I've got some news for Obama...

[WRL]

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., continued to attack Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., today for suggesting during a Democratic debate that after withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, Obama, as commander in chief, would be willing to send U.S. troops back into Iraq "if al Qaeda is forming a base" there...

:lol:

"The fact is, al Qaeda is in Iraq," McCain said. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. If we left Iraq there's no doubt that al Qaeda would then gain control in Iraq and pose a threat to the United States of America. Ask anyone who knows about the situation on the ground in Iraq. I look forward to continuing this debate."

Obama responded to McCain's comments today at a rally in Columbus, Ohio.

"Well, first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets," he said. "But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4356093
Well seems that that Barack Obama has one heck of a foreign policy lined up for us, withdrawal from Iraq, only to return after all our success is undone by the terrorists. Oh and don't forget the wonderful Idea to bomb our allies as we withdraw from one fight.

Point is Obama, needs a history lesson, Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorism in many forms, I'll outline a few here...




Salaries For Suicide Bombers
Iraq Pays $25,000 To Families Of 'Martyrs'

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2002

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000...

Mahmoud Safi, leader of a pro-Iraqi Palestinian group, the Arab Liberation Front, acknowledged that the support payments for relatives make it easier for some potential bombers to make up their minds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

What is Ansar al-Islam?

Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) is a group of Kurdish separatists and Islamic fundamentalists seeking to transform all ofIraq into an Islamic state. Mullah Krekar, also known as Faraj Ahmad Najmuddin, reportedly founded Ansar in December 2001 with funding and logistical support from al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi reportedly oversaw training of the terrorist group. According to the FBI, Ansar al-Islam also has ties to al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers, Ansar al-Sunnah Army, and Tawhid and Jihad.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9237/[/b]Zarqawi fled to Iraq after being shot by US forces in Afghanistan before Operation Iraqi Freedom...

April 2002: Al-Zarqawi leaves Iran and enters Iraq.

February 2003: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell names al-Zarqawi as an associate of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/06/1631a128-9ae4-4a39-a8dd-ea3810fc7c00.html

In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam

-911 Commission Final Report 7/22/04


Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. The State Department has listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism through both Democrat and Republican administrations.

http://cfrterrorism.org/sponsors/iraq.html

Has Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin, against Iranian soldiers, and dropping mustard-gas bombs on Iranian villages. Human Rights Watch reports that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. In March 1988, Saddam’s forces killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja with chemical weapons.
(Warning very graphic)
http://www.firethistime.org/halabjavictims.jpg
http://www.iraqdigest.com/Halabja-.jpgAhh but we all know Obama isn't one to let the facts get in the way of a good line, to bad he's running for President...

[retiredman]

know your enemy, WIllie:

I realize they are all just brown skinned little ragheaded monkeys to YOU, but there really is a difference between arab nationalist organizations and wahabbist extremist organizations, Saddam supported the former, not the latter. The latter is who attacked us on 9/11. EVERYBODY in the arab world supported and continues to support arab/palestinian nationalist paramilitary organizations who didn't attack us on 9/11.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is a small franchise operation that was formed AFTER and in response to our invasion of Iraq. It is actually unclear what, if any, connect that group actually has with Osama's organization, or what, if any, control Osama might have over them.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is a sunni organization. They are being fought, primarily in Anbar, by Iraqi SUNNI warlords who have grown weary of AQ's targeting of civilians. ANd they are getting their asses kicked. ANd they haven't even tangled yet with Sadr's Mahdi Army which is MUCH larger and MUCH better equipped. If AQ is EVER going to be able to establish any presence in Iraq after our departure, it will be some small secretive base in some remote location. THey have ZERO chance of prevailing over sunni warlords or shiite militias or the established Iraqi military.

For John Sindey McCain to suggest that AQ will take over the country is simply silly fearmongering.... and it's good to see you jump right on his back and promote it!

[WRL]

recognizing reality isn't fearmongering

[retiredman]

recognizing reality isn't fearmongering

Suggesting that AQ in Iraq can take over Iraq from indigenous sunni warlords and the mahdi army and the Iraqi military is not reality.... it's fantasy spun for the purpose of fearmongering.

