded by Saddam. Zarqawi had ties to Uday, which is why he came to Iraq. The 1993 WTC bombing was by terrorists with links to Saddam (I notice you have avoided that point in particular).

Regarding Salman Pak, your own Wikipedia link says">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility#Iraq_Survey_Group">says the following:

" The facility had also been a key center of Iraq’s biological chemical weapon program. In 1989 and 1990, the laboratories in the complex researched anthrax, botulinum, clostridium, perfringens, mycotoxins, aflatoxins, and ricin.[1][2]"

Ha ha!!! I have exposed that you don't even read your own sources, and hence fall into the comical humiliation of me using your own sources to support my facts.

Again, even Al Gore was commenting on Saddam's ties with terror since 1992 (particularly since Salman Pak was in operation since 1989, as per your own source), as did Bill Clinton in 1998. Your extreme discomfort with this inconvenient yet indisputable fact is pitiful.

Saddam government surely there would be more evidence especially as his regime has now been toppled?

I have provided 15 years of evidence and multiple names. Accept the facts, and get over it.

I suppose you will now claim that Iran has no ties to terrorist organizations?

Lastly, I must again press you on your extreme disinterest offering any ideas to fight the WoT any better than it is currently being fought (despite being asked 4 times now). This, quite obviously, exposes you as a creature who glibly feels you have the moral authority to criticize something (even to the extent of excluding facts that don't fit your narrative), without any obligation to provide better ideas.

In other words, you have nothing of value to offer.

Does the vision of your perfect world deny dissenters a voice if that dissent runs contrary to your opinion?

On the contrary, I address points in a fact-based manner, while you avoid them. Projection is natural for delusional anti-Americans.

You will become increasingly angrier as the news from Iraq gets better and better. Stop to think what type of person you have become..

brokerdavelhr

JB,
Also I feel inclined to add that I do not refute a report. I just read it for what it was . You read the quote you listed by the CIA to say that there was no ties that link Saddam and Al-Queda. They never said that anywhere in the report. They just said that they had 'no operational ties with'. Stop reading into stuff man.
Also, please stop with the Latin philosophical cliches . They have no place here as we are discussing a non-Latin based region of the world, and a completely different mindset. Just because a fellow is not using Latin phrases and concepts in his arguments, does not make them either ill-educated, or slow-witted. It just means that in this case it does not apply. I know damn well what ad hominem is, and would say that yes, I do attack your character and persona. However I also strongly back up what I say with fact. If you are going to use Latin phraseology sir, please use it right. You remind of a little kid who learns a new word and uses it even when not appropriate just to show the world how smart he is. SHAME ON YOU! :- ) Do I attack your personality and character ? YOU BET! Especially when you take anything you hear, put your own spin on it (see my initial paragraph for proof), and preach it as truth. Had you not done this, I would never have launched a personal attack on you. Also, stop it with the hypocrisy! You ride GK and myself with your own personal attacks (meanwhile stating your spins on reality as truth), and then do it yourself! If this is all you are, then you definitely belong in the same category as 'World Pea-brain'.

John Bull

This is getting quite circular, but here we go again, I can also cut-&-paste ad nauseum:
I didn't lie about deleting comments, you admitted that you have done/do.

As for why I come back you may be correct for once, it might be my subconsious but it's the same subconscious that makes people slow down to look at car crashes; I swing by to look at the car crash of your 'arguments' & I wonder how a person (i.e., you) continues to walk away apparently unscathed from the carnage he's created. The only squeals are from my laughter at your absurd & clown-like behavior.

Again:
"What proof did you provide of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda? All I saw was a 15 year old movie clip & a scatter of names."
"Provide your readers with a link to an objectively verifiable & credible report which states that Saddam had firm links to al-Qaeda & their attacks".
Until you do so you will remain utterly discredited.

In particular a 15 year old video clip is not 15 years of evidence GK, that's a lack of comprehension of basic English.

It should also be obvious to anyone with a decent high school education that the 9/11 report obviously deals with the causes (i.e., the terrorist(s) groups who perpetrated it) & its consequences (i.e., recommendations on Afghanistan & alleged links to Iraq). It's amazing that you seek to deny the basic coverage of the report. Do you deny that an investigation of 9/11 would not look at where the attackers came from?

Well done on (partially) reading a source, although somewhat embarrassingly you were apparently unable to get even halfway through & completely missed the section entitled alleged connections to terrorism even though it is directly underneath the sentence you managed to read. Furthermore I assume the US & UK (as well as many others, maybe even Israel) have facilities for biological & chemical weapons programs - does that make these sites terrorist training camps & those countries sponsors of terrorism?

Again:
If Al Gore was so convinced why in 2003 did he state "the evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction."
How do you explain Gore's comments here?

One of your favorites, the 1993 WTC attack was carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists, in fact "the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing used a manual written by the CIA for the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan". Again with this attack there is no link between Saddam's Iraq & al-Qaeda. Please show me any report that has stated that there is.

Where are your facts & evidence GK? You cling desperately to the latest right-wing conjecture as though it's gospel & dismiss every single iota of evidence that points to the contrary. Is such good news as Turkey's threatened invasion of northern Iraq, the ongoing murder of civilians by foreign terrorists fighting America, or murders due to an unleashed sectarian strife what you had in mind?

Again:
"I have every right to express my opinion & criticize current actions, both as a free person in a democracy & especially as a taxpayer who pays for the war. Do you seek to deny my rights?".
Let me explain for you: in a democracy I need offer no alternative, rather I listen, read & consider the options & then vote for the party that most advocates what I think may be the right approach. It's not easy to come up successful strategies in well-known world flashpoints however it is easy to not make ill-thought-out, poorly planned & ignorantly taken decisions based on personal ego & a faith that one is correct no matter what the evidence to the contrary, & which costs thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of lives.

John Bull

Dave, brokerdavelhr, Democrats=Homocrats=Faggots, whatever...

As I've said to you before unlike you I'm not down with an ad hominem style of arguing or homophobia. I've never called GK or you a name. I am incredulous at the comedy value of his so-called arguments which I suppose denigrates him somewhat, but I haven't called him a name outright.

Carry on regardless though because it means I then don't have to pay attention to your long-winded & no doubt spurious screed. Even if there is a point in there somewhere, I'm darned to be bothered to find it amongst the gibberish!

John Bull

Are you compis mentis? Where would Harry Potter be without his spells cast in latin? What about Cicero's magnificent speeches, admired by JFK amongst others, or Caesar's alea iacta est?
The English language is so much poorer without latin, it is after all based upon in it.

