Milestone Reached - 4,000 Dead Americans in Iraq. (1 Viewer)

[RebSaint]

There were no WMDs found after we attacked. Agreed. Never. Clamied. There. Was. (hey that was fun!) ;-)

But to state that they were not destroyed in the time that Hussein continuously got in the way of the U.N. inspectors' way is pure speculation. He surely did not cause many to believe him. Did you at the time? The FACT is that Iraq continuously violated the resolutions to which they agreed. Is that too hard to comprehend? That was the main reason we "continued hostilities".

There was not even evidence that they were destroyed; I think there was some speculation that they were shipped, but that explanation is illogical. It is a FACT that the administration. Did not examine intelligence which belied their premptive goal to invade regardless of WMDs

So my suppostion is "misleading" and "rediculous" but you determine that AQ is now better equipped and more likely to perform a terrorist attack on U.S. soild? That, sir, is absurd!

The CIA disagrees. The term "blowback" is a CIA-coined term to describe the perfect recruiting tool for AQ which comes in the form of American military intervention. Again, it's absurd I think to make the argument that somehow the United States is "safer" from terrorism based on the fact that AQ was only present in large numbers in Iraq only AFTER invading in the first place.

Do I believe that a terrorist attack will happen sometime soon here in the U.S? Unfortunately, yes. But certainly not because we are on the offensive in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places. You make it sound like we have "created" a base in Iraq for AQ to sit around and plan for attacks on the U.S. while sipping on tea and cleaning weapons. Do I agree with that assessment?

No. Not at all.

"Going on the offensive" is a throw-away talking point. I'm not against going on the offensive per se. Going on the offensive to me doesn't mean planting a large, standing army which provides a perfect propaganda tool for AQ to exploit.

Yes, I believe the United States did create a base for AQ to operate and wage a low-grade guerrilla war against the U.S. standing army. It makes zero, absolutely zero sense to fight AQ with a standing army. Occupying Iraq has been Bin Laden's dream come true. Further, the United States doesn't have to have 130,000 men to battle Al-Queda. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Furthermore, if you read the links I provided earlier in the thread, purging AQ mostly came from the Iraqis themselves because the United States paid them off

Again, terrorism was NOT a problem in Iraq before the U.S. invaded so the continuing occupation has created a problem which wasn't there in the first place.

We've got 600 billion dollars tied up in Iraq, countless national gaurd units and other military sources where we can be using them elsewhere--but were futzing around in Iraq.

If we left tommorow, the Sunni/Shia militias would purge AQ as a prelude to a bloody civil war.

 

[saintmdterps]

I never bought it.

Even at the time word was that Powell didn't buy it himself and was completely cornered by the neoconservatives. He was the only person in the administration asking the right questions. He referred to the neoconservatives as "the bombers."

But, in the end, he buckled and did what he was told to do.

Didn't he later say "I was misled"?

Sad to get backed into a corner and forced to toe the party line.

 

[UK SAINTS]

There was not even evidence that they were destroyed; I think there was some speculation that they were shipped, but that explanation is illogical. It is a FACT that the administration. Did not examine intelligence which belied their premptive goal to invade regardless of WMDs

The CIA disagrees. The term "blowback" is a CIA-coined term to describe the perfect recruiting tool for AQ which comes in the form of American military intervention. Again, it's absurd I think to make the argument that somehow the United States is "safer" from terrorism based on the fact that AQ was only present in large numbers in Iraq only AFTER invading in the first place.

"Going on the offensive" is a throw-away talking point. I'm not against going on the offensive per se. Going on the offensive to me doesn't mean planting a large, standing army which provides a perfect propaganda tool for AQ to exploit.

Yes, I believe the United States did create a base for AQ to operate and wage a low-grade guerrilla war against the U.S. standing army. It makes zero, absolutely zero sense to fight AQ with a standing army. Occupying Iraq has been Bin Laden's dream come true. Further, the United States doesn't have to have 130,000 men to battle Al-Queda. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Furthermore, if you read the links I provided earlier in the thread, purging AQ mostly came from the Iraqis themselves because the United States paid them off

Again, terrorism was NOT a problem in Iraq before the U.S. invaded so the continuing occupation has created a problem which wasn't there in the first place.

We've got 600 billion dollars tied up in Iraq, countless national gaurd units and other military sources where we can be using them elsewhere--but were futzing around in Iraq.

If we left tommorow, the Sunni/Shia militias would purge AQ as a prelude to a bloody civil war.

You state that it is a “fact” that the administration did not examine evidence but yet claim that they lied? Which is it? If they hadn’t examined the evidence how could they have been lying? And AGAIN, this was not the reason. It was for oil, right? /sarcasm off

Are you so naïve to believe that the only ones that we are/have been fighting in Iraq are “homegrown” Iraqi AQ? Check with the CIA on that one too, will you?

The way that you try to dismiss the offensive is no more than a “throw-away talking point” on your part. AQ is exploiting us by being crippled by our military? That’s your logic? THAT, to me, is illogical.

Yeah, ole’ Bin Laden’s dreams have certainly come true. He can’t even keep up with current events.

And if you’d read what I said, then you would know that I don’t care if it is our military or the Iraqis themselves that are purging AQ. Isn’t that preferable? But again, you state that we are creating more Iraqi AQ. Are you confused?

 

[MickelMouse87]

No new terrorist attacks on U.S. soil does sound like progress to me. I know, I know, the Iraqis didn't attack us on 9-11. AQ did and they are now in conflict with us overseas. And I'm certain that you realize that it is not just "mechanized divisions" or other uniform mililtary units that we are using in this war.

But how frequent were terrorist attacks in the U.S. prior to the Iraq invasion? Once in a blue moon? For the most part, U.S. intelligence, etc. prevents them from happening. I hardly believe that us being in Iraq is decreasing the likelihood of an attack. We could easily be spending the money that the war costs on improving safety in the U.S. and better methods of gaining intelligence.

As others have said, we're over there now because of oil, and the sad thing is, it isn't even benefiting the average American who is paying more for gas than ever before.

Also, TPS, thanks for the nice words. It's nice to be on a message board with such profound discussions and differences of opinions.

 

[RebSaint]

You state that it is a “fact” that the administration did not examine evidence but yet claim that they lied? Which is it? If they hadn’t examined the evidence how could they have been lying? And AGAIN, this was not the reason. It was for oil, right? /sarcasm off

Take your pick--highly misled or lied. The administration only examined evidence which supported going-flawed evidence at that. You can deny all you want the role of oil, which I think is extraordinary naive.

Are you so naïve to believe that the only ones that we are/have been fighting in Iraq are “homegrown” Iraqi AQ? Check with the CIA on that one too, will you?

Are you so naive to believe that AQ in Pakistan and Afghanistan are actually going over Iraq to attack American soldiers? AQ is coming from the outside, but its by the bordering nation states, including AQ Iraq, the home-grown variety.

Again, it doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned, before invading, AQ wasn't a problem in Iraq or anywhere else near Iraq, for that matter. Now it is.

The way that you try to dismiss the offensive is no more than a “throw-away talking point” on your part. AQ is exploiting us by being crippled by our military? That’s your logic? THAT, to me, is illogical.

Yeah, ole’ Bin Laden’s dreams have certainly come true. He can’t even keep up with current events.

Your really misunderstanding my points, or reading into them what you want. My point is that invading Iraq provided AQ with a perfect opportunity to expand its franchise. The CIA term is blowback. From a link you won't read.

Blowback in Iraq? | csmonitor.com

The occupation has given the opportunity for AQ and terrorism to spread where it wasn't there before the United States arrived, hence my argument.

And if you’d read what I said, then you would know that I don’t care if it is our military or the Iraqis themselves that are purging AQ. Isn’t that preferable? But again, you state that we are creating more Iraqi AQ. Are you confused?

No, I'm not confused. Actually it's quite logical if you followed my argument, but I suspect you didn't, so I'll repeat it:

AQ in Iraq is there only because the United States is there. AQ was never in Iraq before invading, hence the logical conclusion that is painfully obvious: we created a problem which wasn't there in the first place.
The United States literally bought off the Iraqi militias to help FOR THE TIME BEING purge AQ in Iraq. It doesn't mean that AQ is gone in Iraq
By continuing to occupy Iraq, AQ will have an opportunity to use Iraq as a training ground to recruit members, test IEDS, and engage in a low-grade, slow bleed Civil War. AQ is crippled--for now. I suspect it's only a matter of time until they reorganize, regroup, and commence their attacks.
By leaving Iraq, the militias will purge AQ, since AQ's presence is only predicated on ours.


Rather straight foreward, imo.

 

[UK SAINTS]

But how frequent were terrorist attacks in the U.S. prior to the Iraq invasion? Once in a blue moon? For the most part, U.S. intelligence, etc. prevents them from happening. I hardly believe that us being in Iraq is decreasing the likelihood of an attack. We could easily be spending the money that the war costs on improving safety in the U.S. and better methods of gaining intelligence.

As others have said, we're over there now because of oil, and the sad thing is, it isn't even benefiting the average American who is paying more for gas than ever before.

Also, TPS, thanks for the nice words. It's nice to be on a message board with such profound discussions and differences of opinions.

More frequently than now?
And I agree thankfully that U.S. intelligence thwarts most of these threats. For me to claim that our presence is decreasing the likelihood, or for you to claim that it is increasing the likelihood of an attack, is purely speculation on our parts. Neither can prove or disprove the other.

You (and others) believe that we are there for the oil. I do not believe that is the main reason. We are both entitled to our opinions.

 

[RebSaint]

You (and others) believe that we are there for the oil. I do not believe that is the main reason. We are both entitled to our opinions.

Again, a simple google search will uncover the only reason left logically to explain why the U.S. is still there is the oil.

AQ is crippled. Hussein is dead and gone. Iraq has an operating government complete with a police and military force. I for one for the life of me don't understand why else we'd keep a large standing army after accomplishing all these stated objectives.

Are we standing around waiting for AQ to regroup again? Silly.

