Bush's War

1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2564138
"Assuming the two documents are authentic — and the US military insists that they are"
"US intelligence officials cautioned, however, that the documents were snapshots of two small areas and that al-Qaeda was far from a spent force."
Which is it wishy or washy
Still going with them over you when it comes to knowing what is actually going on over there.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
No, I haven't forgot, Rambo. You go and kill everyone you see. Maybe you'll get to kill lots and lots of evil doers. Be sure to get everyone so they can't come here.
Gotta make sure we win.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2564141
It took Al Qaeda less than 2 hours to kill 3,000 people on 9-11. Have you forgotten that?
When are we going to get Bin Laden - I haven't seen an intelligence report saying he is potencially in Iraq, did I miss it

The majority were Saudi born when are we going to address that and the NON democratic country there. Like I said before we tolerate non-democratic governments, they talk two faced nice to us and we like them now, when they turn, they will be on our list for pro-democracy regime change. Saudi's don't do manual labor that is beneath them, they hire Palestinians to do that for them.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2564157
When are we going to get Bin Laden - I haven't seen an intelligence report saying he is potencially in Iraq, did I miss it

The majority were Saudi born when are we going to address that and the NON democratic country there. Like I said before we tolerate non-democratic governments, they talk two faced nice to us and we like them now, when they turn, they will be on our list for pro-democracy regime change. Saudi's don't do manual labor that is beneath them, they hire Palestinians to do that for them.
I haven't seen a report saying where he is.
I think we can agree, however, that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, correct?
We work with many countries that are not Democracies but still allow us to hunt terrorists within their borders.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2564143
Still going with them over you when it comes to knowing what is actually going on over there.
It's not just me that you won't go with, it's anything that doesn't subscribe to your doctrine. Including the other items in the hearing this week.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../13/le.01.html
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, CMDR., MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ: We haven't turned any corners. We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator and the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible.
LUGAR: Well, I thought the hearing demonstrated that we don't have still a definition of success or victory. As a matter of fact, I asked General Petraeus for some idea really of a formula for how the politics of Iraq might turn out, leaving aside the intrusions of Iran and al Qaeda, which came into the situation.
BIDEN: So really what this is, is punting to the next president. And I asked General Petraeus, I said, would your recommendations be the same if you were the central commander, not just Iraq commander? Or you were the chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
And he said, they would be different. He is telling you what he needs in Iraq. Let me read Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he said: "Having forces in Iraq at the level they are will not allow us to fill the needs we have in Afghanistan."
And when I asked Ambassador Crocker where al Qaeda was a greater threat, in Afghanistan or in Iraq? He said, clearly in Afghanistan. So this is a gigantic cost we're paying in terms of our security.
Last point I'll make is General -- if you look at General -- the chairman -- the vice chairman the Army, he said, I've never seen our lack of strategic depth where it is today because of the commitments in Iraq. This is costing us big time.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2564194
It's not just me that you won't go with, it's anything that doesn't subscribe to your doctrine. Including the other items in the hearing this week.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../13/le.01.html
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, CMDR., MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ: We haven't turned any corners. We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator and the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible.
LUGAR: Well, I thought the hearing demonstrated that we don't have still a definition of success or victory. As a matter of fact, I asked General Petraeus for some idea really of a formula for how the politics of Iraq might turn out, leaving aside the intrusions of Iran and al Qaeda, which came into the situation.
BIDEN: So really what this is, is punting to the next president. And I asked General Petraeus, I said, would your recommendations be the same if you were the central commander, not just Iraq commander? Or you were the chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
And he said, they would be different. He is telling you what he needs in Iraq. Let me read Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he said: "Having forces in Iraq at the level they are will not allow us to fill the needs we have in Afghanistan."
And when I asked Ambassador Crocker where al Qaeda was a greater threat, in Afghanistan or in Iraq? He said, clearly in Afghanistan. So this is a gigantic cost we're paying in terms of our security.
Last point I'll make is General -- if you look at General -- the chairman -- the vice chairman the Army, he said, I've never seen our lack of strategic depth where it is today because of the commitments in Iraq. This is costing us big time.
I agree with much of that.

In every War gains are potentially reversible. Battle of the Bulge for instance.
NATO is in command of Afghanistan. If we need more troops there then NATO can supply them.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2564206
Duh. They are in every country.
Senator Obama doesn't seem to agree.
"Al Qaeda is not in Ir --" said Obama at which point he caught himself and finished the sentence by saying: "the key Al Qaeda leadership is not based in Iraq (taken from comments April 11th)
This, of course, goes along with his comments during the Feb 26th Democratic debate where he said he would send troops back to Iraq if Al Qaeda ever tried to set up a base there.
 