[WRL]

Wow, did you just admit we've been successful with Al Qeada in Iraq, wow you've come a long way.

[retiredman]

Wow, did you just admit we've been successful with Al Qeada in Iraq, wow you've come a long way.


are you going to admit that Al Qaeda in Iraq is a bush league organization with ZERO chance of "taking over Iraq" as John Sindey McCain said yesterday and that his statements amount to fearmongering?

and willie.... al qaeda... the real deal al qaeda and not this newly born franchise... has never been in Iraq. Saddam didn't train them. They are still in the hills of Eastern Afghanistan/Northwestern Pakistan where they have been since the day they attacked us.... and our own intelligence agencies have concluded that they are just as strong as they were the day they flew airplanes into our buildings. The war in Iraq has been a counterproductive and extremely costly blunder. Are you ready to put down the koolaid and admit that?

[WRL]

MM, it's the war on terror, not the war on OBL

[WRL]

And we stand a chance to succeed if we preserver, if we retreat, we lose, terrorism, radical Islam, wins. As you well know, the first WTC attack was before Iraq, Khobar towers happened before Iraq, the USS Cole was done before Iraq, and if we give them Iraq, more, stronger attacks will follow.

[retiredman]

MM, it's the war on terror, not the war on OBL

so when will we attack the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka? How about the IRA? Red Brigades in Italy?

No?

I would suggest that we should fight those terrorist organizations who seek to do US harm. Please explain how Iraqi sunnis and shiites are now America's enemies?

[retiredman]

And we stand a chance to succeed if we preserver, if we retreat, we lose, terrorism, radical Islam, wins. As you well know, the first WTC attack was before Iraq, Khobar towers happened before Iraq, the USS Cole was done before Iraq, and if we give them Iraq, more, stronger attacks will follow.


Wahabbism - a radical sunni branch - is going to succeed in Iraq against a motivated population that is 75% shiite? Please explain.

[WRL]

Wahabbism - a radical sunni branch - is going to succeed in Iraq against a motivated population that is 75% shiite? Please explain.

Whether it's Al Qaeda or Iranian backed Sadar militia, it's bad for the US and unfathomable we have a candidate running for office on a shoulder shrug and these two options...

[retiredman]

Whether it's Al Qaeda or Iranian backed Sadar militia, it's bad for the US and unfathomable we have a candidate running for office on a shoulder shrug and these two options...

The new government of Iraq is and will be pro-Iranian. Sadr is a well respected and widely admired cleric. Iraq will form an alliance with Iran the minute we leave. All of the shiite leaders have long standing ties with Iranian shiites. How are we supposed to stop that?

And why won't you admit that McCain claiming in his speech yesterday that Al Qaeda will "take over Iraq" is inaccurate fearmongering and would suggest that, either John Sindey McCain doesn't really have as solid a grasp on the dynamics in play in the sectarian struggles in the middle east, or he is purposely LYING in order to drum up fear.

Neither one of those qualities sounds like what I want in a president...how about you?

[WRL]

The new government of Iraq is and will be pro-Iranian. Sadr is a well respected and widely admired cleric. Iraq will form an alliance with Iran the minute we leave....


So the grand solution is to withdrawal early? That seems to be playing right into the wrong hands, we should finish the job, allow the 80% drop in violence to take hold, and as is happening, people like Sadar become marginalized, voluntarily signing cease fire agreements...

[glockmail]

Whether it's Al Qaeda or Iranian backed Sadar militia, it's bad for the US and unfathomable we have a candidate running for office on a shoulder shrug and these two options...Hussein Obama apparently is willing to give up all that American soldiers have died for.

[WRL]

That's what burns me the most...

[Gaffer]

Hussein Obama apparently is willing to give up all that American soldiers have died for.

So is mfm.

[glockmail]

That's what burns me the most...


So is mfm. The only possible reason that these ninnies want to do that is to get idiots to vote for Democrats.

[retiredman]

So the grand solution is to withdrawal early? That seems to be playing right into the wrong hands, we should finish the job, allow the 80% drop in violence to take hold, and as is happening, people like Sadar become marginalized, voluntarily signing cease fire agreements...


earlier than what?

what defines "finished"?

The 80% drop in violence is because of ONE THING: our troops on the ground.