John Bull

Casus belli is another indispensible one pertaining to this 'debate'.

brokerdavelhr

John Bull,
An ad hominem attack is not just name calling (which you call GK a liar so you do that anyway), but also making an attempt to dis-credit the person making the argument (as you have also done). So yes, you do in fact use this.
I will ignore the compis mentis comment as I considered the source :- ).
I was unfamiliar with the Casus belli statement. Looked it up and the true definition does not apply at all.
Now, I will do something I never usually do and apologize, and start over. Sorry for attacking your character more then I did your arguments. I will restrain myself from doing so as best I can in the future. Moving on.
I am not insulting you, just asking a question. You stated: ‘"What proof did you provide of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda? All I saw was a 15 year old movie clip & a scatter of names."
"Provide your readers with a link to an objectively verifiable & credible report which states that Saddam had firm links to al-Qaeda & their attacks”’

And then said that GK is not speaking English right (an ad hominem by the way given circumstance). You go on to say that this video clip provides no proof at all. Yet you yourself stated earlier that the CIA and congressional report that read "confirmed...that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two [Saddam & al-Qaeda]". It never once says in that statement that Saddam had no dealings with the al-Qaeda. It just says (and quite plainly) that they never worked an operation together. This is not my opinion, but fact. Seriously, break it down, and read it. You accuse GK of putting stuff in, but then you go and do the same thing, stating that it is fact when it actually contradicts what has been said.

You also said ‘If Al Gore was so convinced why in 2003 did he state "the evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction.” ’.

Once again, not even Al Gore said that they never worked together, or had any mutually beneficial dealings. What he said was ‘Saddam did not want to work with’. First of all, he is stating something that only one person on earth could have confirmed, or denied – Saddam himself can confirm his wants. At that time John, Saddam was putting off the UN weapons inspection. He successfully did this for over 3 months! All I want to know is, what makes Gore so certain that Saddam did not want to work with al-Qaeda? Did he ask him? Furthermore, why would he trust him? Of course Saddam would say no because he knew that the entire US was out for blood, and that confirmation would have made him the new #1 target. Also take into consideration that at the time, the US was accusing him of having WMD’s. If he were to say yes- he would have been forced to dismantle, and cease all R&D on the WMD’s. He then would have had to account for every single armament produced. So he said no. This is inconsistent with the known nerve agents (which he even used on his own people!) that he had used (well documented once again in the media and through private research) previously. So obviously he had used them in the passed, and because Clinton never made him de-mil them when he pulled the troops out when he got elected (a not-so-brilliant move by the way), where did his left-over’s go?
Maybe he did not give the WMD’s to the terrorist. Maybe he just had them stashed (once again easy to do in over 6,000 square miles of desert). Either way, it DOES NOT mean that he never had dealings with al-Qaeda. All evidence to this point (both circumstantial and non alike) point to this. Did I see it with my own eyes? No. Do I believe everything the papers say? Obviously not. However I have been around the block and familiarized myself with enough of the contributing factors to say that Saddam did indeed have ties with al-Qaeda. Why else did he commit acts of atrocities on only select religious groups in Iraq? I am sorry John, but your point of view is now in direct conflict with all facts. If I have mis-spoken, or you have proof otherwise, then PLEASE TELL ME!

‘I have every right to express my opinion & criticize current actions, both as a free person in a democracy & especially as a taxpayer who pays for the war. Do you seek to deny my rights?’

That’s right John, you do. You are an American citizen therefore entitled to speak your peace. I am not arguing this one bit. The fact that you stick up for your point under fire says that you also have done some homework on the matter. No one is seeking to deny you your rights. GK did not even delete your comments, continuing to uphold those rights. But I must say this- If you allow an opinion to over ride fact, and then try to make our nations leaders act on it, then you must be 100% correct when you do. For if you are even off by a hair, a decision will be made that effects millions. If you want to speak for yourself, then that’s fine. But if you actually expect our nations leaders to follow through on your twisting of words (which I have pointed out above that you have done), then count me out. I do not know whether you are deliberately doing it, or by mistake, but right now, your line thought is in direct feed to benefit the terrorist. I am not trying to insult you or your character John, I just want to know how you can mis-read things so much, and then refuse to read things for what they stated for.

brokerdavelhr

John,
Yes my explanations are long-winded. However this is only because I cover all angles on the situation so that the truth may be understood. Sorry if you are bored with it.

John Bull

Dave,
Ok fair enough if you wish to pin an ad hominem attack on me for calling into question the sanity of GK's arguments & thereby his sanity, then I am culpable to a certain extent. However in my defence, pointing out to someone that their concept of English is flawed because they see "15 years worth of evidence" to be the same as "15 year old evidence" is merely correcting a basic error in English comprehension, the same as if I were to correct someone for saying "them apples" to say "those apples".

Moving on, yes the report states no 'operational cooperation' & you agree that "that they never worked an operation together". Is this not the same as my assertion (in bold above) "that Saddam had [no] firm links to al-Qaeda & their attacks". I equate "attack[s]" to "operation".

My definition of an operation is something requiring tactical/strategic support (i.e., how best to do it) including weapons, intelligence (i.e., when to do it) including necessary paperwork, finance, personnel, refuge & reward. If the report states that there was no 'operational cooperation' & an operation is defined thus what does that leave as your 'ties' to Iraq?

It is stated that Saddam's Iraq & al-Qaeda had meetings yet neither Saddam nor al-Qaeda wanted anything to do with the other, as Gore asserts in 2003. One reason is that Saddam was too secular for bin-Laden's ideology even though they undoubtedly share a common enemy, the US. Yes there are secularists within Islam too.

Replacing these conclusions based on evidence collected since by various bodies, which I have already laid out above, with your assertion that you "have been around the block and familiarized [yourself] with enough of the contributing factors to say that Saddam did indeed have ties with al-Qaeda", well, does that make any sense at all to a neutral reader? If you have a hunch that their were connections I would suggest that you are dead wrong to trust your hunches over known facts. If you really, really....REALLY believe in something it does not make it any more true, if you don't believe me just have a hunch you can jump to the moon & see how far you get.

