CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6831

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Come on Cam...give credit where credit is due. The right thing happened regardless of the "oil" situation. No matter what, Kuwait got its land back and still control their own oil. As far as I know, we dont own Kuwaiti oil or control it....I could be wrong though.

Regardless, the right thing was done and give credit to the regular US men and women who went there and did the job.
It has nothing to do with owning the Kuwaiti oil. The west seeks to prevent any one middle eastern power from establishing a monopoly on the oil supply of that region of the world. OPEC exerts a worrying degree of influence over our economies alone without any one dictator ruling the oil 'roost'.

The right thing was done, but for the wrong reasons. And deep down you know that what I said about a 'no oil' situation is true.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-04 09:38:52)

DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6455

CameronPoe wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Come on Cam...give credit where credit is due. The right thing happened regardless of the "oil" situation. No matter what, Kuwait got its land back and still control their own oil. As far as I know, we dont own Kuwaiti oil or control it....I could be wrong though.

Regardless, the right thing was done and give credit to the regular US men and women who went there and did the job.
It has nothing to do with owning the Kuwaiti oil. The west seeks to prevent any one middle eastern power from establishing a monopoly on the oil supply of that region of the world. OPEC exerts a worrying degree of influence over our economies alone without any one dictator ruling the oil 'roost'.

The right thing was done, but for the wrong reasons. And deep down you know that what I said about a 'no oil' situation is true.
Like I said, give credit where credit is due. ....to the men and women who went and fought to fee Kuwait. They have the thanks of many Kuwaiti people who don't look at the world as you do.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6831

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Like I said, give credit where credit is due. ....to the men and women who went and fought to fee Kuwait. They have the thanks of many Kuwaiti people who don't look at the world as you do.
I did say that 'the right thing was done'. As a world leader I wouldn't have went to war in that situation though I must say. One must be consistent if one is to be the 'do-gooder'. Tibet and Chechnya seem to be of no strategic interest to us - and therefore receive no military intervention on their behalf.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-04 09:44:58)

GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6920

CameronPoe wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Come on Cam...give credit where credit is due. The right thing happened regardless of the "oil" situation. No matter what, Kuwait got its land back and still control their own oil. As far as I know, we dont own Kuwaiti oil or control it....I could be wrong though.

Regardless, the right thing was done and give credit to the regular US men and women who went there and did the job.
It has nothing to do with owning the Kuwaiti oil. The west seeks to prevent any one middle eastern power from establishing a monopoly on the oil supply of that region of the world. OPEC exerts a worrying degree of influence over our economies alone without any one dictator ruling the oil 'roost'.

The right thing was done, but for the wrong reasons. And deep down you know that what I said about a 'no oil' situation is true.
you know of ANY government in world history that didnt act out of its own self interest?
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6455

CameronPoe wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Like I said, give credit where credit is due. ....to the men and women who went and fought to fee Kuwait. They have the thanks of many Kuwaiti people who don't look at the world as you do.
I did say that 'the right thing was done'. As a world leader I wouldn't have went to war in that situation though I must say. One must be consistent if one is to be the 'do-gooder'. Tibet and Chechnya seem to be of no strategic interest to us - and therefore receive no military intervention on their behalf.
I agree with the last part of your statement as far as Tibet but I am curious...do you feel intervention is needed in any country? Lets say the Darfur situation and similar? As you said, if it isnt strategic, there seems to be no interest from ANY country but when does a leader decide enough is enough.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6499|Escea

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Come on Cam...give credit where credit is due. The right thing happened regardless of the "oil" situation. No matter what, Kuwait got its land back and still control their own oil. As far as I know, we dont own Kuwaiti oil or control it....I could be wrong though.

Regardless, the right thing was done and give credit to the regular US men and women who went there and did the job.
It has nothing to do with owning the Kuwaiti oil. The west seeks to prevent any one middle eastern power from establishing a monopoly on the oil supply of that region of the world. OPEC exerts a worrying degree of influence over our economies alone without any one dictator ruling the oil 'roost'.

The right thing was done, but for the wrong reasons. And deep down you know that what I said about a 'no oil' situation is true.
you know of ANY government in world history that didnt act out of its own self interest?
Maybe one of those South Pacific Islands, then again they're fearsome when they want the other islands coconuts
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7038

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you know of ANY government in world history that didnt act out of its own self interest?
Ireland.  The IRA was like our peace corps tbh.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7038

Dilbert_X wrote:

There were links to terrorist groups, links to groups with similar aims to AQ but none directly to AQ.
No 'smoking gun' though.