The only way you will "marginalize" Muqtada al Sadr is to kill him. He is THE most powerful and influential Shi'ite politician/cleric in a predominantly Shi'ite country.

He will sign a cease fire....and he may even hold it until we leave...or he may hold it until a month or so before our national elections if he thinks that lifting it and increasing the violence again will sway our elections in a direction that he sees as favorable...but, in the final analysis, it is a cease fire and not peace treaty. He will use his military might whenever and wherever he needs to in order to influence Iraqi policy and polity. It is not a matter of if...it is only a matter or when.

His view of history and his view of the future is so much further reaching than ours... we can stay there ten months or ten years and the end result will be the same.... Iraq is going to end up a quasi-theocratic ally of Iran. We can get on with the real war of fighting Islamic extremists who seek to do us harm, or we can fiddle-fuck around in Iraq for the next decade and THEN start fighting the war of fighting Islamic extremists who seek to do us harm. I prefer the former option, since I really really want to win the war against the Islamic extremists who attacked us on 9/11 before I die.

[trobinett]

earlier than what?

what defines "finished"?

The 80% drop in violence is because of ONE THING: our troops on the ground.

The only way you will "marginalize" Muqtada al Sadr is to kill him. He is THE most powerful and influential Shi'ite politician/cleric in a predominantly Shi'ite country.

He will sign a cease fire....and he may even hold it until we leave...or he may hold it until a month or so before our national elections if he thinks that lifting it and increasing the violence again will sway our elections in a direction that he sees as favorable...but, in the final analysis, it is a cease fire and not peace treaty. He will use his military might whenever and wherever he needs to in order to influence Iraqi policy and polity. It is not a matter of if...it is only a matter or when.

His view of history and his view of the future is so much further reaching than ours... we can stay there ten months or ten years and the end result will be the same.... Iraq is going to end up a quasi-theocratic ally of Iran. We can get on with the real war of fighting Islamic extremists who seek to do us harm, or we can fiddle-fuck around in Iraq for the next decade and THEN start fighting the war of fighting Islamic extremists who seek to do us harm. I prefer the former option, since I really really want to win the war against the Islamic extremists who attacked us on 9/11 before I die.

It seems obvious to manfrommaine, if no one else, that we are in over our heads.

I would suggest, that we allow HIM to pull our ass out of the fire.

People like manfrommaine always seem to have the answer, until THEIR sorry ass's are on the line, then, like magic, they start spinning, and blaming everyone else for the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in.

I grow weary of such people, and the countless ways they support, and enable our enemies.

Piss off......:fu:

[retiredman]

It seems obvious to manfrommaine, if no one else, that we are in over our heads.

I would suggest, that we allow HIM to pull our ass out of the fire.

People like manfrommaine always seem to have the answer, until THEIR sorry ass's are on the line, then, like magic, they start spinning, and blaming everyone else for the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in.

I grow weary of such people, and the countless ways they support, and enable our enemies.

Piss off......:fu:

I don't think we are in over our heads. I just think we are are fighting the wrong war. We will undoubtedly keep winning the battles in the Iraq front until we leave...but that will not do much in our fight against islamic extremists.

I don't support our enemies. I want desperately to get on with the business of actually starting to fight them.

[manu1959]

I don't think we are in over our heads. I just think we are are fighting the wrong war. We will undoubtedly keep winning the battles in the Iraq front until we leave...but that will not do much in our fight against islamic extremists.

I don't support our enemies. I want desperately to get on with the business of actually starting to fight them.

where and how would you like to fight them........

[retiredman]

where and how would you like to fight them........

not in Iraq...not with a huge occupying army.

our enemy is not a nation state. our enemy is much more agile and elusive than a piece of geography. we cannot fight a nationless enemy by attacking nations...ESPECIALLY those nations that do not harbor and support them.

[manu1959]

not in Iraq...not with a huge occupying army.

our enemy is not a nation state. our enemy is much more agile and elusive than a piece of geography. we cannot fight a nationless enemy by attacking nations...ESPECIALLY those nations that do not harbor and support them.

so where and how.....

[retiredman]

so where and how.....

I told you earlier....my ideas about that are multitudinous... I will get around to doing a blog piece on it, but I am not going to shotgun something for this forum off the top of my head.

suffice it to say that it would be a multi-pronged approach involving HUMINT, international police work, infiltrating financial networks, vigorous diplomacy, foreign aid and special operations....

[manu1959]

I told you earlier....my ideas about that are multitudinous... I will get around to doing a blog piece on it, but I am not going to shotgun something for this forum off the top of my head.

suffice it to say that it would be a multi-pronged approach involving HUMINT, international police work, infiltrating financial networks, vigorous diplomacy, foreign aid and special operations....

been busy the past few days wanted to make sure i hadn't missed it....pm me when you write it.....looking forword to reading it.....

[retiredman]

been busy the past few days wanted to make sure i hadn't missed it....pm me when you write it.....looking forword to reading it.....

wilco:salute:

[Yurt]

wilco:salute:

let me know too.

what did you think of obama's gaffaw? pretty embarassing.

[retiredman]

let me know too.

what did you think of obama's gaffaw? pretty embarassing.

which guffaw are we talking about?

[Yurt]

which guffaw are we talking about?

did you not read the o.p.? he said "if" AQ is in iraq, "then" i will go there.

[retiredman]

did you not read the o.p.? he said "if" AQ is in iraq, "then" i will go there.

AQ in Iraq is a small franchise operation that has questionable ties to Osama...

[manu1959]

AQ in Iraq is a small franchise operation that has questionable ties to Osama...

really.....got a story for me to read.....cuz i swear he tells them what to do and funds them...at least that is what all yall we saying in somalia...nigeria....etc....

[Yurt]

AQ in Iraq is a small franchise operation that has questionable ties to Osama...

so ...... they ARE there... he said "if"

[retiredman]

so ...... they ARE there... he said "if"

"AQ in Iraq" is not really the same as Al Qaeda.... but DO go ahead and make a big deal about it...

I doubt that Obama is embarrassed about it...I know that I am not.

[manu1959]

so ...... they ARE there... he said "if"

i seem to recall.....in northeastern iraq, abu usab al-zarqawi, one of the leading terrorists in osama bin laden's organization, was training terrorists and that Iraq was harboring him and facilitating his actions.

no which organization did abu belong....

[retiredman]

i seem to recall.....in northeastern iraq, abu usab al-zarqawi, one of the leading terrorists in osama bin laden's organization, was training terrorists and that Iraq was harboring him and facilitating his actions.

no which organization did abu belong....

northeastern Iraq was under the control of the kurds... zarqawi was not affiliated with AQ until well after 9/11. Up until the time of his affiliation, he had been independent of OBL's organization and focused on regional issues.

[manu1959]

northeastern Iraq was under the control of the kurds... zarqawi was not affiliated with AQ until well after 9/11. Up until the time of his affiliation, he had been independent of OBL's organization and focused on regional issues.

so this area was not iraq and zarqawi was selling vacuums.....you act like all these guys were working at target prior to 911.....

[retiredman]

so this area was not iraq and zarqawi was selling vacuums.....you act like all these guys were working at target prior to 911.....

the area was not under the control of Saddam...and Zarqawi had nothing to do with 9/11 either.

[manu1959]

the area was not under the control of Saddam...and Zarqawi had nothing to do with 9/11 either.

really which country did this country belong to.....don't recall saying he did....

seems like saddam is guiltless as was zarqawi.....good guys both of em ...pit the couldn't contiune their peaceful ways and iraqi social programs and support of hamas and the iraqi national soccer team....

[Yurt]

"AQ in Iraq" is not really the same as Al Qaeda.... but DO go ahead and make a big deal about it...

I doubt that Obama is embarrassed about it...I know that I am not.

:lol:

US soldiers in germany are not the same as US soldiers in kentucky.....

[WRL]

northeastern Iraq was under the control of the kurds... zarqawi was not affiliated with AQ until well after 9/11. Up until the time of his affiliation, he had been independent of OBL's organization and focused on regional issues.


I see you've retreated all the way back to 9/11, I thought it was Iraq, admit it it was our weakness that invited the attack and inspired so many many more...

The only way you are going to defeat this enemy, which is Radical Islam, not the tactics they use, is to get at the institutions that where promoting and propagating this abuse of Islam lone before we showed up. The Islamic schools, the state run media's, 2 are now out of the way, and a great swath of the Middle East will have a chance to grow up in a society not dominated by Radical Islam, but an environment where Democracy rules, and moderation takes hold. We've done this before in Europe and Asia, two vastly different cultures, and our 'Marshall Plan' for the Middle East can and will have the same results, only if we hold our nerve, and commit properly to that which we have sacrificed such blood and treasure on. Let no man have died in vain...

This wacky talk of withdrawal from Iraq to bomb Pakistan, to return to Iraq is nonsense, and Obama would be quick to realize this...

[glockmail]

I told you earlier....my ideas about that are multitudinous... I will get around to doing a blog piece on it, but I am not going to shotgun something for this forum off the top of my head.

suffice it to say that it would be a multi-pronged approach involving HUMINT, international police work, infiltrating financial networks, vigorous diplomacy, foreign aid and special operations....
It appears that the Bush Administration is already doing that. That is when not being subverted by your beloved Democrats and UN liberals.

[theHawk]

Well seems that that Barack Obama has one heck of a foreign policy lined up for us, withdrawal from Iraq, only to return after all our success is undone by the terrorists. Oh and don't forget the wonderful Idea to bomb our allies as we withdraw from one fight.

Point is Obama, needs a history lesson, Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorism in many forms, I'll outline a few here...


Zarqawi fled to Iraq after being shot by US forces in Afghanistan before Operation Iraqi Freedom...

April 2002: Al-Zarqawi leaves Iran and enters Iraq.

February 2003: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell names al-Zarqawi as an associate of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/06/1631a128-9ae4-4a39-a8dd-ea3810fc7c00.html

In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam

-911 Commission Final Report 7/22/04

Ahh but we all know Obama isn't one to let the facts get in the way of a good line, to bad he's running for President...



McCain absolutely slam dunked Obama on this. I love how the only retort Obama has is 'well, well, they wouldn't be there if it wasn't for Bush and McCain invading!' He completely evades the issue that he said he we go back in "if" AQ is there. We're not debating when or how they got there, the point is they ARE there. So either this jackass is going to pull out all American forces from Iraq only to go back in the next day, or he is lying and has no intention of ever attacking AQ in Iraq.

This shitbag liberal has been exposed as a fraud and a complete dimwit when it comes to foreign policy on the war on terror.

[Classact]

[Let's see what Senator Kerry has to say before his vote to go to war with Iraq...

We are facing a very different world today than we have ever faced before. September 11 changed a lot, but other things have changed: Globalization, technology, a smaller planet, the difficulties of radical fundamentalism, the crosscurrents of religion and politics. We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past.

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must:

According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?


http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp

[retiredman]

I see you've retreated all the way back to 9/11, I thought it was Iraq, admit it it was our weakness that invited the attack and inspired so many many more...

The only way you are going to defeat this enemy, which is Radical Islam, not the tactics they use, is to get at the institutions that where promoting and propagating this abuse of Islam lone before we showed up. The Islamic schools, the state run media's, 2 are now out of the way, and a great swath of the Middle East will have a chance to grow up in a society not dominated by Radical Islam, but an environment where Democracy rules, and moderation takes hold. We've done this before in Europe and Asia, two vastly different cultures, and our 'Marshall Plan' for the Middle East can and will have the same results, only if we hold our nerve, and commit properly to that which we have sacrificed such blood and treasure on. Let no man have died in vain...

This wacky talk of withdrawal from Iraq to bomb Pakistan, to return to Iraq is nonsense, and Obama would be quick to realize this...

how many madrassas were running in Iraq when we invaded? Are you suggesting that Iraq state media was promoting and propagating radical Islamic extremism?

[retiredman]

McCain absolutely slam dunked Obama on this. I love how the only retort Obama has is 'well, well, they wouldn't be there if it wasn't for Bush and McCain invading!' He completely evades the issue that he said he we go back in "if" AQ is there. We're not debating when or how they got there, the point is they ARE there. So either this jackass is going to pull out all American forces from Iraq only to go back in the next day, or he is lying and has no intention of ever attacking AQ in Iraq.