rudedog40

rudedog40

Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
http:///forum/post/2563852
Hey, this is a great idea! Look how isolationism worked for us in the late 30's!
So what happens if we ignore what's happening in the rest of the world, spend all our money on defenses at home, and terrorists manage to get a hold of a nuke. Our border security isn't going to do much good against a nuke flying towards one of our cities! I think the losses from that would be much greater than spending 50 years overseas battling the terrorists.
How is anyone going 'fly a nuke towards one of our cities'? You watch too many movies. The US knows where every long-range nuclear missle currently exists in this world. If ANY unidentified inbound came within 100 miles of a US border, it'd be blown out of the sky. Now if a terrorist wanted to use a nuke that was devolped INSIDE our borders, that's another thing. But then 'spending all our money on defenses at home' would make sense to counter those threats, wouldn't it?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2564233
How is anyone going 'fly a nuke towards one of our cities'? You watch too many movies. The US knows where every long-range nuclear missle currently exists in this world. If ANY unidentified inbound came within 100 miles of a US border, it'd be blown out of the sky. Now if a terrorist wanted to use a nuke that was devolped INSIDE our borders, that's another thing. But then 'spending all our money on defenses at home' would make sense to counter those threats, wouldn't it?
Several Iraqi and iranian missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads and can easily be fired from a cargo ship...
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2564237
Several Iraqi and iranian missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads and can easily be fired from a cargo ship...
Was any of the Iranian learned capabilities from the treasonous act of Iran-Contra weapons sales in the 80's. Or do we not know for sure....
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2564251
Was any of the Iranian learned capabilities from the treasonous act of Iran-Contra weapons sales in the 80's. Or do we not know for sure....
Actually I believe it can be traced to Chinese technology dating from the Clinton era.
 
rudedog40

rudedog40

Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2563746
Really? Please explain...
Like I said, there are many reservists in your volunteer Army that never wanted to go. Granted they had to go because they were stupid to sign up in the first place thinking, "Oh, I'll never get deployed. I'm a reservist that's supposed to protect our country at home. Deployment is only for active duty members."
The last time I checked, soldiers don't get to choose on which Wars they participate and which ones they sit out... Further, this War has been going on for 5 years now. Many of those Reservists keep re-enlisting...
Don't know what your definition of 'many' is.
Clinton wasn't President during the first Gulf War.... Nor was the political, global, or military situation the same in 1990 as it was in 2003. So, no.. don't blame him. I do blame him for not appropriately responding the first time we were attacked by Al Qaeda and the first time Saddam violated the peace agreement....
Uh, we went over to the Gulf War primarily because of Sadaam invading Kuwait. Why don't you blame Daddy 'CutNRun' Bush for not taking care of Sadaam when we were over there in 1990?
As soon as you start posting facts I'll listen. So far all I see is a lot of negative dribble and pessimistic arguments about how we can never win.
OK bright boy, what is it going to take in your mind how to win this war? What will it take to satisfy you that we can leave that country and never have to worry about fighting there again? Don't give me the 'take out and destroy Al Qaeda and all other terrorist factions." diatribe. That's the least of the problems over there. There is a religious and tribal war going on over there. For the war to end, you would have to make peace with EVERYONE over there. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN OUR LIFETIME, YOUR GRANDKID'S LIFETIME, OR THEIR GRANDKID'S LIFETIME. They've been fighting one another for centuries, and will continue to do so know matter what we do to try and pacify the situation. Why can't you understand that? You can stuff democracy and peace down their throats all day. But fighting one another is in their blood. Kinda like the Hatfields and McCoys. No matter what you try to do, they'll NEVER get along. You may slow things down a little -- only bombs going off once a week instead of every day. But is that your idea of success? Youy call it pessimism and negative dribble. Sorry journey, it's called reality.
 
rudedog40

rudedog40

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2564237
Several Iraqi and iranian missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads and can easily be fired from a cargo ship...
Please. Talk about watching too many movies. You don't think they monitor the international waters surrounding the US? Hey, let them pull a cargo ship down the Mississippi and fire one of them babies off! We can have Arnuld, Rambo, or Steven Segal jump on the ship and stop them before they pull the trigger!
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2564257
Actually I believe it can be traced to Chinese technology dating from the Clinton era.
I just didn't want one of our so called patriot's (O. NORTH ) treasonous actions to be the reason. Good it's the Chinese that sold it to them and not the U.S.

[hr]
China's missile trade and cooperation with Iran has been a subject of substantial proliferation concern in Washington since the 1980's. China's missile exports and assistance to Iran have generally fallen into two areas: the provision of anti-ship cruise missiles and related technology, and technical assistance for Iran's ballistic missile program, as well as some exports of complete ballistic missiles. Washington fears that Chinese ballistic and cruise missile exports and assistance to Iran could provide the material and technical base for Iranian development and deployment of missiles that could be used in the delivery of weapons of mass destruction. Iran's growing military capability, of which the missile program forms an important part, could raise regional tensions in the Persian Gulf, and directly threaten US interests in the region, especially the safe passage of oil tankers, as well as the security interests of US allies in the region, such as Israel. Disputes over Chinese missile exports and assistance to Iran have impeded bilateral relations and undermined the bases for US-China cooperation in other areas of mutual and global concern.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2564272
Please. Talk about watching too many movies. You don't think they monitor the international waters surrounding the US? Hey, let them pull a cargo ship down the Mississippi and fire one of them babies off! We can have Arnuld, Rambo, or Steven Segal jump on the ship and stop them before they pull the trigger!

Hey, I forgot about Steven Segal. We've had so much Chuck Norris coverage! I'm pretty sure the Cons think Norris is going to save us....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top