Bad day for AC, AGS, and Gworld...

Complex questions require complex answers. It is not about what we want or what we wish for, it is about reality, analyze of what is happening and finding solutions. looking at your posts in this thread, I hardly doubt that you be capable of doing that and anything that I post will be waste of time. If you have a serious interest in these question then read my previous post.

 

i'll just take it was a dodge the issue and question reply, like you have always done here.

 

"Everyone else already knows" I beleive he was reffering to the WMD that still hasn't been found.

Though I find it ignorant you only display the deaths of USA soldiers, not the civillians or the people you are fighting. You listed just over 3,500 USA soldiers dead, but I guess you dont care about the 500,000 + Iraq civillians dead. But they are arabs, so it dosent matter, right?

 

And no Sex

you mean these WMD and These WMD and many others?

 

So where does this guy rank in the Al Qaeda chain of command? He wouldn't be...oh, I don't know...number two would he? Oh wait, if he were number two he'd have been killed--again

 

This is the number put out by Lancet. Which has been thoroughly debunked. But I applaud you for your concern about civilian deaths.

Let's remind ourselves, once again:
Who blow up markets with innocent shoppers?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6279864.stm

Who blows up schools?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6517335.stm

Who puts bombs underneath newly built schools to kill kids in the future?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.school.bomb/index.html

Who blows up hospitals?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19640140/

Also, Let's not forget:
Who uses retarded kids on suicide bomb missions?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/009435.php

 

Oh, you mean the same claim you made the other day and couldn't support

 

Relative casualty counts are academic, it's how they are viewed by the media and how much stomach that they have for war - which as things stand isn't much more.

I was actually referring to the fact that the war isn't winnable as things stand at the moment. Pushing in more troops as Bush is doing is just raising the casualty count.

Though on the WMD front, do you actually have any impartial sources? Sketchy reports of 'chemical weapons' and

is hardly the threat to the UK that was deliverable within 45 minutes that the UK government promised it's citizens before going to war. Tony Blair has since admitted that this was untrue.

'Chemical weapons' could apply to a few bottles of bleach and other assorted odds and ends that I keep under my kitchen sink.

In fact, Bush himself has admitted that no WMDs have been found. Now I know that Bush is a bit stupid at the best of times, but surely if hundreds had been found as the article claims, then he'd be the first to point that out?

Also the chief UN weapons inspector claims the same thing

 

http://www.examiner.com/a-815250~U_S__eagerness_shows_in_dismantling_al_Qaeda.html

There's more:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/9/29/097/73029

and more:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5309868.stm

...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/03/sm.02.html

 

These appear to refer to the same people. This guy was killed/captured in 2006. Do you honestly think that if this guy was the #2 guy in the organization that all of the sudden they are not going to move someone else there? They are gonna operate #1 #3 #4 now? The leadership in Iraq has been adjusted more than a few times to account for people getting killed. Do you really expect this not to happen? Or do you think its plausible someone else was put into his position, we found who he was and got them again? Given that they aren't too bright, isn't that the most common sense answer?

http://www.examiner.com/a-815250~U_S..._al_Qaeda.html

Do you always omit the part of the story that puts it into context?

This is an opinion piece that takes a quote out of context:

It does -not- say he's AQ#2, he's the 2nd most wanted (if this is the case, its a list we make up). He's a "top" guy as is how most of the people killed are so named.

Your point that everyone we kill over there is a #2 guy just doesn't hold up very well.

 

Of course these guys supporting the war are sitting here posting this stupid nonsense while our soldiers are out there dieing for this bs. I say we enlist the pro war'ers and get them sent to iraq to fight this war that they support so much. Any takers here
All i have seen from our top commenders is excuses after excuses. Why not just speak the truth and say this war cannot be won and admit that saddam should have been left in power.

 

I doubt that very very much.

All the pro-war Bush lovers are very happy to cheerlead for the BS war sat in the comfort of their own homes behind their PCs but there is absolutely zero chance of them offering to go over there.

No chance at all.

 

I'm sure GTech would be up for it. Our very own brave war hero with a speciality of peeling potatoes 15 miles behind the front line

 

They catch these so-called top branch, but it seems someone else is ready to take their place. Remember, when they got Zarqawi, everyone thought the violance might die down (even Bush was celebrating at the Oval office), but it has continued the same way and simply gotten worse. These people are a disbanded entity in that they don't really have someone that they need to follow because there is very litle communication. They all have an agenda and values they believe so there isn't any real need for "leadership".

 

My point exactly. It's not an enemy with a structured leadership, or even communication between cells. It's simply people following an ideology.
The danger is that it's also self-perpetuating, the more that are killed mean that the more that replace them.

 

I noted once again, AGS used Bush as his shield in order to avoid any comment. Apparently he is quite distraught.

gworld inserts the best of his abilities, as usual.

"everyone else knows" isn't a fact or excuse. It's a sign of weakness. *some* wmd were found. WMD was not the only issue in going to war.

Do you also find it ignorant when people assign blame to USA soldiers for what their "brethren" are doing in Iraq? Lorien corrected you on this, I see.

Only when you are trying to make a comparison to Vietnam though, right? Very poor comparison. No where even close, yet you are still clinging to it.

Actually it is winnable. Just not in this moment and time, which you demand. It also depends on who you are supporting. If one wanted Iraqis to live under a terrorist rule of al qaida, like AGS and gworld does, then they would hope for and offer nothing to encourage otherwise.

I've posted them many times. Those who do not want the US or their particular country involved to win will most likely reject them, because they hope for an al qaida victory. To dismiss such is dishonest.

I've seen others who argue on behalf of terrorists make such ridiculous comparisons before. It's quite telling when someone discloses how low they will stoop to justify chemical weapons in the hands of those who believe killing infidels will get them to paradise. Welcome to that group of people.

Actually, you'd think he would. Bush hasn't fought against jack throughout his term. He lets these things slide, one after another after another and never defends anything. This is what leads anti-US liberal nuts to *assume* such things. The very same people often refer to Bush as a liar.

Old report. Actually the UN confirmed some of the WMD was moved to Syria.

Actually, you have it the other way around. Some of us support the troops and their mission and want to see them succeed. Others support al qaida and do so at every turn, yet they do not go over themselves to claim their rightful virgins.

Some actually hope al qaida will take over Iraq. I have no idea why people hate Iraqis so much, that they would want them to live under a terrorist rule. I've asked AGS and gworld this question often. The very ones that want al qaida to win and Iraqis to live under their rule, will surely not go over and live under the same rule they wish upon others. Just ask them. Ask AGS or MattUK or gworld or even yourself...why do you want Iraqis to live under al qaida's rule, but are not willing to go over and live under the same rule?

I doubt it too. I doubt very seriously you would go over to Iraq and live under the rule of al qaida, that you want all Iraqis to live under. You root for their victory, but are unwilling to be an example and go over and live under their control yourself. Cowards.

Uncalled for. I've served my country. I'm happy that you are exposing your hatred of US soldiers that serve honorably. I suspect you've never served anything more than your own personal interests. The least you could do is go to Iraq and live under al qaida's rule, like you wish upon others.

 

What makes it even more difficult, is that not all insurgents have the same ideology, some are like Al Queda, some are just rival gangs, some just want us and any other foreigners out

There was one group we were arming to fight al queda, but I think I read al queda suicide bombed their leadership

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/628skony.asp

So really the question of do you or don't you support the insurgents would kind of depend on what group you are talking about

Because apparently our military thinks some should be supported

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/136296.aspx

 

When a soldier peels a potato he still serves the country, because he peels potatoes for other soldiers. Have you ever peeled a potato for anyone else let alone serving your country?

 

I've communicated this to him and others who spend their time bashing US soldiers. Of course, I never peeled a single potato in the Army, but would be proud if I did. Cooks are assigned those responsibilities. Cooks are a vital part of the US military and serve honorably. They get up 4-5 hours before others, to prepare meals and there is nothing grandiose about the job they do. Without honorable Cooks serving our military, soldiers could not eat. Still, some will attempt to slander and anyone who has served.

Ironically, on the subject of cooks, I had the pleasure of serving with Duncan Hines (III or IV, can't remember) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma back in the mid-80s. For anyone that recognizes that name, yes, he was from the famous Duncan Hines family. I asked him why he chose to serve in the military when his family was so wealthy. He said he wanted to serve his country and that others in his family had done so. And yes, he was a 92G...a Food Service Specialist.

 

But you spent all of your time spud bashing.