This shitbag liberal has been exposed as a fraud and a complete dimwit when it comes to foreign policy on the war on terror.


they are a bunch of bush league indigenous Iraqi sunnis who decided to call themselves Al Qaeda in Iraq.... they are not the real deal....

your local sandlot gang of pickup baseball playing adolescents can call themselves the Red Sox, but they ain't the same thing as the Olde Towne Team.

[glockmail]

When is Al Qaeda not Al Qaeda?

According to Democrats, when they are in Iraq!

:lol:

[retiredman]

if a band of geeky goth highschool kids from Teaneck, New Jersey decided to start calling themselves Al Qaeda in Teaneck. Would that mean that Osama had an active cell in Teaneck?:laugh2:

[glockmail]

Yeah that's a valid comparison, not. :pee:

[retiredman]

Yeah that's a valid comparison, not. :pee:

because the little pissing monkey decrees so? :laugh2:

[Gaffer]

if a band of geeky goth highschool kids from Teaneck, New Jersey decided to start calling themselves Al Qaeda in Teaneck. Would that mean that Osama had an active cell in Teaneck?:laugh2:

If they were all muslims with cell phone and internet connections to bin laden or other top AQ people I would say yes.

Our troops are capturing cell phones and computers with the contacts on them showing the connections. bin laden has mentioned them in his taped messages. Based on your posts anyone that was not in AQ in the 90's is not a true AQ.

assad is a sunni and a nationalist. He has aligned himself with iran. Why would he do that since they are sworn enemies according to you? hamas is syrian supported, but also gets support from iran. why would they do that? hezbollah is iranian run, but get major support from syria. iranian equipment and missiles are shipped through syria. Why would they do that? The taliban and AQ are sunni, but they get money and supplies from iran. Why would they do that?

Due to your extensive time in the ME maybe you could enlighten me. Could it be they all have a mutual enemy and the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here.

[retiredman]

If they were all muslims with cell phone and internet connections to bin laden or other top AQ people I would say yes.

Our troops are capturing cell phones and computers with the contacts on them showing the connections. bin laden has mentioned them in his taped messages. Based on your posts anyone that was not in AQ in the 90's is not a true AQ.

assad is a sunni and a nationalist. He has aligned himself with iran. Why would he do that since they are sworn enemies according to you? hamas is syrian supported, but also gets support from iran. why would they do that? hezbollah is iranian run, but get major support from syria. iranian equipment and missiles are shipped through syria. Why would they do that? The taliban and AQ are sunni, but they get money and supplies from iran. Why would they do that?

Due to your extensive time in the ME maybe you could enlighten me. Could it be they all have a mutual enemy and the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here.

assad is not a sunni...he is an alawi shiite.

I do not believe that AQ gets any money from Iran

[Yurt]

if a band of geeky goth highschool kids from Teaneck, New Jersey decided to start calling themselves Al Qaeda in Teaneck. Would that mean that Osama had an active cell in Teaneck?:laugh2:

from your hero, the one you blindly worship and ignore all faults on:


"I said, 'Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets.


:laugh2:

MFM = owned again

[retiredman]

I don't blindly worship anyone except Jesus.

[Yurt]

"AQ in Iraq" is not really the same as Al Qaeda.... but DO go ahead and make a big deal about it...

I doubt that Obama is embarrassed about it...I know that I am not.

you still got owned here :cool:

[theHawk]

if a band of geeky goth highschool kids from Teaneck, New Jersey decided to start calling themselves Al Qaeda in Teaneck. Would that mean that Osama had an active cell in Teaneck?:laugh2:

If they starting killing people with road bombs and the like, yes.

Are you saying that the terrorists that are killing our troops and Iraqis are the same as some geeky kids here?

[retiredman]

If they starting killing people with road bombs and the like, yes.

Are you saying that the terrorists that are killing our troops and Iraqis are the same as some geeky kids here?

not at all. I am saying that the bunch in Iraq has taken the name Al Qaeda in Iraq and are only loosely affiliated - if at all - with the guys who masterminded 9/11

[Gaffer]

assad is not a sunni...he is an alawi shiite.

