>>> f there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did
I use the UNSC's definition of WMD... And by that standard he had WMD... Second the CIA has been all too often wrong since the 60's... The claim Bush alter intel info is bogus and only used by partisans wishing to politicize the CIA, as Pelosi is doing right now... >>> Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state but again, >>> if you really want to believe it is or was, okay dokey WMD also includes chemical and biological... But you know that... And frankly they are the bigger threat as attacks by stateless groups have already occurred using WMD... >>> They've made it clear for years that Iraq will never appreciate what we've >>> done and no matter how long we're there, they'll regress shortly after we leave. Two thousand years of culture. Iraq has already made clear they view US as outsiders and went out of the way to spit in Bush's face before he could get out of office. But you believe what you want to believe. Of course you ignore what I said >>> The question here is not fighting the outsider BUT WHICH OUTSIDER... And to Arab Iraqis, Iranian Shia and AQ Sunni are far more dangerous outside invaders... Given a choice, choosing America over Iran or AQ is VERY rational.... Shocking to many in the Moslem world and to our Left, but once the shock is over it is why the AQ role model and the Iranian role model are now in decline for ordinary Moslems throughout the world on the whole... Your POV is quite explainable if one assumes an closed minded Western (LW) missionary mindset that is so insisted on by our media... On Jul 18, 1:42 pm, Frederick The Moderate <[email protected]> wrote: > If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. Large, > tight formations are easy targets and we know that. Not to mention > that we would have sent a least one division to sweep and search the > area where we "knew" the WMD's were for residual (or any other) > evidence they ever existed. We never did. Not one peek. I'm former > navy intel and i can assure you, even though Bush screwed our Humint > network fro some time to come, we still would have been able to find > evidence - if believed it was ever there. > But I get it. You really, really, really want to believe there were > WMD's there. Okay. > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state but > again, if you really want to believe it is or was, okay dokey. > > Talk about wanting to believe lies. > > I've lost five friends in Iraq. All of them Psy-Ops and a couple Force > Recon. They've made it clear for years that Iraq will never appreciate > what we've done and no matter how long we're there, they'll regress > shortly after we leave. Two thousand years of culture. > Iraq has already made clear they view US as outsiders and went out of > the way to spit in Bush's face before he could get out of office. But > you believe what you want to believe. > > On Jul 18, 7:23 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> We also had the certainty that there really were no WMD's > > > Not true. > > > >>> Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting people they viewed as > > >>> invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of > > > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. > > > Once again you show little understanding... Both AQ and the > > Americans are outsiders... As is the harsh form of Radical Islam... > > As is the lowland Pakistani... The question here is not fighting the > > outsider BUT WHICH OUTSIDER... The exit strategy? Stability and a > > non Radical Islamic government in a nuclear nation-state... > > > >>> I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border them. They > > >>> had easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & technology > > >>> have done squat for us. Thus far, we've been successful only at blowing > > >>> up weddings and killing civilians. Lots of them. It's a mess > > > and a mistake and we should get out. > > > Tactics and technology make a huge difference... As the fact the our > > WILLINGNESS and desire to be a long term occupying power is far less > > than the Russians or the Pakistanis as makes a difference... The > > Russian border aided in supplying their troops but harmed the "Soft > > Warfare" in being seen a a long term occupying power... > > > >>> The only upside is at least we're actually going after people we have > > >>> truthful cause to go after. > > > Once again you proclaim Urban Lies... > > > On Jul 18, 3:58 am, Frederick The Moderate > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree with you about Iraq. We had so many sanctions on Iraq before > > > invading, they couldn't import dental equipment (because it could > > > possibly be modified for weapons use - go figure). We also had the > > > certainty that there really were no WMD's. So it was nothing to storm > > > right in. Like you said, cakewalk getting there. It was afterward the > > > problems started. Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting > > > people they viewed as invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of > > > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. > > > I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border them. They > > > had easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & technology > > > have done squat for us. Thus far, we've been successful only at > > > blowing up weddings and killing civilians. Lots of them. It's a mess > > > and a mistake and we should get out. > > > The only upside is at least we're actually going after people we have > > > truthful cause to go after. > > > > On Jul 17, 11:40 pm, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Iraq was [almost] a cake walk, compared to what we face in > > > > Afghanistan. Even with enough troops (500,000 +/-), it'll take a > > > > generation to pacify Afghanistan - a mountainous moonscape the size of > > > > Texas covered with 70-million ants (nomads, warring tribes - barefoot, > > > > illiterate villages). There's nothing there to "rebuild," it's all > > > > from scratch. The people are suspicious of everything, even a simple, > > > > local hydro-pump to generate electricity. > > > > > Then there's Pakistan, blood-brother to Afghanistan; we'll never > > > > subdue one without subduing the other. And by that time we'll be > > > > broke, no longer a viable nation - which makes the whole surge- > > > > strategy a lethal mistake.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