I have shown throughout that I base my arguments on the best evidence & the most well-informed opinion of that evidence that's around, even if it runs contrary to any natural gut feelings I have. I believe Bush Snr followed this method when he balked at toppling Saddam in '91, after listening to evidence & opinions that a power vacuum would be created that could lead to a morass of civil war.
I believe Bush Jr to have completely ignored these fundamentals in reasoning, & then constructed a casus belli based on false information about WMD & terrorist links, & which then lead to the very things his father was aware of, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of people.
I expect nothing more than our nation's leader to apply some common sense & intellectual rigor when it comes to decisions that "that effects millions", don't you?

brokerdavelhr

John,
Well spoken. Thanks by the way for accepting my apology. You do make some good points, and I will address them (not tryin to play God or nothing, just getting things out there).
You say ‘yes the report states no 'operational cooperation' & you agree that "that they never worked an operation together". Is this not the same as my assertion (in bold above) "that Saddam had [no] firm links to al-Qaeda & their attacks". I equate "attack[s]" to "operation". You then go on to include your definition of co-operation, which I am in 100% agreement with. We can both sit here and argue semantics all day, but that is not the point so I will not waste our time. Let me tag on the following factors though (sorry I was not more specific before):
1- What about Saddam merely looking the other way, allowing al-Qaeda a little slack in certain area’s of operations? This would fit both Gore’s and the CIA’s descriptions of ‘Not wanting to work with’, and ‘no co-operational ties with’.
2- To ‘co-operate’ with each other, both parties must mutually benefit. So far the terrorists came out like bandits vs. the hanging of Saddam wouldn’t you say?
3- Also please answer my question about the sudden change in warfare shown in Iraq after the US had Saddam on the run.
4- A ‘I scratch your back, you scratch mine’ situation could easily have popped up between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. What started off as something that may have seemed mutually beneficial to begin with went right down the tubes when the US decimated Iraq a second time, and Al-Qaeda emerged the victor at the time – Iraq was in chaos, they could drum up their numbers by gaining local sympathy from displaced war-casualties, and they do not fight conventionally. Thus creating co-operation, but not as far as Op wise.
5- If Saddam did buy weapons from them, this does not mean co-operation in an operation either. It just means that he needed something, and they supplied it. Just because you buy groceries at a grocery store does not mean you co-operate with it in operations. It simply means you are facilitating it’s business. Ditto for Saddam and al-Qaeda.
6- Saddam did have WMD’s, this is proven in both past usage (nerve and chemical agents used on his own people!), and via the trace amounts of NBC material found by the UN Weapon inspectors (who said that they found no WMD’s. they never said that they never found any component thereof). This begs the question- where did they go to?
You continue to use Al Gore as ‘trustworthy source’ for your argument. Gore flies a private jet, and his ‘mansion’ uses over 10 times the amount of energy the average US household uses. And he preaches global warming. He received a Nobel Peace Prize for a movie that placed emphasis on ‘global climate change’ based off of a mere 5 years of current weather conditions. In the 70’s, the US was worried about global cooling! He left out facts about ‘solar’ patterns that occur in 20-24 year increments. But the worst travesty yet, is how he claims ‘global climate change’ as being chiefly caused by the worlds populace. While it is true that we do have an impact on it, it is in no way the ‘chief cause’ of. I will also add that if you actually look at global weather conditions throughout history (not just the last 50 years), you will see nothing new in the current conditions at all. He is a fraud, and the biggest hypocrite to ever grace this nation with his presence. His words are meaningless to me. If you trust him in his opinion and ‘facts’ on the war as much as most people buy into his ‘global warming’ BS, then perhaps you need to check the reliability of the source. Just a thought.
Anyway, thank you for your quick response.

PS- Bush Sr. was not the one who completely pulled troops out of Iraq. That was Clinton's doing. Had we kept a minimum contigency there, I doubt Saddam would have been allowed the freedom to rebuild his military.

Democrats=Homocrats=Faggots

Oooooh. Struck a nerve with the uber-faggot, Mr. John Bull(shit) have we?

What a disease-laden sphincter sargaent. Listen, you colon conquistador, liberalism/faggotism is rapidly being flushed down the toilet of history. You, being a piece of (bull)shit, is currently clogging the toilet, and it is only matter of time before you are flushed down permanently, where faggots like you belong.

To be the most faggotty of the three liberal faggots here is quite an accomplishment in faggotism.

John Bull

Dave,
I think you're highlighting another point of mine, your points 1 to 5 are just conjecture, ifs & buts. One can just as easily speculate that it was the US that armed Saddam & equipped him with expertise during the Iran-Iraq war which was then later used in Kuwait.

You, like GK, still provide no objective evidence of links between al-Qaeda & Iraq or of any involvment in al-Qaeda attacks prior to Saddam's removal. Do you acknowledge that there is even a difference between Saddam's Iraq & al-Qaeda & understand any reasons why there is a difference?

3-"sudden change in warfare" due to the US destroying Iraq's conventional military apparatus in '91. Fairly obvious I would think?

6-Saddam did have WMD, you're right, but you're ignoring the evidence that he had none in any potent form after Gulf War I. Either he did & the US's efforts in GW1 were a failure or he didn't & the efforts were a success. I prefer to believe the latter, what about you? Along with 10 years of crippling sanctions, by 2003 he sure as heck didn't have any, as verified by Scott Ritter & Hans Blix. Look those guys up to read yet more objective evidence to back-up my arguments.

I don't know where you're going with the Gore & global warming stuff - I never said Gore was "trustworthy". I simply used Gore's quotation as a rebuttal to GK's video clip "evidence", for which he has no comeback.

I think you're desperately clutching at straws with the Clinton line, it doesn't answer why Bush Snr didn't depose Saddam or even offer any support to the uprising he himself called for.

John Bull

Democrats=Homocrats=Faggots,
Another weekend spent alone & frustrated trying to work through your conflicted gender attraction issues I see.
There's only one person operating at toilet level here.

brokerdavelhr

Dave,

'I think you're highlighting another point of mine, your points 1 to 5 are just conjecture, ifs & buts. One can just as easily speculate that it was the US that armed Saddam & equipped him with expertise during the Iran-Iraq war which was then later used in Kuwait.'

How so ? I have yet to see any better explanation from you! In every single one of my points (save 4), I went by EXACLTY what was said, word for word with a dictionary accurate explanation. You have yet to counter any of these ides by saying otherwise. If your going to argue a point and claim that ‘1 to 5 are just conjecture’, you best explain why. Or are you arguing just for the sake of it? On point 4 you are right, it was pure conjecture.

‘You, like GK, still provide no objective evidence of links between al-Qaeda & Iraq or of any involvment in al-Qaeda attacks prior to Saddam's removal. Do you acknowledge that there is even a difference between Saddam's Iraq & al-Qaeda & understand any reasons why there is a difference?’