Bay of Pigs.  Us supports Cubans to overthrow Castro = US involvement
It was a bit more than that, like supplying combat aircraft via the CIA. The comparison doesn't really bear out.
Saddam didn't support AQ directly, and was not involved in 9/11.
What I question is (dilbert, cam & co., and others) why you guys are so one sided.  If the US gave weapons to group #1, and group #1 gave them to group #2, then group #2 kills group #3...............you guys would blame the US also.  But when Iraq does it, there is no link. ?????
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6687|'Murka

usmarine wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

There were links to terrorist groups, links to groups with similar aims to AQ but none directly to AQ.
No 'smoking gun' though.

Bay of Pigs.  Us supports Cubans to overthrow Castro = US involvement
It was a bit more than that, like supplying combat aircraft via the CIA. The comparison doesn't really bear out.
Saddam didn't support AQ directly, and was not involved in 9/11.
What I question is (dilbert, cam & co., and others) why you guys are so one sided.  If the US gave weapons to group #1, and group #1 gave them to group #2, then group #2 kills group #3...............you guys would blame the US also.  But when Iraq does it, there is no link. ?????
Stop it with your logic and stuff. That's just too damn inconvenient.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6382|eXtreme to the maX
2) Yes.  For many reasons.  The biggest I believe is using mustard gas (a WMD) on his own people, and the 100s of thousands of mass graves found because of Sadaam
Funny we waited 10 years to do anything about it.
Is a large population of the world going to whine everytime something wasn't found where it was supposed to be?
Yes, if it results in an illegal war, deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and theft of a nations natural resources by a belligerent state.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-04 15:53:02)

Fuck Israel
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6920

Dilbert_X wrote:

theft of a nations natural resources by a belligerent state.
who is stealing what now?
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6499|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

2) Yes.  For many reasons.  The biggest I believe is using mustard gas (a WMD) on his own people, and the 100s of thousands of mass graves found because of Sadaam
Funny we waited 10 years to do anything about it.
Is a large population of the world going to whine everytime something wasn't found where it was supposed to be?
Yes, if it results in an illegal war, deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and theft of a nations natural resources by a belligerent state.
I've yet to hear of any oil coming from Iraq as a result of the war.
Also find it funny how such an illegal war was backed by so many countries.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-04-04 15:55:00)

Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6818|Texas - Bigger than France

Dilbert_X wrote:

2) Yes.  For many reasons.  The biggest I believe is using mustard gas (a WMD) on his own people, and the 100s of thousands of mass graves found because of Sadaam
Funny we waited 10 years to do anything about it.
Is a large population of the world going to whine everytime something wasn't found where it was supposed to be?
Yes, if it results in an illegal war, deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and theft of a nations natural resources by a belligerent state.
Which part is funny...the part about killing 100,000s of people?

HA HA HA HA

Last edited by Pug (2008-04-04 15:55:31)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6382|eXtreme to the maX
What I question is (dilbert, cam & co., and others) why you guys are so one sided.  If the US gave weapons to group #1, and group #1 gave them to group #2, then group #2 kills group #3...............you guys would blame the US also.  But when Iraq does it, there is no link. ?
Thats not the issue here, Bush claimed a significant and direct link, there wasn't one.
We all know support doesn't go the way its intended, 'blowback' etc.
Interestingly the Iraqis claimed to have US missiles in their various embassies - US supports Iraqi terrorists? Even I wouldn't claim that one.
Fuck Israel
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6818|Texas - Bigger than France

Dilbert_X wrote:

What I question is (dilbert, cam & co., and others) why you guys are so one sided.  If the US gave weapons to group #1, and group #1 gave them to group #2, then group #2 kills group #3...............you guys would blame the US also.  But when Iraq does it, there is no link. ?
Thats not the issue here, Bush claimed a significant and direct link, there wasn't one.
We all know support doesn't go the way its intended, 'blowback' etc.
Interestingly the Iraqis claimed to have US missiles in their various embassies - US supports Iraqi terrorists? Even I wouldn't claim that one.
to what?  terrorists?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6687|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

What I question is (dilbert, cam & co., and others) why you guys are so one sided.  If the US gave weapons to group #1, and group #1 gave them to group #2, then group #2 kills group #3...............you guys would blame the US also.  But when Iraq does it, there is no link. ?
Thats not the issue here, Bush claimed a significant and direct link, there wasn't one.
No. By your own source, all Bush said was that AQ had lost "a key ally" in Saddam. Did he ever say there was a "significant and direct link"? If so, please provide the source. If not, STFU.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Interestingly the Iraqis claimed to have US missiles in their various embassies - US supports Iraqi terrorists? Even I wouldn't claim that one.
Source?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6566|Éire

M.O.A.B wrote:

Also find it funny how such an illegal war was backed by so many countries.
A woeful list of nations who should all hang their heads in collective shame. The number of countries involved does not have a bearing on the legality or illegality of the war. In terms of US law I believe a country has to be of viable threat to the US homeland does it not? That certainly was not the case and so without a fully accepted and approved UN mandate the war must be deemed illegal... I personally do not accept the pro-war argument put forward in relation to resolutions 660 and 678 as a justification for invasion.

usmarine wrote:

What I question is (dilbert, cam & co., and others) why you guys are so one sided.  If the US gave weapons to group #1, and group #1 gave them to group #2, then group #2 kills group #3...............you guys would blame the US also.  But when Iraq does it, there is no link. ?????
What's wrong for one country is wrong for another, what people disagree with is America's inconsistencies in applying it's own form of world policing. I mean you invade Iraq over a convoluted and possibly quite negligible link to AQ while the 9/11 attackers all came from Saudi Arabia, a nation famous for it's extremely hard-line and hate-filled interpretation of Islam.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-04 18:19:52)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6687|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Also find it funny how such an illegal war was backed by so many countries.
A woeful list of nations who should all hang their heads in collective shame. The number of countries involved does not have a bearing on the legality or illegality of the war. In terms of US law I believe a country has to be of viable threat to the US homeland does it not? That certainly was not the case and so without a fully accepted and approved UN mandate the war must be deemed illegal... I personally do not accept the pro-war argument put forward in relation to resolutions 660 and 678 as a justification for invasion.
No, US law does not require a country to be a viable threat to the US homeland, only to US interests. "Clear and present danger" I believe.

Braddock wrote:

usmarine wrote:

What I question is (dilbert, cam & co., and others) why you guys are so one sided.  If the US gave weapons to group #1, and group #1 gave them to group #2, then group #2 kills group #3...............you guys would blame the US also.  But when Iraq does it, there is no link. ?????
What's wrong for one country is wrong for another, what people disagree with is America's inconsistencies in applying it's own form of world policing. I mean you invade Iraq over a convoluted and possibly quite negligible link to AQ while the 9/11 attackers all came from Saudi Arabia, a nation famous for it's extremely hard-line and hate-filled interpretation of Islam.
Iraq was invaded over suspected WMD and lack of cooperation with UN inspections. The support to terrorists (not just AQ) was secondary, but related to the suspected WMD (proliferation to terrorist orgs). It was never about Iraq being involved in 9/11.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-04-04 19:26:57)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6382|eXtreme to the maX
No. By your own source, all Bush said was that AQ had lost "a key ally" in Saddam. Did he ever say there was a "significant and direct link"? If so, please provide the source. If not, STFU.
STFU yourself.
I read 'key ally' as significant and direct link - as stated by others in the Bush admin, not just two groups with roughly the same ideals as suggested by you.
Australia and Finland have much the same ideals, are they 'key allies'? Not really.
Want the source? Read the frigging thread you dumb prick.
From earlier.
Dick Cheney
'If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. '

'We haven't really had the time yet to pore through all those records in Baghdad. We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions.' 2004
Iraq was invaded over suspected WMD and lack of cooperation with UN inspections.
That was a matter to be dealt with through the UN.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Interestingly the Iraqis claimed to have US missiles in their various embassies - US supports Iraqi terrorists? Even I wouldn't claim that one.

FEOS wrote:

Source?
Like I said - read the frigging thread - or do your own research.
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarch … 32008.html
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6687|'Murka

If you make the claims, then source them. That's SOP around here. The burden is on you to prove the validity of your point, not on the rest of us. Or you can just resort to name calling...it's up to you, I guess.

Calm down, Nancy. Sounds like someone's inner child needs a fucking hug.

Someone saying "key ally" does not equate to a "significant and direct link". You chose that interpretation because it matches your preconception. Unless you are omniscient, can read minds, or have an advanced degree in psychoanalysis that enables you to determine that someone meant something other than what they actually said, your interpretation is invalid.

Dilbert_X wrote:

That was a matter to be dealt with through the UN.
Regardless of whether the UN should have dealt with it (17 resolutions, anyone?), it doesn't change the reason for the invasion, which is different than what you put forward (ties to AQ).

Dilbert_X wrote:

Interestingly the Iraqis claimed to have US missiles in their various embassies - US supports Iraqi terrorists? Even I wouldn't claim that one.
Just how lazy is your logic? You and others have decried the amount of arms the US provides to various countries world-wide. Do you seriously think that the only way for Saddam Feddayeen agents to get American-built weapons is with the knowledge/support of the US?

