I just hit my revenue target for the day. Now I can slack off and waste the entire rest of my day trying to educate people on the Internet.
HAHA Iraq was full of terrorists under Saddam HA no way, anyone that screwed with saddam got it. Ha, Iraqies were uneducated HA. One of the oldest trading points in the world, long long long before the US was stolen by the brits, portugese, spanish, dutch et al. Uneducated now yes, because there is civil war.. hard to educate when chaos surrounds you. Never seen a baghdad 9mm or a Kabul Assault rifle. No such thing as and Iraqi STEATH BOMBER - (read the name designed to scare and kill and not get caught doing it). Iraq never existed before we messed with it, we let saddam stay in power for as long as we liked, until we didnt like. After the first golf war, the Brits left Basra to be slaughtered. So when we came back they didnt give support us. Arms to Iraq ? The supergun noone remember these things huh?? Now we compain they are a little "upset" maybe if we STOP now, do our best to fix the situation (what we are currently doing is NOT fixing the situtation, so please dont bother trying to say the "reconstruction of the damage from Shock and awe"). The next step would be to apologise as much as we can and see what else we can do to help.
Let's get some of those stories out and disprove it. To start, a reference to all the top terrorism experts [on all sides??] so we can start looking for quotes that say everything in the article is BS. If all the top terrorism experts, including the CIA and the Terrorism Czar have said it was all BS, should be fairly easy to find.
As to why I thought someone might try a quick google themselves Never read the articles, sure they exist, sene them on TV multiple times but will try to find a few of the articles, lets hope google is on today.
"Maybe" if we stop what? What we are doing now is fighting terrorists that have infiltrated from other countries that want to take control of Iraq. Is this a bad thing? How do we negotiate with terrorists to "fix a situation?" Is there a precendent for apologizing to terrorists and offering assistance to help them with their cause? What benefits could be derived? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050909/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc Seems like we're doing exactly what the Iraqi government is asking. I clearly understand why and how it dismays the terrorists, but I've never had much interest in what terrorists want.
HAHA. Now that's a classic... you mean the Iraqi government we created and established? The one that we don't control or influence at all
Man is this forum ugly w/o the style working ) Gtech I appologize so far all I've come up with is http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml Hard to find articles when direcway kicks you down to postal carrier speeds for trying to download to big of a file. When my sat comes back up and I can actually move I'd be glad to try to find some more of the interviews I have watched. This article also does not disprove the article you linked to, simply an official stating there was no iraq connection. Adding another link, wow that took a long time to even open this page, god I need dsl or cable, if only they were available. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/01/bushiraq021101 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-26-iraq-alqaeda_x.htm Which also states A small number of al-Qaeda members are known to have found refuge in northern Iraq in a Kurdish area outside Saddam's control. If al-Qaeda members are also in Baghdad, they could not be there without Saddam's knowledge and consent, experts say. Which is what most experts views both inside of the US gov, private sector and outside of the US has stated. The terrorists there for the most part were in areas of the country not controlled by Saddam.
Cheers hrblcantra, I look forward to the discussion. Hopefully there is more than Richard Clarke. Based on his testimony and his book and other comments, he has had a pattern of not telling the truth. He was either lying before, or lying later, but definitely lying one way or another.
1. Iraqi government was decided for them. 2. Stop throwing "terrorist" around like that. You really really seem to believe its a bunch of ragheads trying to destroy the american way because they dont like Britney and dont want to eat big macs. "Iraq" (as we now call it) like any nation that has been around along time is very proud. You seem to believe we have some kind of right to be there. These people that "want" Iraq, want to make sure THEY have the power..nothing to do with terrorism, give them planes, tanks and call them Armies if you really like. 3. I never said withdraw - (keep paying attention GT, I know you get a bit 'fluffy' when you have to keep repeating the same things.. ) I said STOP and YES we should STOP and fix. Are you REALLY trying to tell me that we are a bunch of saints that are just there to help the Iraqis ? Note, I thought the president was a senior halliburton advisor, oh I dunno, perhaps thats some other country over there.. there are now so many corpresidents in charge these days Im losing track Supposedly the UK is the 4th most corrupt country on the planet.
Nope was not all Clarke, many officials who were in the anti terror side of the CIA during the years the article was published about. As far as what you say about Clarkes credibility though the same could be said about many bush admin officials. Who knows they are probally all 'as in right and left' full of shit, I vote for that one.
So those that risked voting in January had no say in their government, DA? I had no idea that calling a terrorist a terrorist was offensive to you. Can you suggest a kinder/gentler name for them that would not be so offensive? I've never mentioned the american way, britney or big macs. Personal opinion? Stop what, fix what? How does one negotiate with terrorists? Yes, we are there to help Iraqis. Perhaps you are confusing "us" with those that murdered school teachers this past week, those copping off heads, those blowing up buildings and killing kids. Which president? The US President? Halliburton?? Sorry to hear that. What bearing does it have on the discussion? Is that 4th before, or after the United Nations?
Gtech, look at this: Which one should we believe? He was controlled by Iranian secret service before but it seems CIA made him a better offer, it will be funny if he is still working for both sides.
GGGGG come on... Oh, Iraq now has a completely legitimate representative government, the election was fair and free and those little red flowers in Afghanistan are so pretty..
Iraq has a future and a chance to make things better, otherwise it would have been the same old crap for many years and generations to come ...
I think that a lot of the older Iraquis may not be able to do too much with the freedom they have. They were never really in the position to make their own choices. What matters is that the next generation will be able to decide for themselves what path their nation will take. You don't look at a situation and judge it without looking ahead. The last thing I would want to see is another tyranny to rise and reheat the same old garbage in a different frying pan.
It seems pretty clear that DA doesn't give a damn about the people of Iraq, only about his hatred for America.