Below I listed some links for you to educate yourself on the history of ALL the countries involved in this feudal conflict. Then make your argument.

‘3-"sudden change in warfare" due to the US destroying Iraq's conventional military apparatus in '91. Fairly obvious I would think?’

You have not read a single word of the explanation I gave you. Had you done so, you would have read the part that refers to the 02-04 time frame. The guerilla warfare I referred to never began in earnest until then. My point here is that in the space of 10 years, he nearly had his war-machine up to the original standard.

'6-Saddam did have WMD, you're right, but you're ignoring the evidence that he had none in any potent form after Gulf War I. Either he did & the US's efforts in GW1 were a failure or he didn't & the efforts were a success. I prefer to believe the latter, what about you? Along with 10 years of crippling sanctions, by 2003 he sure as heck didn't have any, as verified by Scott Ritter & Hans Blix. Look those guys up to read yet more objective evidence to back-up my arguments.'

Once again your eyes are like your ears. They only see what they want to and not what the report actually states you dolt. Ritter retired in 1998 and criticized Clinton for not being strict enough on controlling Saddam’s WMD capabilities. It is funny how after no further investigations (between 98-02) that he suddenly turns around and says that there are none. Without even inspecting the damn country, he goes from saying ‘it is highly capable of’, to ‘ They are not capable of’, without even inspecting it in the latter case! Blix (in Jan 03) never stated that Iraq had no WMD capabilites. It should also be noted, that Blix had to wait 3 months between when the inspection was scheduled, and when it actually took place. Think about it Bull. In 3 months with over 6,000 square miles of desert, do you honestly believe he couldn’t dismantle and hide? Also, the Iraqi’s , not the UN conducted the inspection! The UN just briefly gazed at a few sites, read some reports, and agreed! Furthermore, they only said, 'IRAQ does not have nuclear capabilities at this time.' There are a lot more WMD’s out there then nukes Bull.

'I don't know where you're going with the Gore & global warming stuff - I never said Gore was "trustworthy". I simply used Gore's quotation as a rebuttal to GK's video clip "evidence", for which he has no comeback.'

I am saying that before listening to a source, that one must question it first. Gore is not a good source of anything.

‘I think you're desperately clutching at straws with the Clinton line, it doesn't answer why Bush Snr didn't depose Saddam or even offer any support to the uprising he himself called for.’

Bush senior was smart enough to keep Saddam in power. Once again, read the countries history on the links below and you will understand why.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/history.html

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/historic_periods.php

http://www.afghan-web.com/history/

Clinton (in his ‘infinite wisdom’ lol ) pulled our troops out eliminating the control that was keeping Saddam from taking things to far (witness Ritter’s rant against him).

In the following website, you will read about Al Qaeda. It’s history, activities, and it’s beliefs. The scariest of all statements made in this web site states the following- ‘The most convenient base for Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda is in the US, not in some foreign country. We offer them a far safer haven than they can find even in their Middle East benefactor nations, such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. They have no freedom of movement or speech in these countries, nor are they protected by a Bill of Rights or a Constitution. It is easy for these trained agents to infiltrate into the US, and to remain anonymous.’ . This is all terribly true. In America, you can say anything and be protected under the Bill of Rights. A sad abuse of freedom indeed. As I have said before, America’s weak point is it’s abuse of these freedoms, that eat it from the inside out. Iraq has indeed provided funding to Al-Qaeda, and many other terror organizations as well.
http://terroristwatch.tripod.com/

John Bull, and anyone out there who reads this post, I ask that you take it very seriously. Terrorists as I have said before, are masters of subversion. They do not need to use violence to tear us apart. They rely on bleeding heart liberals for to make an open door for them. If this is allowed to happen , then kiss your freedom of speech, and all your other rights goodbye. It is why we must stay in Iraq. And why we must succeed.

brokerdavelhr

By the way, trying to unify Iraq was a dumb idea. The last time that was tried was shortly after WW1 by the British, and turned out to be a bigger disaster then they ever thought it could be. The country should have been split three ways. It is funny how the media says 'the peaceful Kurdish people were attacked for no reason...'. The truth is that the Kurds were fighting for their independence from Saddam. Saddam had no conventional way of winning so he chem'ed em. The Kurds were sponsered by Iran for the longest time until Saddam worked out an agreement with Iran to undercut them. Being that the Kurds are mostly a Shi'ite people, there was alot of resentment there (being that Iran is mostly Shi'ite also). That is most likely the time when high ranking Iraq officials in Saddams regime started being infiltrated by terrorist. Lol, the US has Rosie!

Democrats=Homocrats=Faggots

Ooooh, the John Bullshit faggot is getting increasingly more girlish and defensive.

He clearly had no answer to my brilliant designation of him being a sphincter sargeant and colon conquistador. He is stunned into a helpless surrender against such colorful creativity.

Liberalism/faggotism is rapidly being flushed down the toilet of history. You, being a piece of (bull)shit, is currently clogging the toilet, and it is only matter of time before heterozexuality ensures you are flushed down permanently, where you belong.

Fabius Maximus

Congratulations on your successful predictions! Not easy to do for a war.

But the SF guy above has a point...

Before declaring victory, shouldn't you discuss how we're winning in terms of the US government's official goals for the war in Iraq? Perhaps it's obvious that we're winning, but this seems like an important step. Some of your readers might not be familar with them.

OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

URL:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

brokerdavelhr

Fabius Maximus,
Great link you posted. I do have one problem with a few things they are trying to do. As I stated previously, attempting to unite Iraq was a historic nightmare. I have posted links on the nations history above for you to read when you get a moment. The country has a turbulent history to say the least, and there has never been what would be a 'stable government' that lasted over 100 years (the last few hundred years anyway).
The main problem I see with trying to unite Iraq, is the differances in beliefs and the location of the sects. The Kurds are near Iran which suits them considering the fact that they share many beliefs (though the Kurds have never been known as a 'settling people'). I am still in the process of familiarizing myself with the other groups, but from what I can tell so far, there will always be war there between them.
I have no doubt that we can make a temporary peace there given enough troops time and resources. However, once we leave,will it not become like a over pressurized tank just waiting to be set off? And once it is set off, how do we contain it? Better yet, can we contain it?
My next question is, dual homed - We cannot just pull out of Iraq. If we do, it will be a worse mistake then getting involved when we did in the first place. However I do not see how we can leave enough people there to quell an area that was bred on war. Right now, they are getting a breather , reorganizing, and re-thinking their plight. When the main body of troops does leave, what will keep the terrorists from subverting the locals and turning on us?
The problem with a people in that culture, is that they are very impetuous. They are easy to ignite, and hard to put out. So now that we up to our necks in this mess, what is the best way to go about 'cleaning up'?
The smartest man I have ever known has alot more understanding on this matter then I do (both being a veteran, and a historian with a mind like a steel trap). I will try to get his opinion, but I won't make promises.
BTW- Victory is based on perspective. I can see several outlets where every party involved will consider the outcome a victory. It all depends how the people perceive it.

