They weren't there either.... seems no one can find any evidence as to why the US invaded... only you seem to find that odd or out of US character.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Have you checked up your ass? > > On Jul 18, 10:14 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > AND WE ARE ALL STILL WAITING TO SEE THEM.... where are they ?? > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > How the hell do YOU know how "tight" the formations were or were not. > > > PLEASE stop this inane pretending that you know more about tactics and > > > strategy than our generals because you were "in the service." LOL! > > > > > >Our invasion was honestly about WMDs. > > > > > You starting to make me think that you're a teenager on the bosses > > > computer in the office between your shift as fry cook at McDonalds. > > > Were you in a coma in the year prior to the Iraq war? It sounds like > > > it. > > > > > I can understand "moderates" disagreeing with the invasion of Iraq on > > > any number of grounds. But you spout the whacko leftie lies like a > > > good little commrade. Stop pretending. > > > > > On Jul 18, 7:08 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "> We thought he had poison gas. Our soldiers were equipped to > > > > confront > > > > > > > it. > > > > > Everybody thought he had WMDs, mostly because he not only HAD them > but > > > > > because he used them against his enemies." > > > > > > Anyone who's been through basic strategic training knows that you > > > > don't go into Iraq with divisions in tight formations (as we did) if > > > > you think the enemy has WMD's (at least not ones that are still any > > > > good - we knew the ones WE gave thme were no longer a threat). > > > > But okay I get it. You guys really want to believe a certain way and > > > > that's fine. I can understand not wanting to believe that your > leaders > > > > had motives other than those publicly stated. So fine. Bush never > lied > > > > or spun a thing. Our invasion was honestly about WMDs. And our love > > > > for the Iraqi people who needed Liberation. Because the role of the > > > > American government is to ust invade anyone country that isn't nice. > > > > Besides, according to those same leaders, the Iraqis would welcome us > > > > with open arms. > > > > > > If nothing else, I can understand your wanting to believe the way you > > > > do. > > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:07 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. > > > > > > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state > > > > > > > Actually, they were. Iraq had completed construction of a nuclear > > > > > reactor (That makes you a nuclear nation state) but Israel > immediately > > > > > blew it up. (Thank you Israel). > > > > > > > Some people would say that a leader who builds a nuclear reactor > > > > > despite worldwide protests and has and uses poison gas on > neighboring > > > > > countries and his own people was a dangerous guy. Other people like > > > > > deluding themselves. > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