Last edited by FEOS (2008-04-05 04:47:43)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6382|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Just how lazy is your logic? You and others have decried the amount of arms the US provides to various countries world-wide. Do you seriously think that the only way for Saddam Feddayeen agents to get American-built weapons is with the knowledge/support of the US?
I didn't say that - read what I actually wrote. I said the exact opposite.

FEOS wrote:

Regardless of whether the UN should have dealt with it (17 resolutions, anyone?), it doesn't change the reason for the invasion, which is different than what you put forward (ties to AQ).
I didn't put forward the AQ link, your President did.

If you make the claims, then source them.
BTW SOP is to read the thread before you start making ignorant comments and telling people to 'source or STFU'.

You never bother to source anything, why should I? But here goes - it took a whole 10 seconds on google.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ … .al.qaeda/
Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."
"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."
"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."

Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.
However, the commission also found that bin Laden did "explore possible cooperation with Iraq."

Cheney told CNBC that cooperation included a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to Sudan, where bin Laden was based prior to moving his operations to Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda members in bomb-making and document forgery.
Both Cheney and President Bush are strongly disputing suggestions that the commission's conclusion that there were no Iraqi fingerprints on the 9/11 attacks contradicts statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday, saying that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," the president said. (Full story)
In his CNBC interview, Cheney went a bit further. Asked if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know."
"What the commission says is they can't find evidence of that," he said. "We had one report, which is a famous report on the Czech intelligence service, and we've never been able to confirm or to knock it down."

The uncorroborated Czech report, which has been widely disputed, alleged that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague before the attacks.
Asked if he knows information that the 9/11 commission does not know, Cheney replied, "Probably."
As far as I remember all the above has been shown to be total bullshit - the subject of the OP.
Why exactly were Bush and Cheney insinuating significant and longstanding links between Saddam, Iraq, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden when they can't have believed it was true?

Compare and contrast Cheney's statements with George Tenet's.
We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-05 05:45:42)

Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6687|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Just how lazy is your logic? You and others have decried the amount of arms the US provides to various countries world-wide. Do you seriously think that the only way for Saddam Feddayeen agents to get American-built weapons is with the knowledge/support of the US?
I didn't say that - read what I actually wrote. I said the exact opposite.
My bad. I misread what you wrote.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Regardless of whether the UN should have dealt with it (17 resolutions, anyone?), it doesn't change the reason for the invasion, which is different than what you put forward (ties to AQ).
I didn't put forward the AQ link, your President did.
No he didn't. It was not part of the UN resolutions, nor was it part of the Congressional approval for military action. Making speeches after major combat ops have ended is not the same thing as saying it was the causus belli.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you make the claims, then source them.
BTW SOP is to read the thread before you start making ignorant comments and telling people to 'source or STFU'.
I DID read the thread. If my comment was ignorant, it's because you didn't provide the information to inform it. You didn't source your claim. Get over yourself.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You never bother to source anything, why should I?
ORLY? How does one source firsthand experience? Please explain that one. There is a difference between relaying personal experiences and making ridiculous claims based on your own conspiracy theories.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But here goes - it took a whole 10 seconds on google.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ … .al.qaeda/
Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."
"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."
"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."

Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.
However, the commission also found that bin Laden did "explore possible cooperation with Iraq."

Cheney told CNBC that cooperation included a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to Sudan, where bin Laden was based prior to moving his operations to Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda members in bomb-making and document forgery.
Both Cheney and President Bush are strongly disputing suggestions that the commission's conclusion that there were no Iraqi fingerprints on the 9/11 attacks contradicts statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday, saying that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
Well it took me less than ten seconds to find the highlighted portion. Do you read what you copy/paste?

Dilbert_X wrote:

As far as I remember all the above has been shown to be total bullshit - the subject of the OP.
It would appear that the 9/11 commission's report and the JFCOM report you cited both support the highlighted portions, as well as Iraqi ties to terrorist orgs other than AQ. But if you bothered to read your own sources, you would've realized that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why exactly were Bush and Cheney insinuating significant and longstanding links between Saddam, Iraq, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden when they can't have believed it was true?
Looking at what you cited, I don't see that at all. The term "numerous contacts" does not equate to "insinuating significant and longstanding links".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6920
there is evidence that showed zarqawi was in iraq, in baghdad, before march 03 as a guest of saddam's.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6687|'Murka

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

there is evidence that showed zarqawi was in iraq, in baghdad, before march 03 as a guest of saddam's.
I've pointed that out before. It gets conveniently ignored.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6920
I stayed at the very same hotel for a 4 day pass I was lucky enough to have received. 


Thing about Iraq is the insurgency was never fully planned till late in the game by the baathists.   the way saddam set up his military, he was more concerned with ensuring the survival of his regime from internal than fighting off invaders or organization a guerrilla war against occupation.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-04-05 07:07:49)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard