namelesstavern.net

Yup, it was because of Saddam Houssein. Now we just need to finish the job, and that includes finding OBL. The question is... when we find him, do we kill him immediately? Or extradite him to the U.S. and give him a trial? I'd hate to see more scumbag attorneys make money off of defending that piece of trash.

You ever seen me protest attacking Afghanistan? I may object to HOW we did it; I feel strongly that the incipient invasion of Iraq prevented the military from sending truly enough forces to do the job. We never got Osama, and we never got just about any of the senior Taliban leadership. We only sent like 10,000 troops. If we'd sent enough more, we could've truly sealed up the borders and escape routes.

-Arlos

Narrock wrote:Yup, it was because of Saddam Houssein. Now we just need to finish the job, and that includes finding OBL. The question is... when we find him, do we kill him immediately? Or extradite him to the U.S. and give him a trial? I'd hate to see more scumbag attorneys make money off of defending that piece of trash.

Not Saddam either. Care to take another guess? The main reason we went to the middle east is fairly simple when explained.

arlos wrote:You ever seen me protest attacking Afghanistan? I may object to HOW we did it; I feel strongly that the incipient invasion of Iraq prevented the military from sending truly enough forces to do the job. We never got Osama, and we never got just about any of the senior Taliban leadership. We only sent like 10,000 troops. If we'd sent enough more, we could've truly sealed up the borders and escape routes.

-Arlos

I will agree that we didn't send in enough troops from the getgo.

Narrock's FoxNews article, further down wrote:Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

caught redhanded

haha mindia sucks at arguing

brinstar wrote:

Narrock's FoxNews article, further down wrote:Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

caught redhanded

You conveniently left out (of the same article):

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

oh, and this one too:

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

Drem wrote:haha mindia sucks at arguing

/yawn

Agrajag wrote:

Narrock wrote:Yup, it was because of Saddam Houssein. Now we just need to finish the job, and that includes finding OBL. The question is... when we find him, do we kill him immediately? Or extradite him to the U.S. and give him a trial? I'd hate to see more scumbag attorneys make money off of defending that piece of trash.

Not Saddam either. Care to take another guess? The main reason we went to the middle east is fairly simple when explained.

Don't leave us in suspense Agra. We need to know what the excuse for going to war this week is, or has it changed already since you've droped hints of a super secret answer.

Nope, no change in the answer. I just don't look at this board on the weekends. And the reason has always been the same since day one. Its just that the public refuses to accept it and isn't media friendly. Still waiting on DP to see what he has to say. And, DP, no amount of Googling will find this answer.

okay i'll take the bait

intially, the public were led to believe that iraq was stockpiling WMD and, in association with the taliban, were preparing to attack america

then when it was discovered that a) they don't have usable WMD or WMD programs in progress, b) they're not associated with the taliban, and c) they weren't preparing to attack america, the reason was spun to "deposing saddam" (which is not a bad thing to want to do, anyway)

so tell me, oh venerable political insider, is the official motive still "because they are developing WMD and together with the taliban are planning to use them against the USA" because that's not what i hear from washington these days

brinstar wrote:okay i'll take the bait

intially, the public were led to believe that iraq was stockpiling WMD and, in association with the taliban, were preparing to attack america

then when it was discovered that a) they don't have usable WMD or WMD programs in progress, b) they're not associated with the taliban, and c) they weren't preparing to attack america, the reason was spun to "deposing saddam" (which is not a bad thing to want to do, anyway)

so tell me, oh venerable political insider, is the official motive still "because they are developing WMD and together with the taliban are planning to use them against the USA" because that's not what i hear from washington these days

Ok, I'll take the bait too...

You're exaggerating. Intel told us that there were WMD's present in Iraq. I don't remember anything about stockpiling claims. And as for attacking America, there were plans to make another attack, but they fell through. Saddam is associated with the Taliban, as it is well known by the Iraqi's that he helped fund their efforts.

Narrock wrote:

brinstar wrote:okay i'll take the bait

intially, the public were led to believe that iraq was stockpiling WMD and, in association with the taliban, were preparing to attack america

then when it was discovered that a) they don't have usable WMD or WMD programs in progress, b) they're not associated with the taliban, and c) they weren't preparing to attack america, the reason was spun to "deposing saddam" (which is not a bad thing to want to do, anyway)

so tell me, oh venerable political insider, is the official motive still "because they are developing WMD and together with the taliban are planning to use them against the USA" because that's not what i hear from washington these days

Ok, I'll take the bait too...

You're exaggerating. Intel told us that there were WMD's present in Iraq. I don't remember anything about stockpiling claims. And as for attacking America, there were plans to make another attack, but they fell through. Saddam is associated with the Taliban, as it is well known by the Iraqi's that he helped fund their efforts.

Another? When was the first?

Second question Mindia. Who has closer political and economical ties to the Taliban? America or Iraq pre-invasion.

You're forgetting when he tried to assassinate our president?

In 1993, the IIS planned and executed an assassination attempt against then-US President George H. W. Bush and the Emir of Kuwait through the use of a large car bomb driven by two Iraqis.

IIS = Iraqi Intelligence Service

Saddam never directly attacked the U.S.?

Harrison wrote:You're forgetting when he tried to assassinate our president?

In 1993, the IIS planned and executed an assassination attempt against then-US President George H. W. Bush and the Emir of Kuwait through the use of a large car bomb driven by two Iraqis.

IIS = Iraqi Intelligence Service

Saddam never directly attacked the U.S.?

I think to make another attack on the US, you have to actually, I don't know, attack THE US.

Zanchief wrote:

Narrock wrote:

brinstar wrote:okay i'll take the bait

intially, the public were led to believe that iraq was stockpiling WMD and, in association with the taliban, were preparing to attack america

then when it was discovered that a) they don't have usable WMD or WMD programs in progress, b) they're not associated with the taliban, and c) they weren't preparing to attack america, the reason was spun to "deposing saddam" (which is not a bad thing to want to do, anyway)

so tell me, oh venerable political insider, is the official motive still "because they are developing WMD and together with the taliban are planning to use them against the USA" because that's not what i hear from washington these days

Ok, I'll take the bait too...

You're exaggerating. Intel told us that there were WMD's present in Iraq. I don't remember anything about stockpiling claims. And as for attacking America, there were plans to make another attack, but they fell through. Saddam is associated with the Taliban, as it is well known by the Iraqi's that he helped fund their efforts.

Another? When was the first?

Second question Mindia. Who has closer political and economical ties to the Taliban? America or Iraq pre-invasion.

I believe what Mindia meant to say that after 9-11 there was another attack planned and that one fell through. Not that there was one before 9-11, which there was.

Remember the attack on the military dormitory in Daharan? The bomb killed 19 Americans, injured another 386 people and left a huge crater 10 m deep. But since that wasn't in America it must not count?

Remember the USS Cole bombing in the Yemeni port of Aden? Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 others were injured in the blast. A small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-40-foot (12 m-by-12 m) gash in the ship's port side. Again, not in the U.S. so it doesn't count, right?

The U.S. has taken a lot of terrorist attacks in the last decade. We are now starting to show that we won't just sit back and take it anymore. This whole war isn't about Saddam or oil. Its about ending terrorism against the U.S. Letting the terrorists know we won't take any of their shit anymore.

More importantly did you know that the extremist Islam Shiites have a 100 year plan to convert the world to Islam? THAT is what we are fighting against. Just like WWII and the Vietnam war against Communism we are trying to end the hostile force of a religion taking over the world.

We (Kirtland AFB) and I'm sure many other military bases had a briefing on why we are having this war. The 100 year plan has been going on for 30 years already. I don't know about you, but I like the fact I can worship any God I choose (or choose not to). If the extremists have their way, you'll be worshiping Allah.

There is a lot more to it, but that is the down and dirty.

Agrajag wrote:[Remember the attack on the military dormitory in Daharan? The bomb killed 19 Americans, injured another 386 people and left a huge crater 10 m deep. But since that wasn't in America it must not count?

Remember the USS Cole bombing in the Yemeni port of Aden? Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 others were injured in the blast. A small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-40-foot (12 m-by-12 m) gash in the ship's port side. Again, not in the U.S. so it doesn't count, right?

Iraq, dweeb.

Zanchief wrote:

Agrajag wrote:[Remember the attack on the military dormitory in Daharan? The bomb killed 19 Americans, injured another 386 people and left a huge crater 10 m deep. But since that wasn't in America it must not count?

Remember the USS Cole bombing in the Yemeni port of Aden? Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 others were injured in the blast. A small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-40-foot (12 m-by-12 m) gash in the ship's port side. Again, not in the U.S. so it doesn't count, right?

Iraq, dweeb.

Now you're just splitting hairs. I am talking about terrorists in general and the spread of terrorism. Once you have something constructive to say you can come talk with the adults, m'kay?

actually pointing out that communism isn't a religion would be splitting hairs

Snero wrote:actually pointing out that communism isn't a religion would be splitting hairs

splitting hairs as shown here

Agrajag wrote:

Zanchief wrote:

Agrajag wrote:[Remember the attack on the military dormitory in Daharan? The bomb killed 19 Americans, injured another 386 people and left a huge crater 10 m deep. But since that wasn't in America it must not count?

Remember the USS Cole bombing in the Yemeni port of Aden? Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 others were injured in the blast. A small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-40-foot (12 m-by-12 m) gash in the ship's port side. Again, not in the U.S. so it doesn't count, right?

Iraq, dweeb.

Now you're just splitting hairs. I am talking about terrorists in general and the spread of terrorism. Once you have something constructive to say you can come talk with the adults, m'kay?

I don't give two shits what you're talking about. This is about what MINDIA was talking about. He implied that Iraq would make a second attack, or another attack, after the 1st, being 9-11. Obviously that isn't true.

I pointed it out and you came running into the room screaming and tripping onto your face.

Speaking about your super duper secret reason for going into Iraq, I guess Georgie boy should invade Utah next Argy, I hear the Mormons have some lofty goals to convert the world too.

Agrajag wrote:More importantly did you know that the extremist Islam Shiites have a 100 year plan to convert the world to Islam? THAT is what we are fighting against. Just like WWII and the Vietnam war against Communism we are trying to end the hostile force of a religion taking over the world.

don't ever compare World War 2 with our "War on Terrorism", ever. doing so proves you don't understand the first thing about either. more people were killed in hours during WW2 than we've lost in the last 5 years of the War on Terror

Indeed, World War 2 and the "War" on terror are *NOTHING* alike. To even attempt to compared the two is ludicrous and laughable.

Your "reason" for the war is likewise laughable. Oppression and aggression doesn't stop terrorists from targeting you, that's so far wrong it's insane. Israel is consistently "tough" vs terroists, they even blow up innocent women and children trying to get at militants. By your logic, that must mean there are no terrorist strikes vs Israel, ever. Funny, I think I may have seen differently in the news...

Face it, you got a Rah-Rah speech designed to be morale-building propaganda to try and convince potentially wavering servicement who didn't want to get sent to Iraq to die that they really SHOULD like the idea of going there. BTW, you are aware that AlQaida has used the US invasion of Iraq as a huge recruitment draw, yes? It provides tangible proof of their assertion that the US are imperialists who want to oppress Islam. Combine that with the differences in how we've treated North Korea (non-muslim) to Iraq & Iran (muslim), and throw in abuses such as Abu Gharib or the massacre vs civilians that's more recently in the news, and they have some pretty damning evidence to show potential jihadists who weren't quite convinced before.

-Arlos

Zanchief wrote:

Agrajag wrote:

Zanchief wrote:

Agrajag wrote:[Remember the attack on the military dormitory in Daharan? The bomb killed 19 Americans, injured another 386 people and left a huge crater 10 m deep. But since that wasn't in America it must not count?

Remember the USS Cole bombing in the Yemeni port of Aden? Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 others were injured in the blast. A small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-40-foot (12 m-by-12 m) gash in the ship's port side. Again, not in the U.S. so it doesn't count, right?

Iraq, dweeb.

Now you're just splitting hairs. I am talking about terrorists in general and the spread of terrorism. Once you have something constructive to say you can come talk with the adults, m'kay?

I don't give two shits what you're talking about. This is about what MINDIA was talking about. He implied that Iraq would make a second attack, or another attack, after the 1st, being 9-11. Obviously that isn't true.

I pointed it out and you came running into the room screaming and tripping onto your face.

Speaking about your super duper secret reason for going into Iraq, I guess Georgie boy should invade Utah next Argy, I hear the Mormons have some lofty goals to convert the world too.

I'm beginning to think that your comprehension skills are not just low... they are nil.

Agrajag wrote:

I believe what Mindia meant to say that after 9-11 there was another attack planned and that one fell through. Not that there was one before 9-11, which there was.

Yes, that was plain as daylight. I guess Mr. Simpleton, I mean Zanchief, never heard about what happened in New York on 9/11.

So I say again, there can't be ANOTHER Iraqi attack, since there wasn't a 1st.