I do not believe that AQ gets any money from Iran

assad is a baathist just like sadam was. He's a nationalist and by your own definition an enemy of AQ. Yet he supports them. You don't believe iran is giving money and support to AQ because it goes against everything you have said in past posts. Convoys have been captured in Afgan carrying supplies from iran to the taliban. Money, equipment and even personnel have been captured in iraq and afgan going from iran to both countries. iran is up to their ears in supplying the thugs.

Your two sentences failed to enlighten me.

[glockmail]

not at all. I am saying that the bunch in Iraq has taken the name Al Qaeda in Iraq and are only loosely affiliated - if at all - with the guys who masterminded 9/11 Seeing that we've got the main honchos holed up in caves passing orders written with goat feces a loose affiliation is about all than can be expected. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

assad is a baathist just like sadam was. He's a nationalist and by your own definition an enemy of AQ. Yet he supports them. You don't believe iran is giving money and support to AQ because it goes against everything you have said in past posts. Convoys have been captured in Afgan carrying supplies from iran to the taliban. Money, equipment and even personnel have been captured in iraq and afgan going from iran to both countries. iran is up to their ears in supplying the thugs.

... . ... .[/QUOTE] Once again the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" rings true. Unfortunately for MFM, he's got too much faith invested in his unjustifiable beliefs, so he keeps hoping that America will lose the WOT so that he and his beloved Democrats can save face.

[Yurt]

not at all. I am saying that the bunch in Iraq has taken the name Al Qaeda in Iraq and are only loosely affiliated - if at all - with the guys who masterminded 9/11

are you calling obama a liar? he claims that in fact they are there....

[retiredman]

are you calling obama a liar? he claims that in fact they are there....

"they" ARE there...

"they" are only loosely affiliated, if at all, with the organization that attacked us on 9/11.

[WRL]

how many madrassas were running in Iraq when we invaded? Are you suggesting that Iraq state media was promoting and propagating radical Islamic extremism?


Saddam Husein and his state run media, promoting and propagating terrorism.

U.S.S. Cole Bombing, October 12, 2000
"[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..."
Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled)

"Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"
Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994

"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[O]ur striking arm will reach [America, Britain and Saudi Arabia] before they know what hit them."
Al-Qadisiyah, October 6, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)


"One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands." Al-Quds al-Arabi, October 12, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)


Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996
"[The U.S.] should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, June 27, 1996


"[September 11 was] God's punishment."
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)


The Attacks of September 11
"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001


"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/iraq/sadquots.htm

[retiredman]

Saddam Husein and his state run media, promoting and propagating terrorism.

U.S.S. Cole Bombing, October 12, 2000
"[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..."
Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled)

"Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"
Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994

"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[O]ur striking arm will reach [America, Britain and Saudi Arabia] before they know what hit them."
Al-Qadisiyah, October 6, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)


"One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands." Al-Quds al-Arabi, October 12, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)


Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996
"[The U.S.] should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, June 27, 1996


"[September 11 was] God's punishment."
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)


The Attacks of September 11
"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001


"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/iraq/sadquots.htm


ho hum

promoting terrorism and promoting wahabbist, extremist islamic terrorism like the kind that attacked US on 9/11 aqre two different things.

South Boston, Massachusetts promoted "terrorism" for decades with unbridled support for the IRA. No one thought of bombing Boston and occupying it with federal troops because of that.

[Yurt]

"they" ARE there...

"they" are only loosely affiliated, if at all, with the organization that attacked us on 9/11.


Obama quickly answered back while campaigning in Ohio. "I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets,"

:poke:


you:


AQ in Iraq" is not really the same as Al Qaeda

even obama is not saying what you are saying. admit you are wrong.

[retiredman]

:poke:


you:



even obama is not saying what you are saying. admit you are wrong.

I'm not wrong.

In my opinion, the organization known as aL Qaeda in Iraq has formed itself from amongst angry Iraqis IN RESPONSE TO our invasion and they took that name. I do not believe they are closely affiliated, if at all, with the organization that attacked us on 9/11.


why do you feel compelled to follow me around thread after thread playing strange "you're wrong...admit it " games? It's kinda creepy.

[Yurt]

I'm not wrong.

In my opinion, the organization known as aL Qaeda in Iraq has formed itself from amongst angry Iraqis IN RESPONSE TO our invasion and they took that name. I do not believe they are closely affiliated, if at all, with the organization that attacked us on 9/11.


why do you feel compelled to follow me around thread after thread playing strange "you're wrong...admit it " games? It's kinda creepy.

i see, so somehow you are off limits, too much for you uh? :fu:

[retiredman]

i see, so somehow you are off limits, too much for you uh? :fu:

I have never suggested that I was "off limits", only that your obsession with finding and exposing what you feel are slip ups in my statements is...kinda creepy in an adolescent sort of way. But you do what you gotta do...including neg reps because you don't like your obsessions spotlighted! LOL

[WRL]

ho hum

promoting terrorism and promoting wahabbist, extremist islamic terrorism like the kind that attacked US on 9/11 aqre two different things.

South Boston, Massachusetts promoted "terrorism" for decades with unbridled support for the IRA. No one thought of bombing Boston and occupying it with federal troops because of that.


Oh come on, you can do better than this...

[manu1959]

South Boston, Massachusetts promoted "terrorism" for decades with unbridled support for the IRA. No one thought of bombing Boston and occupying it with federal troops because of that.

there is nothing in boston we want......

[retiredman]

Oh come on, you can do better than this...

willie... arab nationalist terrorists groups are supported by EVERY damned nation state in the middle east. Do you honestly think that Saudi Arabia did not support the PLO????? They are our fucking ALLIES. There IS a difference between supporting THEM and supporting Al Qaeda. To paint Saddam out as this heinous badguy somehow different that Saudi Arabia or Syria or UAE or Qatar or Kuwait, even, because of his support for arab nationalist paramilitary organizations - when they ALL did it - is disingenuous.

[Yurt]

I have never suggested that I was "off limits", only that your obsession with finding and exposing what you feel are slip ups in my statements is...kinda creepy in an adolescent sort of way. But you do what you gotta do...including neg reps because you don't like your obsessions spotlighted! LOL

yet you continue to reply to me :laugh2:

how many times did you post in the thread i started? at least 35. but yet when you go around proclaiming that you are right and then you get called on it, you resort to calling the other person "obsessive."

if you can't handle getting called on your bs, then take a break as my debates are obviously too much for you to handle. waaaaaaa, he showed i was wrong....waaaa. instead of debating me you insult me.

nice job :fu:

[trobinett]

I don't think we are in over our heads. I just think we are are fighting the wrong war.

What war would you have us fighting?


We will undoubtedly keep winning the battles in the Iraq front until we leave...but that will not do much in our fight against islamic extremists.

Well, that's about the stupidest thing I've heard you say yet. Is this the same old "we won all the battles, but lost the war" bull shit? If you win all the battles, you win the war, unless the cut and run crowd(look in the mirror ass hole)and the nambe pamby politicians loose heart, and don't follow through.


I don't support our enemies.

Your actions say otherwise.


I want desperately to get on with the business of actually starting to fight them.

Do you honestly think that anyone believes that line of bull shit?

I sure don't.:lame2:

[retiredman]

What war would you have us fighting?
the war against islamic extremists



Well, that's about the stupidest thing I've heard you say yet. Is this the same old "we won all the battles, but lost the war" bull shit? If you win all the battles, you win the war, unless the cut and run crowd(look in the mirror ass hole)and the nambe pamby politicians loose heart, and don't follow through.
if you win all the battles against Iraqi nationalists who are fighting us and fighting each other over what sort of government there will be in Iraq, you are still not fighting the war against the folks who attacked us, who still want to attack us, and who are as strong today as the day they attacked us the last time.

Your actions say otherwise.

no. they don't. I want very badly to start actually taking the fight to the guys who attacked us.... Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and this war has been counterproductive

Do you honestly think that anyone believes that line of bull shit?

I sure don't.


what have I ever said that would cause you to NOT believe me? Just because we have a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of the war in Iraq does not mean that I do not want to fight and prevail over islamic extremism

[Dilloduck]

what have I ever said that would cause you to NOT believe me? Just because we have a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of the war in Iraq does not mean that I do not want to fight and prevail over islamic extremism

So whats with the Dems? Refuse funding and bring em home. Or are they gonna sit on their asses a couple more years ?