brokerdavelhr

I am sorry, I just cannot see a long term outlook on it the same way the white house does. But then again, history isn't history until it happens :-)

John Bull

Dave, brokerdavelhr, Democrats=Homocrats=Faggots, whatever...
As I've already said, carry on exhibiting your homophobia, ignorance & stupidity if you like, but don't expect me to waste any more of my time carrying on the 'debate' than is necessary for me point out just how cretinous your arguments are.

Everytime you post one of your homophobic outbursts it highlights how inferior your 'arguments' are & how frustrated you are because of it.

However I will just reiterate that you, like GK, have provided no 3rd party evidence, reports or even objective websites to back up your claims of links between al-Qaeda & Saddam's Iraq. Neither have you any coherent argument against the evidence I have provided.

Furthermore you appear to have befuddled yourself with what comments you made in previous rants, for example, you readily admit that your previous point 4 is conjecture yet assert that the other points are not, despite:
1) "What about...";
2) I have no idea what point you're trying to make;
5) "If Saddam...".

And at no point in the previous post did you specifically mention the "02-04 time frame"...although you mentioned 20-24 year sun cycles. Are you blaming Saddam's fictitious al-Qaeda Gang for erratic sun activity now?

As a final highlight of your baseless nonsense, Hans Blix categorically stated that there were no WMD in Iraq. Here is just one objective article of many that states the facts, so take your pick of which one you want to prove you wrong.

Try not believing all you read on paranoid, right-wing webshites that enhance your military brainwashing, but if you can't, don't expect the rest of us to believe it.

Fabius Maximus

Thanks for your reply.

But I don't understand your headline "Victory in Iraq".

The Government sent in our Armed Forces in order to achieve certain specific goals. To use an analogy (although TE Lawrence: "analogies are foolish nonsense"), this headline is like declaring your team a winner in the Super Bowl -- although the other team had a higher score.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of why your conception of victory should be used instead of our offical one. Or, how current events in Iraq show that we're accomplishing our goals.

Declaring victory without either of those seems questionable, in my opinion.

brokerdavelhr

John Bull,
I will admit that from your view point, and very narrow mindset (not to mention very ignorant of the culture in question), that you are correct. Let me ask you this, what would it take to convince you that Iraq had WMD’s? Maybe if the UN inspectors found some? Maybe if they would have shown them on CNN (not that you even know what they look like)? Or maybe if they would have used them?
I am trying to be civil John, as I can tell you are. Did you by any chance read the Charter of Hammas? Or any of the documents written by the terrorists that occupy countries in question? Have you ever studied how terrorism works? Have you ever studied the events that led up to the creation of Al-Qaeda? Have you ever studied Saddams life? I have John. What you hear from me, and so many other people, is not a ‘right wing paranoia’. It is an educated look into what these people do, how they think, and what they believe in.
The problem here John, is that you are looking at things from an Americans ‘innocent until proven guilty’ standpoint. Sure this stand point works sometimes, but only when the individual or nation in question, are playing by the same set of rules. Do you honestly believe that if a terrorist got their hands on you, that they would shed one tear when cutting off your head on National TV? Do you honestly they believe that they are seeking a peaceful solution?
In the article that you told me to read, it readily admitted that Iraq had a WMD program. Sure it was ‘dormant’, but it existed none-the less. It also admitted that Iraq was trying to develop long-range missile capabilities. Also, where in the report did anyone say that they physically combed the country looking for something that you could hide in your bathtub? It doesn’t. The UN was actually mad at the US, Britain, and Australia because we were upset about how LAX their standards are. Also keep in mind that the UN certainly does not have the US best interest in mind. Because they could not let small countries fight their own battles, they got us involved in Somalia, Kosovo, Syria, and a myriad of other disputes in which the US is still putting more effort into long after they pulled most of their own forces out! How can you listen to such an organization? They can’t even contain a small problem like Darfur, let alone a country the size of Iraq!
John, this is what I am talking about. You are not taking these facts into consideration. You use Gore, the UN, and USA Today as your sources. EVER take a minute to think ‘How accurate are my sources realistically speaking?’ You are just stating their word like it was the Golden truth. Why do you put so much stock into what these people say? What because they are famous? Because of name recognition? Guess what John, many people who are smarter then them work behind the scenes to find the real facts. Sure they will never be famous, but without them, Gore, the UN, and USA Today would all tell this country what it wants to hear (whatever gets them in the spotlight), making problems worse and worse, all the while telling America that politically, they have it all under control.
Your own source does not help you argument in any way, shape, or form. The only thing once again that the article stated, was that no live WMD’s were found. They found evidence that it was being researched. They found evidence of ‘dormant’ projects. They found dozens of WMD related programs. IT SAYS SO IN THE ARTICLE THAT YOU TOLD ME TO READ!
You keep telling me that I use to many ‘if-thens’ and ‘what abouts’. I do indeed use a lot of each. You on the other hand do not ask questions, but just take everything for face value. Sometimes this is a good thing, but certainly not when you are dealing with terrorists. Your problem John, is that you do everything on a ‘per incident’ basis. However when it comes to seeing the big picture, you cannot do that. You cannot even seem to read an entire news paper article. You had it in your head that Iraq never even had WMD’s. So when you read in the article that a weapons inspector said that Iraq ‘
A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994’

That there are no WMD’s now. What you failed to see was the following :
Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMD’s. So Iraq was obviously hiding something, it says it in black and white!
Now I am going back to my ‘if’s’

Answer me this John:
If Iraq had no intention on developing WMD’s, then why was it researching and developing programs related to it?
If Iraq had no interest in using nukes (other then in it’s own defense), why was it trying to develop ICBM’s?
If Iraq did not have any interest in developing chemical and nerve agents (which it had already used in the past), then why did they not allow the UN to conduct a thorough investigation?
If Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda, then why did they form ties with a foreign power (Iran, which by the way is known to sponser not only Al-Qaeda and a number of other terrorist orginizations), just to help them control their own people?