 

[gumbeau]

Actually we are beginning what could be the final operation against AQI in Karmah. Lets hope so.

Oil is a bit simplistic but close enough. Its more protection of commerce from the region, most of which is Oil.

And I'm fine with the US 'occupying' another country to secure commerce for something as vital to the world as Oil. One of the better reasons I can think of actually.

 

[RebSaint]

And I'm fine with the US 'occupying' another country to secure commerce for something as vital to the world as Oil. One of the better reasons I can think of actually.

Actually--no suprise here I think it was absolutely the worst reasons to invade Iraq. Opening up Iraq's oil fields will further ensure a foreign dependency on oil and an endless commitment to keep the oil flowing which will cost eventually trillions of dollars, countless lives, and provide a prime base of operations for terrorist organizations to continuously bleed U.S. military power.

Once American companies get in Iraq, it will necessitate a permenant commitment because any disruption in the supply of Iraqi oil will disrupt the world's economies, including our own.

 

[lazybones]

Actually--no suprise here I think it was absolutely the worst reasons to invade Iraq. Opening up Iraq's oil fields will further ensure a foreign dependency on oil and an endless commitment to keep the oil flowing which will cost eventually trillions of dollars, countless lives, and provide a prime base of operations for terrorist organizations to continuously bleed U.S. military power.

Once American companies get in Iraq, it will necessitate a permenant commitment because any disruption in the supply of Iraqi oil will disrupt the world's economies, including our own.

Another reason to drill in Alaska. We already control this country. Well other than the left in congress.

 

[1yearOlder]

Would anyone like to take a stab at : How is it exacty that the BBC reported WTC 7 collapsed , a full 20 minutes before it actually did and as the " report " continues for however many minutes WTC 7 can be seen standing directly over the reporters left shoulder ?

Again , a similar instance in Fox reporting WTC 7 's collapse and once again WTC 7 is standing right there in the background . This time , however , as the report continues WTC 7 begins it's collapse into it's own footprint in the same fashion as did WTC's 1 & 2 .

I personally don't see how this is possible outside of the fact that they were being fed this information and mistakenly timed the report .

Finally , in an interview with Larry Silverstein ( owner of WTC's 1,2&7 who had recently doubled the insurance policies on the 3 buildings ) , he admits that he and the NYFD decided to " pull " building-WTC 7.
" Pull" is a term for a controlled demolition .
Controlled demolition can only be executed with very careful and advanced planning by experts in the field and from what I understand , there are only a couple of companies here in America that could execute controlled demolition on buildings of this size .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc - BBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WydAJQV100 - Siverstein

The copy of the Fox news report has been pulled from Youtube .

 

[lazybones]

Would anyone like to take a stab at : How is it exacty that the BBC reported WTC 7 collapsed , a full 20 minutes before it actually did and as the " report " continues for however many minutes WTC 7 can be seen standing directly over the reporters left shoulder ?

Again , a similar instance in Fox reporting WTC 7 's collapse and once again WTC 7 is standing right there in the background . This time , however , as the report continues WTC 7 begins it's collapse into it's own footprint in the same fashion as did WTC's 1 & 2 .

I personally don't see how this is possible outside of the fact that they were being fed this information and mistakenly timed the report .

Finally , in an interview with Larry Silverstein ( owner of WTC's 1,2&7 who had recently doubled the insurance policies on the 3 buildings ) , he admits that he and the NYFD decided to " pull " building-WTC 7.
" Pull" is a term for a controlled demolition .
Controlled demolition can only be executed with very careful and advanced planning by experts in the field and from what I understand , there are only a couple of companies here in America that could execute controlled demolition on buildings of this size .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc - BBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WydAJQV100 - Siverstein

The copy of the Fox news report has been pulled from Youtube .

:crazy2:

You people amaze me. How many THOUSANDS of people are in on this? How much hush money has been paid?

Be careful with the patriot act back in place, you may be being watched right now. If they can take out the world trade centers and have NOONE but a few kooks talking about it, they can take you out and no one would ever know. Careful.

 

[1yearOlder]

Looks as though the Silverstein video has been pulled as well , it was working a few minutes ago . ?

 

[UK SAINTS]

Again, a simple google search will uncover the only reason left logically to explain why the U.S. is still there is the oil.

AQ is crippled. Hussein is dead and gone. Iraq has an operating government complete with a police and military force. I for one for the life of me don't understand why else we'd keep a large standing army after accomplishing all these stated objectives.

Are we standing around waiting for AQ to regroup again? Silly.

I guess what is really "silly" if for me to simply go round in this circular logic that you keep stating. You could do a simple search of this thread and see my points relating to your views (but apparently you'd rather just post links to other sites).

 

[1yearOlder]

:crazy2:

You people amaze me. How many THOUSANDS of people are in on this? How much hush money has been paid?

Be careful with the patriot act back in place, you may be being watched right now. If they can take out the world trade centers and have NOONE but a few kooks talking about it, they can take you out and no one would ever know. Careful.

Please explain how these events are possible and don't be so amazed .

It's just a question .