These are all question that are not only relevant, but must be answered for you to make an educated argument. Also, before you throw an article in my face claiming it as proof for your argument, make sure you not only check the source, but READ THE WHOLE THING IN CONTEXT BEFORE THROWING IT OUT THERE!

Also, my point of view is not from ‘military brain-washing’. It is coming from well-studied, and well established facts with no bias. You John are the one who has not only taken things out of context, but twisted them to your point of view as well. Why don’t you go join a bunch a college students in their next protest against something they have no understanding of rather then wasting our time here. You would be more at home.

John Bull

Dave, brokerdavelhr, Democrats=Homocrats=Faggots, whatever...
Well thanks for the admission, but correct about which part, the fact that there is no proof of a link between Saddam's Iraq & al-Qaeda up to 9/11 & until he was deposed? That has been my main argument all along, & it's an important one because many of the posts here glibly chatter as though it is a proven link. It is not.

The WMD question is a more ambiguous one, mainly because you don't state which period you are talking about. Also your interpetation of the article I sent is deeply flawed, although typical. It states:
Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant. No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq was attempting to develop missiles capable of exceeding a U.N.-mandated limit of 93 miles.

The bit you seized upon as evidence that Iraq was developing ICBMs is presumably the last sentence? If this is referring to a period after 1991, it was apparently discovered by UN inspections, nullifying any threat from it in 2003. This is important because the cause for the war was stated as an imminent threat of being attacked by Iraq's WMD. It was not, as you imply, that we were under threat from a few research programs that had no materials to produce any actual weapons (due to sanctions & inspections).

Frankly I can't be bothered to look up any more (of the many) Scott Ritter or Hans Blix testimonials to back-up my arguments because that article was more than the zero 3rd party evidence you have supplied throughout the entire discussion, despite your many bold assertions & rhetorical questions. Until you do so I won't feel obliged to either.

Other than that, the majority of your post veers between the usual ranty conspiracy theories (the cliched right-wing anti-"MSM" line) & conjecture (which you readily admit to).
Without supplying any objective evidence to back-up your claims why would I answer your questions, thereby articulating an argument you don't seem to be able to.
If you're so convinced of something, or that I am wrong, then please state your "educated argument" by telling me directly & clearly what it is. Don't expect me to do you a favor by trying to make some sense of your conjecture for you.

brokerdavelhr

John Bull,
I am not going to respond to anymore of your posts. You have just proven that you do not have the depth of thought, or the intelligence to answer a few simple questions. These questions were not only vital to proving my points, but were a test of your knowledge of the situation (which you failed miserably). You cling to the weapons inspectors words like they were Gods own truth after they admitted that they did not do a complete inspection. You also seem to think that because it was not a threat when the inspector finally did his half-ass inspection in 02, that Iraq was not a WMD threat. You also ignored the fact that there was no time placed on when they talked about Iraq’s ICBM R&D.
You then claim to discredit my sources as ‘right wing anti-MSM’ without stating any fact that my sources have a history of bad reports. I have discredited not only your UN sources, but your Gore, CIA, and USA Today one as well. I have not only stated specific occurrences, but a history on each (save the USA Today). Yet you continue to use their words as Gods own truth (many are self-contradictory), and fail to answer even the simplest of questions stating that they are based off of (conjecture).
I am going to agree-to-disagree with you on this matter so that we stop wasting the web-space. If you do decide ever to answer any of my questions (which were not based on conjecture but actual fact!), then I will converse with you again. But it is a waste of time to listen to someone who will not show you the same respect by reading the documented truths I posted (the websites). Have a nice day, and God bless.

brokerdavelhr

John Bull,
If you still think that Ritter and Blix still spoke fo the UN when they said that there were no WMD's in Iraq, the you should read Resolution 1441posted by the UN itself:

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

Which stated other wise, and did so in 2003. Once again, check yous sources!

John Bull

Dave, brokerdavelhr, Democrats=Homocrats=Faggots, whatever...
That suits me fine but I will reiterate that I have refused to answer your many questions because there are so many that it would take me far too long! It would also feel to me as though I were the one figuring out what your argument is for you, rather than you figuring out what it is you want to say & then saying it in a concise way as a fitting riposte.

Finally, it is evident that I do not "cling to the weapons inspectors [or Gore, the CIA, and USA Today's] words like they were [absolute] truth". I have made no claims that any person or article represents an absolute truth, merely that the comments & articles I provide articulate the evidence & that there is a weight of evidence which backs-up my arguments. Like it or not, this is how the world works, not on your conjecture, or faith-based "hunches".

If you saw action, respect for your fighting efforts. I like to think that I argue (& vote) so that military personnel (& civilians) will not be exposed to unnecessary harm in operations that are not fully justified, rationally planned & soundly executed.

brokerdavelhr

John Bull,
‘That suits me fine but I will reiterate that I have refused to answer your many questions because there are so many that it would take me far too long! It would also feel to me as though I were the one figuring out what your argument is for you, rather than you figuring out what it is you want to say & then saying it in a concise way as a fitting riposte.’
My argument was that you were wrong, and I pointed out where to, so you have nothing to figure out there. You want a concise answer when there is none. You will not answer my questions because you do not have time to research a legitimate answer. Not because you do not have the time period. Furthermore, if you have the time to try to tell someone that they are wrong off of main-stream media, then you should also take the time to research a legitimate answer other then the main stream media. I have not only pointed out my sources, but have researched them thoroughly myself. Something you have obviously failed to do because you cannot even answer a few simple questions.
‘Finally, it is evident that I do not "cling to the weapons inspectors [or Gore, the CIA, and USA Today's] words like they were [absolute] truth". I have made no claims that any person or article represents an absolute truth, merely that the comments & articles I provide articulate the evidence & that there is a weight of evidence which backs-up my arguments. Like it or not, this is how the world works, not on your conjecture, or faith-based "hunches".’
You say that you do not accept your sources as the ‘absolute truth’, yet you state them to contradict evidence that came directly from the source, and not the main stream media. What you did do, is use your sources (that were using second hand statements), to contradict the actual reports of the events made through the direct bodies involved. No wonder you cannot answer a few simple questions. I have given you my sources that if you took the 8 hours + to read them, you would learn that I speak fact, NOT conjecture and faith-based hunches!
‘If you saw action, respect for your fighting efforts. I like to think that I argue (& vote) so that military personnel (& civilians) will not be exposed to unnecessary harm in operations that are not fully justified, rationally planned & soundly executed.’
If you really wanted to help us GI’s, Marines, Air Force, and Navy out, then you would better educate yourself on the situation rather then taking second hand information on it. Believe me, Gore, Newsweek, USA Today, CNN, and many other media sources only tell you a small part of the matter, and usually, it contradicts the real reports. I have given you a list of sites (including the UN itself) that back up my arguments. Yet you go ahead and use a source that was shooting their mouth off to the news ( and if you read the UN resolutions, you would find out just how full of it your sources were). So start putting your mouth on hold, and your brain in sponge mode long enough to find the truth. And if you are TO LAZY TO DO THAT, DO NOT subject the rest of us to your main-stream media BS. Yes, it was a huge mistake to get involved when and how we did, but what is done and done, and now the only way out is to re-think the current strategy, NOT criticize past decisions!

brokerdavelhr

To all,

Is there anyone out there who understands what I am trying to say? Or is John Bull right in telling me that I am not making sense?

Al Fin

It seems that it is John Bull who cannot abide anyone expressing an opinion contrary to his own. Very sad indeed.

John Bull

brokerdavelhr, is Al Fin another pseudonym?

brokerdavelhr

John full of bull,
Not in the mood for your BS right now. I do not use pseudonyms, as I speak my mind, without having to hide behind others. I have no names here except for brokerdavelhr. Why can't you do us all a favor and shut your ignorant mouth you oxygen theif?

brokerdavelhr

John full of bull,
Sorry, I could not let you off so easy.
You are the most hypocritical person I have ever known (save world citizen)who shoots their mouth off without doing due research on the topic of discussion. You constantly fill the pages of this wonderful website with your putrid words that benefit only the ignorant.
I think therefore you would make a better terrorist then an American citizen. You see only what you want to, criticize what your puny mind cannot understand, and attack that what you see as wrong. The perfect terrorist candidate.
I seek no ones approval (save God's and that of my friends and family) because I have my own opinion and thoughts (unlike yourself). I merely asked if I was making sense to anyone but you. Because someone decided to respond against you, does not mean you need to make a childish unfounded accusation.
You are unbelievably blind, ignorant, moronic, foolish, and have the intelligence of a kinder gardener. Everything you say makes me lose faith in humanities future, as I am finding that more and more dolts like you wastes this planets resources.
So go climb into a hole with World Citizen, and hopefully an avalanche will lay tons of dirt over you so the rest of world will no longer be stuck listening to your dribble.

brokerdavelhr

Better yet. You and World Citizen should go join Al-Qaeda (as your line of thought and stupidity blends perfectly with theirs), so that me or some of my buddies in Iraq can do the world a favor and put an end to your miserable existance.

John Bull

Do you feel better after that outburst Dave? I wonder why you feel so frustrated if you feel you have proved my imbecility in this discussion? (& I thought you were supposed to be ignoring me.)
I started my comments way back, by saying I was wrong about the surge & that it is working, showing that I can & do change my mind & that I'm not too proud or stupid to admit when I am wrong (to err is to be human, after all).
However I usually only do that when there is enough evidence, as supplied by Gen. Petraeus for the surge, as opposed to being swayed by an opinion more forcefully expressed or fervently believed.
I know it can be a sometimes limited, reductionist modus operandi but at least it's objective..& I'm still patiently waiting for contrary evidence to my arguments to be posted here.

John Bull

Dave, basically for me it comes down to this:

Show me evidence that a weapons inspector found WMD in Iraq that were a clear & present danger to the US & Western Europe, which made an invasion of Iraq so critical, & of such urgency that it overrode the previously lauded 10 years' policy of sanctions. Also provide evidence of WMD found since the invasion & regime change in Iraq. (For now I will set aside why, if it was such a critical threat, that the invasion was not considered before 9/11 or why it had to wait until after the Taliban had been dealt with).

Secondly, produce evidence from any high-ranking US government official or agency, or any other objective source, which shows that there were clear links (& cooperation in any attacks) between Saddam's Iraq & al-Qaeda in the run-up to 9/11 including the 1993 WTC attack, & up to the 2003 Iraq invasion & Saddam's execution.

That's quite an open timeframe with a few grey areas for you to exploit, so I look forward to reading your links. Also if you reply please try not to copy my post into yours so I have to read it all again & excise text detailing the process of how you formulated your arguments, just state the argument. Thanks.

brokerdavelhr

John Bull,
Sorry that I did not respond sooner, but I had a few things I had to take care of.
All my proof I have already put into my links, so I do not need to say anymore then that.
In several of the UN resolutions I sent you the links to, it says that Iraq was not only involved in terrorist activities, but it warned them to stop as well. In addition to this, read the information posted at Terrorist Watch website to gain further information on how terrorism really works (it is far from what the media would have you believe).
In the latter, ensure that you read the FBI commentary, and the events that are publically posted.
Also go to the CIA website, to further educate yourself on how they work. You will notice that they actually put very little information on themselves and their operations due to operational security. Also, be aware that terrorist organizations are infamous for co-operation when they have the same goals in mind.
I would agree that rushing into Iraq the way we did with no valid exit strategy was a bad idea. I would also agree that the way the war is being conducted will not have a lasting result (I base this opinion on thousands of years of history).
GK,
I believe that the solution being implemented will have a short term effect, but not a long one. No where in history has the that area of the world ever been able to handle peace. To change this, you would have to change the countries belief system. Another lesson that history has proven, is that no middle eastern country has been able to sustain a democratic society. No matter of intervention can change that fact.
At best, I would argue that an uneasy peace will be created that will not last more then 20-30 years. ESPECIALLY if all US troops gets withdrawn from Iraq.
In effect, we have stirred up a hornets nest where the most tenacious side will be dubbed winner. Now that we committed to such an action, we have no other alternative, but to see it through, and pray to God that in the next 1-20 years the Liberals do not take the US out of the middle east. If they do, we will become susceptible to any form of attack that will make 9-11 pale in comparison.
Sure going to Iraq was a good idea, but because of poor long term planning, the aftermath will continue to be both costly and ugly.

brokerdavelhr

PS,
The last time someone tried to unite Iraq, was Britain after WWI. Following that union, a brief moment of peace spread throughout Iraq. But in the following decades, Britain was unable to keep it that way, and ended up having to wash their hands of the situation.
Iraq will only know peace as long as it is forcefully imposed. A historical fact that I do not see changing in the long run. The middle east will continue to fight as long as they continue to follow their beliefs. Sure there are people there who think that uniting it was a good idea, but they are far outweighed by those who do not. Until the country is divided in such a way to appease all the involved sect's (which is possible), there will be no real peace in Iraq.
However this presents yet another problem- How does the US vacate the area without leaving more of a mess? This is the question I will be studying the next few weeks.

John Bull

brokerdavelhr,
Do the links you previously provided point to Iraqi terrorist activity in collusion with al-Qaeda? This is the fairly simple question I asked after all. Doubtless there are many different terrorists in many areas of the world but I asked, & have only ever asked, specifically about Iraq & al-Qaeda ties, or the lack of any ties.

There's also no links for WMD evidence found since the invasion, although you may have been referring to your earlier links to 'answer' my point?

At least we can agree that the invasion was poorly planned, apparently in ignorance of even a basic history of that troubled region: a hornet's nest it is.

(PS., I cannot take Terrorist Watch seriously as an objective website with its well-worn & misguided "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument as well as taking things like "al-Qaeda want a worldwide caliphate" seriously (as if that has any chance of happening!). It's a bit like me providing a link to white house as an objective reference for serious political analysis.)

brokerdavelhr

John,
The answer to both of your questions is yes. That is unless you exclude the terrorwatch one. Which leads me to ask why you believe the idea that Al-Qaeda is not trying to make it's beliefs global?
Think about it for a minute. It is in their belief structure that anyone who is not a practicing Muslim (by their standards), should be either converted or put to death. You say this has no chance of happening. However before 9-11 noone had thought an attack on US soil possible. You see John, I have been around long enough to know that when a group of people want to accomplish something, it is not far fetched that they will indeed accomplish it. You are saying Al-Qaeda is not a global threat. By doing so you ignore the bombings in the US, Madrid, Italy, London, and many other countries as well.
Your next question will inevitably be - 'What proof do you have that Al-Qaeda commited these acts?'
In truth none, as I was not there to witness it. But consider this: They not only took credit for it, but sent threats out to the host countries that if their demands were not met, then there would be more to come. So to say that Al-Qaeda is 'going global' is neither far fetched, or amusing.
Also keep in mind that fighting is only a tactical form of warfare. Strategy is much more then that. Strategy combines subversion, tactical operations, the knowledge of knowing where and when to take advantage of a situation, and using an oponents strength against them. In each of these cases, Al-Qaeda has he US out-classed plain and simple. This is because rules do not exist to them. Lying, murder, robbery, and even rape is exuseable in their eyes provided that it is for a good end. Fact my friend.
I gave you all the peices to put this puzzle together, but until you study them all in depth, read all of the outstanding history, and put them into the terrorists perspective and not your own, you will never get it.
By the way, terrorist watch has many links to both government and civilian sights that re-enforce his words. So for you to ignore him simply because 'If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide' is quite an ignorant statement.Do you then also believe that a suspected crime scene in a suspects house should be off limits to law enforcement because it violates their rights?
Now about the ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Had you read the UN resolutions, or the terror watch, then you would see the first peice to the puzzle. The UN condemned Iraq for blatant acts of, and I quote - 'terrorism'.
Had you read the history of these countries, and taken the time to do some research on the other surrounding countries, you would see peice number two. Throughout middle eastern history, extremeist groups have supported one another, and successfully gained political office by doing so.
Contrary to what the media says, the CIA did not 'put Saddam in power'. Nor did they 'put Al-Qaeda in power'. The historical writings dismiss these ridiculous ideas long before the media ever claimed them as true.
Once you finish reading the above posted, I will continue. But to do so now would mean nothing to you as you clearly do not understand the background yet. Once again, I remind you that there is no simple answer to this problem.

SanFranciscoJim

So now 4% of the American public agrees with your assessment, that the War on Iraq is a "total success."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105217/Many-Americans-Say-History-Will-Judge-Iraq-War-Failure.aspx

When are you going to learn from your mistakes, or are you already to old and rigid in your thinking to change? If so, I pity you, I really do.

GK

SFJim

er....you didn't even read your own poll properly. Thus, you have failed even the minimal expectations of reading comprehension I had of you. Your own poll shows that 42% will judge it as a success, up from 30% just a year ago.

The Surge is widely seen as a success in poll after poll.

I know that you are desperately trying to find some evidence that your side (Al-Qaeda) is winning against my side (the US and allies), and are humiliated to find that such evidence is drying up. 47% of the public thinks America is winning, vs. only 20% think your side is winning. This is a dramatic improvement (for my side) over 2007.

That is why despite everything, McCain is still trouncing Obama in the polls.

When are you going to learn from your mistakes, or are you already to old and rigid in your thinking to change?

What mistake? You still are unable to point out a single wrong prediction of mine, despite being pressed to do so for a year. In fact, you are one grasping for straws even as the surge goes better and better. Every month where casualties are below the number you would like them to be it, is painful for you.

Also, I'm probably about half your age, gramps.

Lastly, you didn't answer any of the questions I posed to you, as you know that they would expose your support of evil, and opposition of America. Why are you afraid to answer simple questions?

SanFranciscoJim

So you know, I have always been curious about this. You claim that 10-15% of the American citizenry is "fifth-columnist" traitors. What is your plan for the 30-40M Americans that you intend to round up? As I am sure you know, being a traitor in wartime is a capital offense, so what is your plan for all of these fellow citizens that you disagree with?

Are you going to use the tradition Right-Wing method of executing your political opponents in gas chambers? Or are you going to take a page from the extreme Left and use One Bullet on each? Or are you more of a fan of Stalin and would you create an American Gulag to starve and work your enemies to death?

I am genuinely curious as to what your answer would be.

GK

SFJim,

er... when did I talk about 'rounding people up'? Once again, you lie about something very easy to validate.

I just say that people like you should be ridiculed and discredited, but you don't seem to need my help to do that (which is why I never delete comments or ban commenters).

Plus, my prediction that the US would win in Iraq in 2008 was 100% RIGHT. It was a superb prediction, and a major post detailing the exact details of our comprehensive victory is coming up.

Even Obama and HRC have admitted that the Surge worked. You have collapsed in shambolic humiliation.

Tee hee.....

Until I do an updated post in Iraq's victory, study the reasons why your ideology is unattractive in nature.

John Bull

Isn't it about time for an Iraq update GK?
2008 is about done (as is your hero Bush's presidency) & the 150k+ US troops probably can't wait to come home so a description of Bush's final victory seems pertinent.

I wonder if by victory you obliquely meant Obama winning the election & fulfilling his pledge to bring the troops home?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment