Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The Squadfather on May 06, 2007, 05:35:40 PM
-
20 bucks only gets you a little over a quarter of a tank of gas, discuss!!!!!!
-
what do you drive?
I paid 3.19 a gallon today.
-
lol, I was actually thinking of getting rid of my car and getting an SUV.
Filling up that tank will run about $80 :'(
-
when you invade iran gas will be at least 6$ a gallon sf
-
Anyone with forsight had the smarts to get a fuel-efficient car years ago instead of an SUV that makes no sense. Well deserved payback.
-
what do you drive?
I paid 3.19 a gallon today.
06 Toyota Tundra, motherfuccking 3.14 a gallon!!!!!!!!!!!! this shit is pissing me off.
-
Anyone with forsight had the smarts to get a fuel-efficient car years ago instead of an SUV that makes no sense. Well deserved payback.
seconded. if you bought a vehicle that only gets 10-15 mpg you're reaping what you sow at this point. mine's around 30 and even that's lower than i'd like. i'm picking up a prius soon as i get the dinero for it.
-
Anyone with forsight had the smarts to get a fuel-efficient car years ago instead of an SUV that makes no sense. Well deserved payback.
even a fuel efficient car is still expensive to fill up at these damn prices.
-
my 76 Cutlass with a hood scoop and a race cam get 12.5 mpg.
-
even a fuel efficient car is still expensive to fill up at these damn prices.
They've been paying 4-5 a gallon in europe for decades, this is still not a high price.
-
when you invade iran gas will be at least 6$ a gallon sf
Invade Iran? They've been wanting a nuclear bomb, I say we give them 4 or 5 via a B-2 stealth bomber.
-
They've been paying 4-5 a gallon in europe for decades, this is still not a high price.
yeah i agree but Europe is so much smaller than the US, i mean the whole continent is what 850 miles across if that.
-
yeah i agree but Europe is so much smaller than the US, i mean the whole continent is what 850 miles across if that.
The price now in the US is fine, we're just used to something even better that rewards knuckleheads for driving Hummers & SUVs that make no sense. A family requiring an SUV should be driving a minivan.
-
The price now in the US is fine, we're just used to something even better that rewards knuckleheads for driving Hummers.
come on man the oil companies were making money hand over fist even when gas was 1.60 a gallon, how much do these blood suckers have to have?
-
come on man the oil companies were making money hand over fist even when gas was 1.60 a gallon, how much do these blood suckers have to have?
Remember when Diesel was under a buck in some states?
-
Invade Iran? They've been wanting a nuclear bomb, I say we give them 4 or 5 via a B-2 stealth bomber.
i think its funny that americans complain about spending 3 dollars for a GALLON of gas, but the same price for a pitcher of beer is cool!!!
-
what do you drive?
I paid 3.19 a gallon today.
:o :o :o
-
Invade Iran? They've been wanting a nuclear bomb, I say we give them 4 or 5 via a B-2 stealth bomber.
despite what the powerless mouthpioece ahmedinejad(sp?) says, iran condemned north koreas nuclear testing and there is almost no evidence to support the assertation they have a hostile nuclear program ... nonethe less thanks to your david star sporting buddies, you will invade iran and when your pussified soldiers cant topple the government you will most likely use nuclear weapons yourselves
if you bomb iran with nuclear weapons you will deserve it when one of more of your cities meets teh same fate (which is the prediction once the nuclear genie is unleashed) ... my only hope is 1) it teaches you a lesson about human life 2) its far enough away from toronto i am not affected
-
come on man the oil companies were making money hand over fist even when gas was 1.60 a gallon, how much do these blood suckers have to have?
I don't know that it's such a deliberate thing, the oil market's efficient enough that supply and demand's a fairly accurate determinant of prices. The biggest problem with prices now isn't supply it's refining capacity which requires long-term investment and an administration with the balls to tax the gas price to keep it higher, with the monies going into long-term strategic planning.
BTW the price of gas in Saudi Arabia when i was there was 50 cents/gallon.
-
At least my 03 Mach 1 Mustang gets nearly 28 on the hwy. Fuck Iran... I'll get a VW Rabbit if it helps the war effort.
-
I don't know that it's such a deliberate thing, the oil market's efficient enough that supply and demand's a fairly accurate determinant of prices. The biggest problem with prices now isn't supply it's refining capacity which requires long-term investment and an administration with the balls to tax the gas price when it goes down to keep it higher and put the money into long-term planning.
we do definitely need more refineries.
-
19mpg here (17 in the winter) ;)
-
19mpg here (17 in the winter) ;)
i'm right around there.
-
despite what the powerless mouthpioece ahmedinejad(sp?) says, iran condemned north koreas nuclear testing and there is almost no evidence to support the assertation they have a hostile nuclear program ... nonethe less thanks to your david star sporting buddies, you will invade iran and when your pussified soldiers cant topple the government you will most likely use nuclear weapons yourselves
if you bomb iran with nuclear weapons you will deserve it when one of more of your cities meets teh same fate (which is the prediction once the nuclear genie is unleashed) ... my only hope is 1) it teaches you a lesson about human life 2) its far enough away from toronto i am not affected
ha... the powers behind that mouthpiece are a little beyond hostile. I don't think their nuke program will be unaffected by that fact.
-
i'm right around there.
Yes, but GM trucks > Tundra ;) ;D
-
ha... the powers behind that mouthpiece are a little beyond hostile. I don't think their nuke program will be unaffected by that fact.
the real power in iran is the supreme leader
and right now your scratching your head saying who?
because you never hear him discussed on CNN, they only talk about that shithead ahmedinejad, who has no power effectively speaking
i dont think the nuclear weapon that will be unleased on you in responce to the nuclear weapons you unleash on them will come from iran ... the odds are their nuclear weapons program is about as real as the iraqi WMD program or the saddam 911 link ... rather the weapon will come from pakistan (you know the guys who organized 911) .. which will lead to an invasion of, you guessed it, pakistan :D
-
the real power in iran is the supreme leader
and right now your scratching your head saying who?
because you never hear him discussed on CNN, they only talk about that shithead ahmedinejad, who has no power effectively speaking
i dont think the nuclear weapon that will be unleased on you in responce to the nuclear weapons you unleash on them will come from iran ... the odds are their nuclear weapons program is about as real as the iraqi WMD program or the saddam 911 link ... rather the weapon will come from pakistan (you know the guys who organized 911) .. which will lead to an invasion of, you guessed it, pakistan :D
Wrong. According to 240, 9/11 was caused by George Bush flying into Tower 1 and Cheney flying into Tower 2. Look at all the facts! ::)
-
zee problem will be as the worlds oil reservse run dry the cost of extraction and the supply exceding the demand will drive prices through the roof ... this is why youre seeing hybrids because zee oil industry wants to milk this for all its worth
Hybrids are an oil industry thing? ??? The price of gas even now isn't hurting the economy that much because the price isn't that high relative to the cost of oil 30 years ago. Not a big deal unless it gets up to $4-$5/gallon, we just think it is because we're spoiled.
-
the real power in iran is the supreme leader
and right now your scratching your head saying who?
because you never hear him discussed on CNN, they only talk about that shithead ahmedinejad, who has no power effectively speaking
i dont think the nuclear weapon that will be unleased on you in responce to the nuclear weapons you unleash on them will come from iran ... the odds are their nuclear weapons program is about as real as the iraqi WMD program or the saddam 911 link ... rather the weapon will come from pakistan (you know the guys who organized 911) .. which will lead to an invasion of, you guessed it, pakistan :D
Or maybe the entire radical Islamic movement which has overrun the entire region. Either way any attempt to develop nukes in that country is obviously a bad idea from our standpoint considering their history both recent and otherwise.
It is real and has been for some time much like those other subjects your side refuses to acknowledge.
Pakistan? haha...ok.
-
Wrong. According to 240, 9/11 was caused by George Bush flying into Tower 1 and Cheney flying into Tower 2. Look at all the facts! ::)
haha... i know, right?
-
Wrong. According to 240, 9/11 was caused by George Bush flying into Tower 1 and Cheney flying into Tower 2. Look at all the facts! ::)
240 will tell you that the pakistani ISI was the intelligence organization behind 911, then he will mention the part i left out of my previous post that the pakistani ISI is another branch of the CIA :)
even teh FBI acknowledges that the head of the ISI (who was in washington on 911 discussing afgan invasion plans) wired 100 000 to the lead hijacker ... ergo it was really nothing more than outsourcing a self inflicted wound :)
-
BTW Wolfowitz who claimed that the Iraq invasion would be almost entirely funded by Iraq's oil reserves should be laid off by the World Bank next week. ;D
Iraq's oil reserves were just upgraded about a week ago to about TWICE what they were thought to be, to the world's 2nd largest. :o
-
Hybrids cost 3 times what a regular car costs. Money well spent ::)
I'm a red-blooded American male. I'll be dead before I'm seen driving around in one of those cockroaches.
-
Or maybe the entire radical Islamic movement which has overrun the entire region. Either way any attempt to develop nukes in that country is obviously a bad idea from our standpoint considering their history both recent and otherwise.
It is real and has been for some time much like those other subjects your side refuses to acknowledge.
Pakistan? haha...ok.
youre not reading, there is likely no attempt on their part to aquire or develop nuclear weapons ... its a front for invasion
-
Hybrids cost 3 times what a regular car costs. Money well spent ::)
I'm a red-blooded American male. I'll be dead before I'm seen driving around in one of those cockroaches.
Not to mention the enviromental disaster the mining of nickel for those batteries is causing...
-
when you invade iran gas will be at least 6$ a gallon sf
It's already $4/gallon now. All the stations keep it $3.99, but they'll soon go up. A funny thing is the lower grade fuels are usually about .10 apart.....so supreme being 3.99, plus 3.89 and reg. is 3.79......now the lower grades are within a few cents of supreme.......3.99.....3 .92 and 3.89 at some stations.
It takes about $60 to fill up my BMW's 18.5 gallon tank, depending on how low I run it.
-
You're so right squad father it is ridiculous!
-
240 will tell you that the pakistani ISI was the intelligence organization behind 911, then he will mention the part i left out of my previous post that the pakistani ISI is another branch of the CIA :)
even teh FBI acknowledges that the head of the ISI (who was in washington on 911 discussing afgan invasion plans) wired 100 000 to the lead hijacker ... ergo it was really nothing more than outsourcing a self inflicted wound :)
Wow... hold on a sec so I can get my boots on.
240 has said a lot of stuff and 95% is false or completely undefendable. The other 5% has no merit whatsoever and is nothing more than wishful speculation.
Please tell me this is not where you're getting your information.
(Funny how this would be the story of the century for any news agency yet not a single one will carry the argument.)
-
Wow... hold on a sec so I can get my boots on.
240 has said a lot of stuff and 95% is false or completely undefendable. The other 5% has no merit whatsoever and is nothing more than wishful speculation.
Please tell me this is not where you're getting your information.
(Funny how this would be the story of the century for any news agency yet not a single one will carry the argument.)
LOL VP's rebuttal should be hilarious ;D
-
LOL VP's rebuttal should be hilarious ;D
tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock
-
They've been paying 4-5 a gallon in europe for decades, this is still not a high price.
yeah but they are putting that into scooters and mopeds....its a little different when you are filling up a toyota tundra
-
what has 240 said thats "completely undefendable" ?
how many news agencies talked about the conspiracy to kill JFK? ... in the 70's congress admitted there was one
have you ever worked in mass media? i have, and i can tell you from first hand experience that the truth means about as much much to them as iraqi lives do to the us government .... the only thing that matters is $$ and when you talk about your own government killing its people kraft, proctor and gamble, GM, general electric etc drop their advertising
what planet are you from? you are queer AND dumb.... terrorist
-
what has 240 said thats "completely undefendable" ?
how many news agencies talked about the conspiracy to kill JFK? ... in the 70's congress admitted there was one
have you ever worked in mass media? i have, and i can tell you from first hand experience that the truth means about as much much to them as iraqi lives do to the us government .... the only thing that matters is $$ and when you talk about your own government killing its people kraft, proctor and gamble, GM, general electric etc drop their advertising
I got a better idea.. name something he said that you CAN defend and is anywhere near reasonable to believe.
On why the news media won't carry the story you have an interesting point at least. But I have a hard time buying you argument when most of the big names in news carry unpopular and even unfounded stories of scandal, treason, betrayal all the time, even by the big players, but not on this issue.
I think it's more likely that even the most biased reporters, anchors, and editors think that the idea of a conspiracy on that scale with almost no credible evidence is completely absurd.
-
(i asked bb to move this so tapper could no longer delete my posts)
all i can say is you clearly have no idea of the inner workings of news broadcasters so your opinions dont mean anything
rob does say some absurd shit, like the "orbs" for instance ... but most of what he says is readily backed up by 1) historical precedent 2) alternate media 3) even mainstream media (the new york times reported the ISI/911 link)
most people dont want to investigate conspiracies because their knee jerk reaction is dismissive (mine was before i saw the footage of tower 7) ... but let me say that nobody believed enron was a conspiracy and we all know how that ended :)
-
He moved it himself. He has BBs password. ;)
-
it doesnt matter what some soldier named brixton thinks, just as it doesnt matter what i think.
history will prove one of us right, and one of us wrong.
your paragraphs of cockmeasuring above are worthless, just as any rebuttal would be. Piss off, and have a good one :)
-
Hey
I am in the military and there is a lot of talk that the US would like to bomb several Iranian installations. I am not so sure that is a bright idea. Iran is a much different animal than Iraq and we all know how that is going. I hear a lot about Iranian operatives in Iraq on television but the soldiers Ive spoken with say the problem are the Iraqs themselves.
-
He moved it himself. He has BBs password. ;)
cant delete me here bitch :)
-
Hey
I am in the military and there is a lot of talk that the US would like to bomb several Iranian installations. I am not so sure that is a bright idea. Iran is a much different animal than Iraq and we all know how that is going. I hear a lot about Iranian operatives in Iraq on television but the soldiers Ive spoken with say the problem are the Iraqs themselves.
yes, it looks like the generals know this would be a bad idea but im not sure they will be able to stop the policy makers from making it happen :(
-
cant delete me here bitch :)
buh-bye. ;D
-
(i asked bb to move this so tapper could no longer delete my posts)
all i can say is you clearly have no idea of the inner workings of news broadcasters so your opinions dont mean anything
rob does say some absurd shit, like the "orbs" for instance ... but most of what he says is readily backed up by 1) historical precedent 2) alternate media 3) even mainstream media (the new york times reported the ISI/911 link)
most people dont want to investigate conspiracies because their knee jerk reaction is dismissive (mine was before i saw the footage of tower 7) ... but let me say that nobody believed enron was a conspiracy and we all know how that ended :)
No idea? sure I don't.
Most of what he says isn't backed up by anything and he knows it. Every last argument he's made is so full of holes you could fly a jumbo jet thru em. Pun intended. His sources alone are beyond questionable.
I love to see conspiracies exposed and I consider myself very open minded. But this time the idea of a conspiracy on the part of Bush/CIA/Jews, etc. is completely retarded and every bit of "evidence" 240 and others have sent me has amounted to nothing.
But lonely idiots are desperate to find a conspiracy and won't listen to reason due to a hatred for Bush and his admin or a serious gullability issue or both. No one WANTS to believe the official story or anything close to it.
I know both 240 and I WANT another investigation.. and I do because then the conspiracy theory will be busted for good.
-
it doesnt matter what some soldier named brixton thinks, just as it doesnt matter what i think.
history will prove one of us right, and one of us wrong.
your paragraphs of cockmeasuring above are worthless, just as any rebuttal would be. Piss off, and have a good one :)
Good point... I guess.
-
06 Toyota Tundra, motherfuccking 3.14 a gallon!!!!!!!!!!!! this shit is pissing me off.
1 ton 4wd Crew Cab Dually with a 454ci engine. 40 miles round trip to work....9 MPG ...$3.15 per gallon this a.m. :'(
-
$3.49 per gallon.....
Why are we in Iraq again?
-
No idea? sure I don't.
Most of what he says isn't backed up by anything and he knows it. Every last argument he's made is so full of holes you could fly a jumbo jet thru em. Pun intended. His sources alone are beyond questionable.
I love to see conspiracies exposed and I consider myself very open minded. But this time the idea of a conspiracy on the part of Bush/CIA/Jews, etc. is completely retarded and every bit of "evidence" 240 and others have sent me has amounted to nothing.
But lonely idiots are desperate to find a conspiracy and won't listen to reason due to a hatred for Bush and his admin or a serious gullability issue or both. No one WANTS to believe the official story or anything close to it.
I know both 240 and I WANT another investigation.. and I do because then the conspiracy theory will be busted for good.
you said NOTHING substantiative in this post, you didnt back up anything
as i said before almost everything rob has said can be backed up with articles
all the 911 warnings, backed up by mainstream articles
all the 911/pakistan ISI/taliban links, backed up by mainsteam articles
the fabricated evidence the lead to the war in iraq, backed up by mainsteam articles
the fact both wars were planned before 911, backed up by mainstream articles
i have to widener are you legitimately stupid or in a state of denial?
-
Lets see the mainstream articles......especially
the fabricated evidence the lead to the war in iraq, backed up by mainsteam articles
the fact both wars were planned before 911, backed up by mainstream articles
Being stupid or misinterpreting intel does not mean blatenly lying.
-
preplanned
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/preplanned.html
links to the BBC article :)
.
http://www.rense.com/general47/before.htm
transcribes part of paul oniel interview from 60 minutes on iraq pre 911 invasion plans
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery
this was so well documented on every major news agency i wont bother linking other than the wiki overview
.
keep telling yourself it was incompetence and ignore the fact that a conflict over resources was predicted in that region by PNAC and the DPG since at least 1992
-
my 76 Cutlass with a hood scoop and a race cam get 12.5 mpg.
hahaha ::) oh brother. What are the specs on your "race" cam?
-
you said NOTHING substantiative in this post, you didnt back up anything
as i said before almost everything rob has said can be backed up with articles
all the 911 warnings, backed up by mainstream articles
all the 911/pakistan ISI/taliban links, backed up by mainsteam articles
the fabricated evidence the lead to the war in iraq, backed up by mainsteam articles
the fact both wars were planned before 911, backed up by mainstream articles
i have to widener are you legitimately stupid or in a state of denial?
Lets see the mainstream articles......especially
the fabricated evidence the lead to the war in iraq, backed up by mainsteam articles
the fact both wars were planned before 911, backed up by mainstream articles
Being stupid or misinterpreting intel does not mean blatenly lying.
preplanned
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/preplanned.html
links to the BBC article :)
.
http://www.rense.com/general47/before.htm
transcribes part of paul oniel interview from 60 minutes on iraq pre 911 invasion plans
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery
this was so well documented on every major news agency i wont bother linking other than the wiki overview
.
keep telling yourself it was incompetence and ignore the fact that a conflict over resources was predicted in that region by PNAC and the DPG since at least 1992
whats up?
-
I have a full time job...citing wiki is WEAK but I'll look at the rest.
-
you not paying attention to a story that was all over the news is weaker
-
Point one..preplanned attack...ok the article says nothing. Massoud would never have worked with the Russians..no way..he stopped three huge attacks into the Panjsher during the war with them. I've been to his grave site. Janes is very reputable but the article proves nothing. The site is linked to is a CT site. I'm working my way through the other crap.
-
lol... whatever you say slick
:)
-
Yeah..because ur an expert on Afghanistan based on a CT site which links to a story which says nothing.
-
Point two..so what!! we have been planning and revising the plan to invade Iraq since 1994...1994. Everything I did as an M1A1 Tanker was designed to go fight in the desert. These guys have uncovered nothing new. Bush was looking for an excuse and the idea that Saddam had Nukes or other weapons was pretty valid at that time based on the Intel from 30 major sources, including other NATO intelligence agencies. They were wrong or the stuff ended up in Syria. Saddam did some things that despite not having human intel on the ground to verify, looked kinda weird to those folks. They took their best guess.
-
lol, I was actually thinking of getting rid of my car and getting an SUV.
Filling up that tank will run about $80 :'(
Filled up my S550 today.........$90.00
-
How much per gallon.....over 3 in KS about 2.84 in MO just over the bridge from me.
-
you are bending over backwards to fit the evidence into a preconceived notion
how about the cia ananysts and former head weapons inspector scott ritter saying the bush administration ignored them and manipulated the data? george tennent's new book ring a bell?
or how about the lack of WMD's found?
i dont blame you for being obstinant, after all i would feel like a total retard if i put my life on the line for a farse :)
-
I don't believ Ritter because he had an axe to grind...but no weapons were found..yeah dude i get it..they made a mistake. They got alot of bad intel and when a few folks interpreted the intel different or in this case correctly, they went with the majority. I'm reading Tennents book now.....he's not saying anything new and he blames alot of the mistakes made on himself and the CIA. Your not going to get alot of argument outa me on the WMD thing...that ship sailed years ago.
-
just like they miscalculated the saddam 911 link?
just like the miscalculated the yellow cake?
just like they miscalculated the mobile VX labs?
just like they miscalculated sending the weapons inspectors on a mission to get intel to facilitate the termination of saddam husseins existence?
just like they miscalculated the pre 911 intel?
just like they miscalculated when they allowed a massive taliban/al quaeda airlift to leave afgan for pakistan?
.
kinda funny all these were mistakes that happened to fit in well with a plan you yourself admit was in the works since 1994
how STUPID can you be?
-
$3.51 for the 87 octane here in Ventura County
The premium is $3.73.
-
Viking I've been doing this for almost 15 years..i know the military and how it works..i've been to the places u see on the news and have talked or worked with the folks who run this war...
Again points 1-4..all WMD related and again they misread intel provided by 30 different sources including fellow NATO forces. Yeah they screwed up got it.
Point 5....um Bush was in office for what 8 months.....Clinton and company screwed that one up. And they all came to the same conclusion as Bush about saddam.
Point 6..The taliban doesn't have air and there was no massive airlift but i get the point. There are maybe 2000 taliban guys running around...we killed most or the rest melted away..ever been to the Hindu Kush...thought not.......its pretty easy to melt away. U can't fly heavy lift choppers up there...terrain is a nightmare.
The plan which was layed out and refined from 1994-2001 was scraped by then SECDEF Rumsfeld and that idiot Wolfowitz. They suck so u will get no argument from me on that. Instead of CT websites read a book or two by crediable authors.
-
for someone who claims 15 years doing this you sure suck at it
no airlift?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165
The ‘airlift of evil’
Why did we let Pakistan pull ‘volunteers’ out of Kunduz?
A convoy of several hundred Taliban soldiers evacuate their northern foothold of Kunduz to surrender to opposing Northern Alliance forces earlier this week.
Michael Moran
Senior correspondent
Michael Moran
Brave New World columnist
EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Moran
MSNBC
NEW YORK, Nov. 29, 2001 - The United States took the unprecedented step this week of demanding that foreign airlines provide information on passengers boarding planes for America. Yet in the past week, a half dozen or more Pakistani air force cargo planes landed in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz and evacuated to Pakistan hundreds of non-Afghan soldiers who fought alongside the Taliban and even al-Qaida against the United States. What’s wrong with this picture?
THE PENTAGON, whose satellites and drones are able to detect sleeping guerrillas in subterranean caverns, claims it knows nothing of these flights. When asked about the mysterious airlift at a recent Pentagon briefing, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, denied knowledge of such flights. Myers backpedaled a bit, saying that, given the severe geography of the country, it might be possible to duck in and out of mountain valleys and conduct such an airlift undetected.
But Rumsfeld intervened. With his talent for being blunt and ambiguous at the same time, he said: “I have received absolutely no information that would verify or validate statements about airplanes moving in or out. I doubt them.”
Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE NO EVIL
Western reporters actually in Kunduz in the days after it fell this week found much to dispel that doubt. Reports first appeared in the Indian press, quoting intelligence sources who cited unusual radar contacts and an airlift of Pakistani troops out of the city. Their presence among the “enemy” may shock some readers, but not those who have paid attention to Afghanistan. Pakistan had hundreds of military advisers in Afghanistan before Sept. 11 helping the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance. Hundreds more former soldiers actively joined Taliban regiments, and many Pakistani volunteers were among the non-Afghan legions of al-Qaida.
Last Saturday, The New York Times picked up the scent, quoting Northern Alliance soldiers in a Page 1 story describing a two-day airlift by Pakistani aircraft, complete with witnesses describing groups of armed men awaiting evacuation at the airfield, then still in Taliban hands.
Another report, this in the Times of London, quotes an alliance soldier angrily denouncing the flights, which he reasonably assumed were conducted with America’s blessing.
“We had decided to kill all of them, and we are not happy with America for letting the planes come,” said the soldier, Mahmud Shah.
IN DENIAL
The credibility gap between these reports from the field and the “no comments” from the U.S. administration are large enough to drive a Marine Expeditionary Unit through. Calls by MSNBC.com and NBC News to U.S. military and intelligence officials shed no light on the evacuation reports, though they clearly were a hot topic of conversation. “Oh, you mean ‘Operation Evil Airlift’?” one military source joked. “Look, I can’t confirm anything about those reports. As far as I know, they just aren’t happening.” Three other military and defense sources simply denied any knowledge.
Something is up. It certainly appears to any reasonable observer that aircraft of some kind or another were taking off and landing in Kunduz’s final hours in Taliban hands. Among the many questions that grow out of this reality:
Was the passenger manifest on these aircraft limited to Pakistani military and intelligence men, or did it include some of the more prominent zealots Pakistan contributed to the ranks of the Taliban and al-Qaida?
What kind of deal was struck between the United States and Pakistan to allow this?
What safeguards did the United States demand to ensure the evacuated Pakistanis did not include men who will come back to haunt us?
What was done with the civilian volunteers once they arrived home in Pakistan? Where they arrested? Debriefed? Taken to safe houses? Or a state banquet?
WHY NOT ADMIT IT
The answers remain elusive. If the passengers were simply Pakistani military and intelligence men, and not civilian extremists, what possible motive is there for concealing the truth about their evacuation? Pakistan may believe that no one has noticed the warmth of its intelligence ties to the Taliban and even al-Qaida, but surely the Pentagon isn’t operating under this illusion, is it? This news organization has quoted U.S. intelligence sources as far back as 1997 as saying that ties between Pakistan’s intelligence service and al-Qaida, and links to the Taliban — a movement nurtured by Pakistan — are undeniable.
Furthermore, the United States can easily explain why it would have allowed a military ruler under intense pressure at home to adopt an unpopular pro-American stance in this war to evacuate some elite intelligence and military forces from a chaotic battlefield. But only if, in fact, the planes were limited to evacuating those people.
The lack of a forthright answer to this question suggests otherwise, and that is a great shame. The history of American policy in Southwest Asia, from the shah of Iran to Saddam Hussein to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is marred by one example after another of short-term decisions that stored up enormous trouble for later. We failed for decades to find common ground with the world’s largest democracy, India. We failed to temper the shah’s domestic abuses in Iran in the name of anti-communism and wound up with the ayatollahs. We decided not to rile our Gulf War coalition allies by pushing onto to Baghdad and find ourselves a decade later wondering how to deal with Saddam Hussein. We pumped Afghanistan and Pakistan with billions of dollars worth of weapons and military know-how to fight the Soviet invasion, but then adopted the Pontius Pilate approach in victory, washing our hands of these struggling nations as soon as Moscow withdrew.
Now, are we careening down the same road with a nuclear-armed Pakistan? Are we allowing an army of anti-American zealots to live and fight another day for the sake of our convenient marriage with Pakistan’s current dictator? I wish I could quote Rumsfeld. I wish I could say “I doubt it.” I can’t.
.
misinterpreted the intel?? they cherry picked only the pieces of intel that gave them an excuse to invade ... again, you are bending over backwards to avoid the obvious
-
Yeah again got it...so what a few guys got on a plane....Dude whats your point in all this. Pakistan has been playing this game for years..ok so what. Or we go go back and forth with the insults..like u get ur info from ct websites and cherry pick only what u want to see based on no real life experience but that of a basement dweller..we could go there.I don't pretned to have all the answers or pretend to know it all like u do. It is what it is. And besides Pakistani AF planes airlifting Pakistani troops out does not constitute the Taliban having an Airforce.
-
the point is every time you open your mouth i shut it with a link to a mainsteam source and you have to bend over even further backwards :)
must suck getting pnwed by a basement dweller dipshit ... as i said before how STUPID can you be :)
-
more for you dipshit ... read the article carefully ... while your dipshit brothers in arms are putting their lives on the line and getting killed for the war on terror, your government allowed the people shooting at them to be airlifted back to pakistan to prevent a paki civil war :)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340836/
Afghan alliance irked over Kunduz
Anti-Taliban group says airlift exposes Pakistan subterfuge
By Sean Federico-O'Murchu
MSNBC
Updated: 8:09 a.m. ET Dec 13, 2003
Dec. 15, 2001 - The Northern Alliance, the Afghan militia that controls most of the country, continues to maintain that Pakistan was allowed to airlift thousands of Pakistani troops who were fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan — with the acquiescence of the United States.
The controversial airlift from Kunduz, which reportedly took place during the siege of the northern city in late November, was further evidence of the cozy relationship between Islamabad and the former Afghan rulers, according to the alliance.
Otilie English, public affairs representative for the United Front/Northern Alliance in Washington, it was no surprise that the United States denied the airlift took place.
Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State Department “has forever been an apologist for the Pakistanis hegimonistic behavior in Afghanistan — and they continue to take their cue from them when it comes to Afghanistan,” she said.
The alliance’s Gen. Mohammed Daoud, the commander of the opposition forces that eventually seized Kunduz, said that “several” planes had landed in Kunduz airport and that “several hundred” high-echelon Pakistani officers had boarded them.
Daoud expressed anger over what he suggested was a deal between Washington and Islamabad in return for Pakistan’s support for the “war on terrorism.”
But his charge was denied by the United States. Last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld again rejected the reports.
“I have had no evidence … that there have been airplanes rescuing people or that had there been airplanes, that Pakistan had done it,” he said Thursday during the Pentagon briefing.
Pakistan has also denied any involvement. A spokesman for the embassy in Washington described the reports as a “fabrication,” disputing the accounts and noting that the only reported eyewitness was Daoud.
PAKISTAN ROLE
The dispute has highlighted some of the deep-rooted problems at issue in Afghanistan, partially obscured by the freshly minted agreement on a new broad-based government, sponsored by the United Nations.
Foremost is Pakistan’s schizophrenic role as the most important Muslim ally in the U.S.-led war on terrorism while maintaining links with the Taliban — which it nurtured since the group’s birth in 1994 — even during the waning days of its reign.
For example, The New York Times reported that twice in early October, convoys laden with rifles, ammunition and rocked-propelled grenade launchers for the Taliban drove over the border into Afghanistan.
According to the Northern Alliance’s English, Pakistan had nearly 20,000 regular troops in Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban.
The public affairs officer said that prisoners of war she interviewed in May, Muslims from China and Chechnya, told her that the Al-Qaida training camps were run by the Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s notorious security agency.
Pakistan has rejected reports of the ISI’s involvement. “The ISI is not in the business of sending people to countries to fight other people’s wars,” the embassy spokesman said.
But for more than two decades, the ISI has been the agent of Pakistan’s Afghan policy: during the 1979-1989 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the ISI was the CIA’s chief conduit for weapons and funding destined for the anti-Kremlin mujahedeen fighters. When the Taliban emerged from the embers of the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal, the ISI provided advice and logistical support that enabled the Islamic militia to handily gain control of 90 percent of the country.
In his book, “Taliban,” journalist Ahmed Rashid reported that in 1997/98 cash-strapped Pakistan paid salaries for senior members of the Taliban government as part of $30 million in aid.
At the same time, Islamabad denied supporting the hard-line Islamic regime, which was shunned by most of the world, and the focus of increased U.S. attention because of the presence there of Osama bin Laden.
THE AFTERMATH
Now three months after the terrorist attacks on the United States, Pakistan is bracing for a Kabul government that’s guaranteed to be less friendly than the Taliban.
InsertArt(1297307)Its former foe, the Northern Alliance, won a large chunk of the Cabinet posts and has shown no inclination to kiss and make up.
But Pakistan, which shares a 1,200-border with Afghanistan, will maintain a keen interest in its neighbor.
The Kunduz airlift may have scooped up the obvious remnants of its presence in Pakistan, but Islamabad has too many strategic and ethnic ties to ignore Kabul.
There also are signs that Islamabad may already have chosen its latest Afghan “partner.” According to some Alliance officials, quoted by the Times, hundreds of more Al-Qaida fighters left encircled Kunduz by pickup trucks in November.
Their protection was provided by the maverick Uzbek warlord, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, ostensibly a member of the Northern Alliance but a wildcard in the political landscape of a future Afghanistan.
(NBC’s Jim Maceda in Kabul contributed to this story.)
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
-
U say this crap like its a reveletion..its how the game is played so what..maybe ur pissed cause i just don't care. Owned ..maybe if I cared.... ::)
-
I'm done the Red Sox are on...glad to pick this up tommorrow if u can cut the I owned u shit.
-
how can it not be a revelation when 4 posts ago you denied such an airlift took place?
if it isnt obvious by now, im just trying to show everyone what an idiot you are ... i know youll never change your mind but at least i can entertain myself in the process :)
-
how can it not be a revelation when 4 posts ago you denied such an airlift took place?
if it isnt obvious by now, im just trying to show everyone what an idiot you are ... i know youll never change your mind but at least i can entertain myself in the process :)
You haven't shown much of anything.
CT sites are not mainstream. And references from far left media who do nothing more than exaggerate small shortcomings from this admin certainly don't add much honesty in reporting either.
And OF COURSE we had a plan to invade Iraq long before it happened. Anyone in the DOD knows we have plans to invade all kinds of countries... it's called contingency.
And as far as WMD's go I suggest you look at Saddams interactions with UN weapons inspectors a little more closely. Try reading between the lines (like it's difficult) and come up with your own conclusion. Secondly, for all those "idiots" putting their life on the line for something I think you should at least consider some of the things we saw first hand as well as the information we were priviledged to. You think some of us might know something you wouldn't?
-
msnbc = not a "CT site"
bbc = not a "CT site"
janes = not a "CT site"
and any site that reported on 911 is by definition a ct site (19 arabs with boxcutters is a CT dipshit) .. therefore you gotta ignore fox, cnn, abc, nbc etc etc ::)
you and headhunter are stupid, so im not too concerned with what youve seen cause you dont have the capacity to understand it :)
-
Since we want references I thought I'd throw a few links out there.
UN weapons inspectors and WMDs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/12/wsaddam12.xml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,,794275,00.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
Iraq and Terrorism:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
-
msnbc = not a "CT site"
bbc = not a "CT site"
janes = not a "CT site"
and any site that reported on 911 is by definition a ct site (19 arabs with boxcutters is a CT dipshit) .. therefore you gotta ignore fox, cnn, abc, nbc etc etc ::)
you and headhunter are stupid, so im not too concerned with what youve seen cause you dont have the capacity to understand it :)
Looks like you're more interested in trying to make someone angry than actually exposing the obvious truths and winning the argument.
I guess calling us stupid makes it easier for you to ignore the facts... so have fun with that.
C'mon buddy don't be an ass... I think we all understand when a source is simply spreading conspiracy theories versus reporting accurately on one.
-
refresh my memory, what WMD's were found in iraq?
refresh my memory, what came of the saddam/911 link?
and whats the terrorism situation like in iraq these days v pre invasion?
.
again more stupidity from you ... type something thats halfway intelligent and i wont call you a dipshit
-
refresh my memory, what WMD's were found in iraq?
refresh my memory, what came of the saddam/911 link?
and whats the terrorism situation like in iraq these days v pre invasion?
.
again more stupidity from you ... type something thats halfway intelligent and i wont call you a dipshit
Saddam/911... not even close to being necessary in the case for war. And also... see above links.
WMD's... an intelligence failure but given the history and behavior of saddam at the time it was likely. As well as what happened to the weapons he DID have.. something else 99% of the world doesn't know. And also... see above.
If anyone other than Bush had gone to war with Iraq or any other country after what had been happening no one would be saying anything including yourself. You've bought into a bucket of shit and doubt you'll ever have the courage to see anything for what it is.
Maybe you should ask yourself whether we would rather fight terrorists in Iraq with soldiers or would you rather be the victims of terrorism here at home.
And you call me stupid.. ha!
-
every time i think you cant get any dumber you prove me wrong
the war was specifically sold to the world on account of the WMD's and the saddam/911 link
both of which were known by the administration to be bullshit as the real reason for the war was imperialism
the fact you dont recognize this is why i will continue to call you a dipshit, a retard, a moron, stupid ... basically a good soldier
eat a bullet before you pass on those genes
cheers
-
every time i think you cant get any dumber you prove me wrong
the war was specifically sold to the world on account of the WMD's and the saddam/911 link
both of which were known by the administration to be bullshit as the real reason for the war was imperialism
the fact you dont recognize this is why i will continue to call you a dipshit, a retard, a moron, stupid ... basically a good soldier
eat a bullet before you pass on those genes
cheers
Those were two of MANY reasons to invade. And any ONE of those reasons were good enough. On a level of importance the Saddam/911 wasn't even close to the top and the link was remote at best. Maybe you should stop thinking about why Bush wanted to go there and start thinking about WHY it was best to destroy Iraq to begin with.
You're just towing the party line by stating that those two reasons which proved to be not factors were the ONLY reasons to be there. Don't ignore the whole story. I realize that would force you to admit yourself to be too biased to look at anything objectively but I guess that's what people do when they can't win with facts.
And just to throw this in there... I've noticed anyone trying to call the US activity in Iraq as "imperialism" has never thought too fondly of military action of any kind let alone been capable of understanding what it means to serve in an army/navy, etc. I would bet pinks that any one of the guys in my division were more intelligent and had better judgement and objectivity than you're vaginal whining.
-
Although it's an editorial it gets my point across. Remember pussy, if we had invaded any other country around the world for committing the following transgressions under any other president you wouldn't have you're lips soldiered to some leftists chocolate starfish right now.
http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/002558.html
1. Avoid fizzle-out. The big danger of a war against shadowy terror groups is that they can destroy our resolve to fight by pretending to negotiate or change their ways. By attacking the very heartland of the Arab world, we will avoid the cycle of truces and negotiations that have crippled Israel's war on its terrorists. The jihadis MUST fight for Iraq, the stakes will be too high. They won't be able to just lie low for a few years and then strike again. We will be forcing them to react to our moves, instead of us always reacting to theirs—this should really be a reason by itself.
2. Until the culture of despotism and backwardness of the Arab world is changed, new terrorist groups will continue to arise. Iraq is the best choice for starting the process of change, with a well-educated population that has suffered terribly from tyranny. Changing Iraq will change the dialog in the region. Deposing tyrants is a start, but there are good reasons to believe that democracy might take hold in Iraq—That would really change the region.
3.Terror-supporting nations. We can't make progress in changing them, until we take out ONE of them. Iraq is a good choice because we already have a good legal case, with many binding UN Resolutions, plus Iraq's failure to comply with peace-terms from the Gulf War. And also because Saddam is the most considerable of the terror-supporting dictators, so his fall will have the biggest effect on the others.
4. Iran: The most important instance of the above is Iran (which is the worst of the terror-supporting countries). The Mullahs can't close off their border with Ira, because their Shi'ite Holy Places are there. Invasion of Iraq puts an army right on Iran's border. And Iraqi Shi'ism, impotent under Saddam, does not agree with theocratic Iranian Shi'ism. We need its ideas to flourish.
5. The humanitarian reasons are compelling. Tens-of-thousands of people are being tortured and murdered in Iraq each year. This is an internal war--to end it is to be on the side of peace. The UN sanctions regime has left children dying without food and medicine, while Saddam builds palaces and funds terror groups and corrupts Western governments with kickbacks. And we are INVOLVED in the sanctions perversion--we have a responsibility to end it. Saddam is waging an internal war against his people. Pacifists are enablers of Saddam's war and want it to go on forever—America should end it.
6. Similarly, we bear responsibility for encouraging the Shi'ite revolt against Saddam after the Gulf War. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered because of our mistakes. We should have moved against Saddam years ago for that reason alone.
7. WMD's: a danger that must be eliminated. (Note from the perspective of 2006: While it's true we haven't found large stockpiles, we've found weapons programs that could have quickly rebuilt stockpiles. And more importantly, this is a war. A global war against islamic terrorism. Not a case at law. The mere appearance of plans to attack us or our allies is justification for an attack. In a war, it is our responsibility to attack an enemy nation if feasable. It is those who oppose war-like attacks during war time who bear the responsibility of providing reasons why we should not.)
8. We have partly created the terrorists, by consistent weakness and vacillation over several decades. We have taught the terrorists to attack us! Withdrawing from Lebanon taught Hezbollah that suicide bombs work. Failure to respond in the Iran hostage crises taught a generation of terrorists that we are weak and vulnerable. Withdrawal from Somalia taught bin Laden that we can't take casualties. We have waited so long to respond, that only a long bloody struggle will teach them a new lesson. If Iraq becomes a quagmire, that's good. Assuming we stick it out and win.
9. Diplomacy. Obviously it is best to solve problems peacefully by diplomacy and negotiations. But our diplomacy has been crippled by lack of a credible threat of violence as an alternative. This dates from our betrayal of South Vietnam, and is exacerbated by the decline of most other Western powers into military impotence. Diplomacy works as the "good cop" alternative to a military "bad cop." Our failure in this has been so great that it could only be redeemed by some seriously crazy violence. Iraq--perfect! Now Colin Powell's "good cop" will be contrasted with a really scary "bad cop" named Donald Rumsfeld. Expect big diplomatic payoffs.
10. Consensus of elected leaders. President Bush has requested approval for the invasion of Iraq from Congress. The Senate debated the question and voted overwhelmingly in favor. Our nation made this decision. We made the decision. That's a powerful reason in favor. [Note from 2006: For various people, including some of the Senators who voted for this campaign, to now sit on the sidelines and whine, "I don't know anything about this and nobody told me anything and it has nothing to do with me" is despicable.]
11. To learn how to fight this new kind of war. There has never been a war like this before. We need to learn how to fight it, and keep learning as enemy tactics evolve. There's no other way to learn than just plunging in and fighting. Armchair strategists are not much help. And Iraq is big enough to blood the entire US Army and Marine Corps, without being very dangerous (by historical standards, that is. Think Shiloh, or the Meuse-Argonne Campaign).
12. Revenge. Saddam and al Qaeda have been responsible for the terror-killings of American citizens, including American diplomats. These murders have gone unpunished. It was wrong for us not to avenge them violently. (I'm using the term "revenge" provocatively, to irritate appeasers. But feel free to toss out the concept of vengeance. it is still wrong, both morally and logically, to allow criminals to flourish and prosper through their crimes, and to prey on the weak. It is a sin.)
13. Archives. Totalitarian regimes always keep good records. We are going to learn a lot about what's really been going on in the world once we get into the files. (Me, I'd scan everything and put it on the Web.)
-
Shit.. number 5 alone is enough to have stomped Saddams guts out. If you have any independent thoughts in your puny Canadian head at all you will agree with this one.
Let's try to remain objective here.
-
Those were two of MANY reasons to invade. And any ONE of those reasons were good enough. On a level of importance the Saddam/911 wasn't even close to the top and the link was remote at best. Maybe you should stop thinking about why Bush wanted to go there and start thinking about WHY it was best to destroy Iraq to begin with.
You're just towing the party line by stating that those two reasons which proved to be not factors were the ONLY reasons to be there. Don't ignore the whole story. I realize that would force you to admit yourself to be too biased to look at anything objectively but I guess that's what people do when they can't win with facts.
And just to throw this in there... I've noticed anyone trying to call the US activity in Iraq as "imperialism" has never thought too fondly of military action of any kind let alone been capable of understanding what it means to serve in an army/navy, etc. I would bet pinks that any one of the guys in my division were more intelligent and had better judgement and objectivity than you're vaginal whining.
did you go to university? does not sound like it cause you have problems adding substantiative points to an argument ... nobody is interested in your opinions, if you want to be compelling you need relevant points
you have a short memory ... the war was sold to congress, the public and the rest of the world (while to your allies; we all know amreeka buct the UN thus violating international law and your own constitution) based on WMD's and the saddam/911 link, both of which were complete bullshit
once again, you are talking utter bullshit to make up for the fact you have no foot to stand on ... the pre invasion polls showed that over half of amreeka believed there was a strong saddam/911 link (look it up) and that saddams WMD's were a threat to amreeka
they werent
and the CIA analysts were screaming that to the deaf ears of an administration hell bent on war
soldiers are made for dying, not thinking so you should stick to what you are good at...
anyone with half a brain could tell you the war was really about imperialism, which means keeping your empire afloat ... in fact zbigniew brzezinski (you know, carters national security adviser and a CFR member http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski) said so back in 1997 when he wrote the grand chess board ... and he, like myself, is smarter than you and everyone else you serve with :)
-
Although it's an editorial it gets my point across. Remember pussy, if we had invaded any other country around the world for committing the following transgressions under any other president you wouldn't have you're lips soldiered to some leftists chocolate starfish right now.
http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/002558.html
1. Avoid fizzle-out. The big danger of a war against shadowy terror groups is that they can destroy our resolve to fight by pretending to negotiate or change their ways. By attacking the very heartland of the Arab world, we will avoid the cycle of truces and negotiations that have crippled Israel's war on its terrorists. The jihadis MUST fight for Iraq, the stakes will be too high. They won't be able to just lie low for a few years and then strike again. We will be forcing them to react to our moves, instead of us always reacting to theirs—this should really be a reason by itself.
2. Until the culture of despotism and backwardness of the Arab world is changed, new terrorist groups will continue to arise. Iraq is the best choice for starting the process of change, with a well-educated population that has suffered terribly from tyranny. Changing Iraq will change the dialog in the region. Deposing tyrants is a start, but there are good reasons to believe that democracy might take hold in Iraq—That would really change the region.
3.Terror-supporting nations. We can't make progress in changing them, until we take out ONE of them. Iraq is a good choice because we already have a good legal case, with many binding UN Resolutions, plus Iraq's failure to comply with peace-terms from the Gulf War. And also because Saddam is the most considerable of the terror-supporting dictators, so his fall will have the biggest effect on the others.
4. Iran: The most important instance of the above is Iran (which is the worst of the terror-supporting countries). The Mullahs can't close off their border with Ira, because their Shi'ite Holy Places are there. Invasion of Iraq puts an army right on Iran's border. And Iraqi Shi'ism, impotent under Saddam, does not agree with theocratic Iranian Shi'ism. We need its ideas to flourish.
5. The humanitarian reasons are compelling. Tens-of-thousands of people are being tortured and murdered in Iraq each year. This is an internal war--to end it is to be on the side of peace. The UN sanctions regime has left children dying without food and medicine, while Saddam builds palaces and funds terror groups and corrupts Western governments with kickbacks. And we are INVOLVED in the sanctions perversion--we have a responsibility to end it. Saddam is waging an internal war against his people. Pacifists are enablers of Saddam's war and want it to go on forever—America should end it.
6. Similarly, we bear responsibility for encouraging the Shi'ite revolt against Saddam after the Gulf War. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered because of our mistakes. We should have moved against Saddam years ago for that reason alone.
7. WMD's: a danger that must be eliminated. (Note from the perspective of 2006: While it's true we haven't found large stockpiles, we've found weapons programs that could have quickly rebuilt stockpiles. And more importantly, this is a war. A global war against islamic terrorism. Not a case at law. The mere appearance of plans to attack us or our allies is justification for an attack. In a war, it is our responsibility to attack an enemy nation if feasable. It is those who oppose war-like attacks during war time who bear the responsibility of providing reasons why we should not.)
8. We have partly created the terrorists, by consistent weakness and vacillation over several decades. We have taught the terrorists to attack us! Withdrawing from Lebanon taught Hezbollah that suicide bombs work. Failure to respond in the Iran hostage crises taught a generation of terrorists that we are weak and vulnerable. Withdrawal from Somalia taught bin Laden that we can't take casualties. We have waited so long to respond, that only a long bloody struggle will teach them a new lesson. If Iraq becomes a quagmire, that's good. Assuming we stick it out and win.
9. Diplomacy. Obviously it is best to solve problems peacefully by diplomacy and negotiations. But our diplomacy has been crippled by lack of a credible threat of violence as an alternative. This dates from our betrayal of South Vietnam, and is exacerbated by the decline of most other Western powers into military impotence. Diplomacy works as the "good cop" alternative to a military "bad cop." Our failure in this has been so great that it could only be redeemed by some seriously crazy violence. Iraq--perfect! Now Colin Powell's "good cop" will be contrasted with a really scary "bad cop" named Donald Rumsfeld. Expect big diplomatic payoffs.
10. Consensus of elected leaders. President Bush has requested approval for the invasion of Iraq from Congress. The Senate debated the question and voted overwhelmingly in favor. Our nation made this decision. We made the decision. That's a powerful reason in favor. [Note from 2006: For various people, including some of the Senators who voted for this campaign, to now sit on the sidelines and whine, "I don't know anything about this and nobody told me anything and it has nothing to do with me" is despicable.]
11. To learn how to fight this new kind of war. There has never been a war like this before. We need to learn how to fight it, and keep learning as enemy tactics evolve. There's no other way to learn than just plunging in and fighting. Armchair strategists are not much help. And Iraq is big enough to blood the entire US Army and Marine Corps, without being very dangerous (by historical standards, that is. Think Shiloh, or the Meuse-Argonne Campaign).
12. Revenge. Saddam and al Qaeda have been responsible for the terror-killings of American citizens, including American diplomats. These murders have gone unpunished. It was wrong for us not to avenge them violently. (I'm using the term "revenge" provocatively, to irritate appeasers. But feel free to toss out the concept of vengeance. it is still wrong, both morally and logically, to allow criminals to flourish and prosper through their crimes, and to prey on the weak. It is a sin.)
13. Archives. Totalitarian regimes always keep good records. We are going to learn a lot about what's really been going on in the world once we get into the files. (Me, I'd scan everything and put it on the Web.)
those points are laughable ...
how many people did your sanctions kill?
how many people have been killed and tortured under the sectarian violence?
v
how many people did saddam torture and kill?
::)
what was the terrorism situation in SECULAR iraq like before the invasion?
v
what is it like now?
::)
diplomacy? ... ask the weapons inspectors who ordered them out, it wasnt saddam ;)
::)
culture of despotism, changing the dialogue of the region ... again how STUPID can you be ... what has this war done to that region ... took a relitavely stable iraq and plunged it into chaos
.
i do appreciate that you quoted somoene more intelligent than yourself, but that person is stilla fool and their points may be enough to convince a soldier to lay down his worthless lower class life ... but anyone who paid attention in jr high and onwards should know better
:)
-
SO.....How about them Colts,huh?
-
VP makes a good point...
everything you chalk up to "mistakes" or "incompetence" or "misconception" all coincidentally fit the plan from 94 and the PNAC 2000 document.
Every time. They all serve the master plan we all read a decade ago. I don't blame military folks lik briz and hh6 for not wanting to believe it. The collective work of their life would amount to nothing more than dodging bullets and killing for an imperialist machine. I support it cause I have the balls to face it. They don't have the balls. SO, they go with "coincidence!" no matter how statistically impossible and they countinue to add up.
FUck it. You guys go play in the sand and do what you do. DOn't look at the evidence - not everyone is designed to be thinkers. Some folks' purpose is nothing more than to serve something greater than them they'll never understand. Go at it fellahs. WMD, fairy dust, whatever belief gets you thru the day. You mock evidence you don't understand because it's part of your Beta status (huxley?). You keep throwing insults at the mental alphas for tlaking about things you dont understand.
-
exactly
i dont really care that a bunch of brown people ill never meet are dying, and i care even less about a bunch of dipshits who think they are bringing freedom to the world
what does bother me is when people dont acknowledge the obvious ... i HATE stupidity >:(
-
SO.....How about them Colts,huh?
Ur not winning this year............ :P
-
the war was sold to congress, the public and the rest of the world (while to your allies; we all know amreeka buct the UN thus violating international law and your own constitution) based on WMD's and the saddam/911 link, both of which were complete bullshit
True.
The idea of the invasion was "pitched" to UN and the American public, and the rest of the world, on the premise that there were WMD's.
There weren't any.
Can't argue that.
-Hedge
-
iTs old news at this point...I'd love for someone to find a bunch of crap in Syria but at this point..Saddam was a bad guy and had to go..and we completely blew the occupation. i think that baout sums up where we are at.
-
you didnt blow shit ... if there was no insurgency there would be no excuse to stay there and to have your 14 permanent bases built ... and the invasion of iran would be oh so much harder
even a low level dipshit like you must notice that you now have iran flanked ... ask your CO why thats important ::)
-
I will... he took over for Petreus when he left to go run the war....low level ::). U live in a basement. I'm done..ur an assmonkey.
-
how sad it is for your army that a non low level IED magnet like yourself gets slapped around intellectually by a kid who lives ina basement (which btw is worth more than your house :D)
-
Lets see u called me names..u brag about owning me..and u say ur basement is worth more then my house. I own two house so there's that. I have a masters, there's that..u don't or haven't owned me on anything. I've done the crap ur talking about. U live in a cut and past world dude.....U bring nothing here but BS.
-
you wanted mainstream links i gave em
you said there was no airlift i blew holes in that
my cut and paste world seems alot more intelligent than your fantasy land ... despite the fact my degree is non honors :)
-
For the last time..the link provided went to CT sites which then linked to mainstream articles that did not support the headlines from the CT site. They did not offer proof or even say this or that actually happend but may have happened etc. I'm sure, having been there, that some of the stuff did happen. I'm sure the paki's airlifted guys out. Its nothing new..I'm not sure what ur all spun up about. And having lived all this crap and been here and there..nothing is as black and white as u make it seem nor is every article no matter who writes it, unbiased.
-
the point that you just dont grasp is this (the wmd's, the saddam/911 link, 911 itself, the airlift, invading afgan/iraq as opposed to Saudi paki etc) is not a case of massive incompetence ... its a case of your government implementing a long standing plan, a plan they brought to fruition by intentionally lying through their teeth at every turn .... and people like you enabling them by telling them the piss pouring on their heads is indeed rain
the point is that iraq had next to nothing to do with iraqis well being, next to nothing to do with any threat from saddam ... it was about, once again, imperialism ... same shit as every empire throughout history has done
when people like you, who should know better given your claimed inside info, dont acknowledge these facts you deserve to be called dipshits, cause indeed you are :)
-
And ur missing my point....Yea! me fuck them...I don't care. I'm a US soldier doing my job. Ur preaching to me like I'm somehow in the dark about how things work. I'm telling i know and don't care. Whatever maintains our standard of living, keeps the screaming hordes at bay and aloows me to do what I want to do. This is how the world works.
-
And ur missing my point....Yea! me fuck them...I don't care. I'm a US soldier doing my job. Ur preaching to me like I'm somehow in the dark about how things work. I'm telling i know and don't care. Whatever maintains our standard of living, keeps the screaming hordes at bay and aloows me to do what I want to do. This is how the world works.
Amen to this. Sad, and it sucks, but it's the reality.
Everyone except the blind/scared idiots know 911 was in some manner allowed to happen to allow us to do bigger things. It's life and it's how the world works.
hh6, IMO, the biggest thing we're arguing here is people who deny it and play holier than thou. Those who mock libs and call CTer crazy. Those who refuse to believe Iraq had anything to do with oil. We're just kinds on forums, we know nothing here matters much. It's just the arrogance of stupid people here that annoys me more.
Today Cheney told troops on CNN "We are doing this so our children and grandchildren can live better lives" - and he is completely right. And I can't criticize cheney because he is doing what he thinks is best for 300 mil americans to live better.
the ignorant yet smug a-holes on getbig actually annoy me more, as much as they are as irrelevant as the rest of us in the bigger picture.
-
Its all about "stategic best interest'..its just that we live in the PC world and its odd to see 1800's Imperialism on 21st century TV.
-
And ur missing my point....Yea! me fuck them...I don't care. I'm a US soldier doing my job. Ur preaching to me like I'm somehow in the dark about how things work. I'm telling i know and don't care. Whatever maintains our standard of living, keeps the screaming hordes at bay and aloows me to do what I want to do. This is how the world works.
You're the type of soldier that truly deserves to be killed. This is why I would never work for the VA. Wouldn't want to spend time helping people like you.
-
Sure and I hope u die in a fire....but until then enjoy the freedom to be able to say that stuff to me because in most countries I'd empty my AK into u without a thought. Have a nice safe day that I provided for u butt munch.
-
I fail to see why a small number of u guys resort to calling other folks names'when u can't make them see ur world view. Or in my case..i get 'death threats' or whatever.
-
in most countries I'd empty my AK into u without a thought. Have a nice safe day that I provided for u butt munch.
You don't provide anything but creating more hostility and violence in the world. And your statement that you would shoot me without a thought is a fine indication of your mercenary mind. Scary that you actually have a gun.
-
Honestly, HH6, I admireyou. You're not playing that high-and-mighty card that we often saw from MM69 and others ("I served so you owe me, and we do no wrong, and it's not about oil"), etc.
Good to see honesty, and the admission that your hands aren't clean in all of this, and that you're doing what needs to be done for our interests - position, oil, and security.
-
You don't provide anything but creating more hostility and violence in the world. And your statement that you would shoot me without a thought is a fine indication of your mercenary mind. Scary that you actually have a gun.
I'm not saying me..but soldiers in most coutries especially those which u defend would shoot u without a second thought. Thius the difference between them and guys like me. ;D
-
Honestly, HH6, I admireyou. You're not playing that high-and-mighty card that we often saw from MM69 and others ("I served so you owe me, and we do no wrong, and it's not about oil"), etc.
Good to see honesty, and the admission that your hands aren't clean in all of this, and that you're doing what needs to be done for our interests - position, oil, and security.
Me and Rob are in the middle of a love fest right now..i'm sure he will try and convert me to the foil wearing 911 nutbags side soon ;D
-
I'm not saying me..but soldiers in most coutries especially those which u defend would shoot u without a second thought. Thius the difference between them and guys like me. ;D
Well, you did say you:
"in most countries I'd empty my AK into u without a thought."
Showing no difference between yourself and your counterpart killers in other countries.
-
Well first off I carry a piece of Junk M-4 or a worthless 9mm so u might get scared...second while I'm not exactly in love with most 3rd world inhabitants I don't shoot people I don't have a problem with..IE women, children and internet board dwellers.So u would be ok with m, however my counterparts inb other countries don't care a whole lot about life and would have shot u for what u said..in fact i have seen Afghani's shoot people for alot less so..the one thing i have learned outside the US is..life is cheap.
-
i think what LSD is saying is what goes around comes around
as i said before i dont cry for the dead iraqis, more earth for me ... but in the same breath im really starting to get a kick out of news of amreekan troops getting popped cause i view them as bullies ... and its always great to see bullies get whats coming to them ... the grieving families are a really nice touch :)
-
And this is why u need to shut the F up. Everything else is debatable but when my fellow soldiers are being put down by..u of all people, then the debate is over. You have aproblem with Bush..fine....ur not even American but fine..wishing soldiers dead..who are doing their fucking job..yeah I have a problem with that. In fact I'm headed to a funeral tommorrow..3 young kids without a dad...thats great.
-
hahahahah
sweet!
your job is to go to someone else's home land and kill them ... that makes you a piece of shit
be sure to tell them grieving kids that james simon from toronto pisses on their daddies grave cause he was an imperialist pussy
-
In fact I'm headed to a funeral tommorrow..3 young kids without a dad...thats great.
The dumbass should have had a better sense of morals and not volunteered to strap on a gun and walk into another man's country.
-
He did his job.....unlike u two pussies who don't have the balls to do a fucking thing other then hide behind a computer screen. At some point u will get yours. Karma's a bitch..maybe u'll get hit by a bus or something.
-
i think what LSD is saying is what goes around comes around
as i said before i dont cry for the dead iraqis, more earth for me ... but in the same breath im really starting to get a kick out of news of amreekan troops getting popped cause i view them as bullies ... and its always great to see bullies get whats coming to them ... the grieving families are a really nice touch :)
I guess you haven't had much to offer this world so not respecting the sacrifice and service of the military, let alone the purpose, is to be expected from you. You sound like every loser 16yr old girl in high school trying to spout hatred towards Bush/military/the USA just to sound like she has any idea what's going on outside of a sheltered upbringing. Don't worry .. one day you'll grow out of it and see the real world. (I'd suggest getting out of the country a bit more.)
You haven't brought ANYTHING substantial to the table so don't get frustrated when dumb service members like us make you look like an idiot for even spouting BS. Anyone looking directly at the known FACTS of the situation alone would have to agree.
-
The dumbass should have had a better sense of morals and not volunteered to strap on a gun and walk into another man's country.
I can see the morals you possess that he doesn't are cowardace and fear.
That "man" was the bigger piece of shit than any soldier the world over and you're upset why?
-
I guess you haven't had much to offer this world so not respecting the sacrifice and service of the military, let alone the purpose,
Save that B.S. about sacrifice, service, and honor of the military for the children. There's nothing respectable about going into Iraq and killing their people so that the Cheney and friends can profit. These volunteer soldiers are as respectable as a gang member slanging dope on street.
-
i have made both you and hunter look like fools by refuting everything you said... hunter was pracitically agreeing with me and 240 now about 911 being an inside job and all the points i brought up about WMD's and the real reason for the war
.
as for soldiers ... the idea of soldiers is they are ment to die, that cleans out the gene pool, its good for humanity
and when you go to someone else's country and create a situation where hundreds of thousands of them die v 3300 of you, you get zero sympathy from me ... as i said its a good thing and if one of you two were to die i would make a post praising the true freedom fighters who took you out and laugh at your families if i was luck enough to have them post here
toodles
-
Save that B.S. about sacrifice, service, and honor of the military for the children. There's nothing respectable about going into Iraq and killing their people so that the Cheney and friends can profit. These volunteer soldiers are as respectable as a gang member slanging dope on street.
Yeah right... you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
I like that you tried to hide behind "morality" to save yourself from looking like a nutless clown.
-
I think it is very sad when soldiers die, like the one mentioned who is leaving 3 kids behind. However, one thing I hate is some reports make it out like only American lives matter. I see nothing more important about an American being killed than an Iraqi.
-
i have made both you and hunter look like fools by refuting everything you said... hunter was pracitically agreeing with me and 240 now about 911 being an inside job and all the points i brought up about WMD's and the real reason for the war
.
as for soldiers ... the idea of soldiers is they are ment to die, that cleans out the gene pool, its good for humanity
and when you go to someone else's country and create a situation where hundreds of thousands of them die v 3300 of you, you get zero sympathy from me ... as i said its a good thing and if one of you two were to die i would make a post praising the true freedom fighters who took you out and laugh at your families if i was luck enough to have them post here
toodles
Wow.. the more you type the more obvious it becomes that you have zero understanding of the military. I guess you're on the right track but heading the wrong direction.
Soldiers are not meant to die. Soldiers are meant to make the OTHER guys get killed.
911 wasn't an inside job. Anyone who believes that is eating donkey shit by the truckload. All HH6 agreed with was that this war had many reasons to happen.. some worthy, some not. All of which was true... congratulations, we're all in agreement!
And the fact that this was a fairly bloodless war on our side in relation to past conflicts and that we're WINNING it bothers you is your problem.
-
911 wasn't an inside job. Anyone who believes that is eating donkey shit by the truckload.
The majority of the world, 36% of Americans, and a mountain of evidence, disagree with you.
we're WINNING it
Good one.
-
And the fact that this was a fairly bloodless war on our side in relation to past conflicts and that we're WINNING it bothers you is your problem.
Even Bush isn't stupid enough to claim that we're winning.
-
again
when you invade someone elses country
you deserve to die
so dont cry about it
dont give me a sob story about fatherless kids: their dad was a prick for going to iraq
he got what EXACTLY what he deserved :)
its just to bad he got it after he was allowed to pass on his genes :(
-
I think it is very sad when soldiers die, like the one mentioned who is leaving 3 kids behind. However, one thing I hate is some reports make it out like only American lives matter. I see nothing more important about an American being killed than an Iraqi.
I would tend to agree but if you look at it as American soldiers who attack other soldiers, who follow at least some guidelines for ethical battle versus radical islamic mercanaries who don't mind killing, torturing, and raping women and children then you start to see the grey.
-
Even Bush isn't stupid enough to claim that we're winning.
they are winning ... only 3k of them died v over 500k brown people
and for the record, winning doenst mean quelling the insurgency ... winning means getting the infostructure in place to invade iran and kill another hundred thousand brown people
-
I would tend to agree but if you look at it as American soldiers who attack other soldiers, who follow at least some guidelines for ethical battle versus radical islamic mercanaries who don't mind killing, torturing, and raping women and children then you start to see the grey.
amreekan soldiers rape women and kill children too, there was a court martial last year about that was there not?
and how do you expect these peope to fight an enemy with better weapons ... they need gurilla tactics ... they are doing the same thing you dipshits would do if someone came to your home town, started a civil war and looted your resources
-
The majority of the world, 36% of Americans, and a mountain of evidence, disagree with you.
Good one.
A large percentage of the world hates america and would love to believe we did it. Well over 36% of americans a complete blathering idiots and many hate america as well. Not a surprise there!
Mountain of evidence???
...Good one.
-
they are winning ... only 3k of them died v over 500k brown people
and for the record, winning doenst mean quelling the insurgency ... winning means getting the infostructure in place to invade iran and kill another hundred thousand brown people
My bad. Also, all the billions in taxpayer money they took for their military contract investments. Yes, the Cheney administration is winning!
-
amreekan soldiers rape women and kill children too, there was a court martial last year about that was there not?
and how do you expect these peope to fight an enemy with better weapons ... they need gurilla tactics ... they are doing the same thing you dipshits would do if someone came to your home town, started a civil war and looted your resources
Oh god are you serious? A few isolated incidents against a whole population of rapists, torturers and murderers???? HA!!! No comparison.
There's a difference between guerrilla tactics and outright terrorism and indisciminate genocide.
-
I would tend to agree but if you look at it as American soldiers who attack other soldiers, who follow at least some guidelines for ethical battle versus radical islamic mercanaries who don't mind killing, torturing, and raping women and children then you start to see the grey.
There are terrible stories on both sides. Iraqi women have been raped, children killed, and of course the infamous prison pics.To me, it is simply a terrible tragedy all around, with sad deaths on either side.
-
Mountain of evidence???
Yep.
You make judgments on it without knowing it.
Smart people don't do that.
I'm guessing you're not smart.
-
There are terrible stories on both sides. Iraqi women have been raped, children killed, and of course the infamous prison pics.To me, it is simply a terrible tragedy all around, with sad deaths on either side.
Good point however..
.. you need to stop trying to "even" out the playing field. We all know which side is more guilty of those acts.
To me, you don't want to state the obvious.
-
My bad. Also, all the billions in taxpayer money they took for their military contract investments. Yes, the Cheney administration is winning!
war is an excuse to raid the treasury yes, that money is going directly into the pockets of the shareholders in the military industrial complex .... but war also spurns innovation and creates a post war boom ... in addition to the 11 trillion in oil amreeka is slowly encircling
personally i like living this lifestyle and i acknowledge we need this war to make it happen ... but in the same breath those who are comfortable killing brown people should be comfortable getting killed themselves, so no crying for them ... and calling those brown people terrorits is the height of hypocrisy, they are the only real freedom fighters in this mess
-
Yep.
You make judgments on it without knowing it.
Smart people don't do that.
I'm guessing you're not smart.
Yeah ok... I've read pretty much all of the "evidence" you've linked or mentioned. In comparing that with the obvious events of the matter and all of the evidence I've seen it's easy to see through you're field of speculation.
-
.. you need to stop trying to "even" out the playing field. We all know which side is more guilty of those acts.
Yes, we clearly know who invaded whose country, unprovoked, and brought their massive killing machine. Guilty.
-
Yes, we clearly know who invaded whose country, unprovoked, and brought their massive killing machine. Guilty.
Unprovoked.. ha! ... you didn't read much before 2003 did ya?
-
Yeah ok... I've read pretty much all of the "evidence" you've linked or mentioned. In comparing that with the obvious events of the matter and all of the evidence I've seen it's easy to see through you're field of speculation.
Wow, I spent 2 hours a day for a year reading about the evidence. It's awesome you've read all that too.
Can you tell me yet why World Trade 7 fell? Can you? Or how the BBC and CNN reported it before it happened?
-
Good point however..
.. you need to stop trying to "even" out the playing field. We all know which side is more guilty of those acts.
To me, you don't want to state the obvious.
I do try and be polite with my posts yes, but if you want me to state the obvious I will go for it. The war is being fought in one nation which was invaded by another. American kids are not being killed, while numerous Iraqi kids are being killed and badly injured. My sympathies lie with the soldiers yes, but more so with the innocent bystanders, kids etc who are being killed...who had no choice in the matter...just woke up one day to find their nation invaded. The pics I have seen of kids being carried with blood dripping etc...are simply horrifying.
-
Unprovoked.. ha! ... you didn't read much before 2003 did ya?
Like about WMDs? Perhaps you haven't heard...
-
Wow, I spent 2 hours a day for a year reading about the evidence. It's awesome you've read all that too.
Can you tell me yet why World Trade 7 fell? Can you? Or how the BBC and CNN reported it before it happened?
You know what I meant. I've read almost all of what you've posted or linked. No I can't. I actually did read about the likely causes but nothing I've seen so far was so earth shattering as to convince me of anything yet. Despite, all of this I am an open minded person and when I think something substantial points to more the I will of course consider anything with some credibility.
-
I do try and be polite with my posts yes, but if you want me to state the obvious I will go for it. The war is being fought in one nation which was invaded by another. American kids are not being killed, while numerous Iraqi kids are being killed and badly injured. My sympathies lie with the soldiers yes, but more so with the innocent bystanders, kids etc who are being killed...who had no choice in the matter...just woke up one day to find their nation invaded. The pics I have seen of kids being carried with blood dripping etc...are simply horrifying.
Maybe you haven't seen any of the pictures of what Saddam had been doing for the last 20 years.
-
hh6, IMO, the biggest thing we're arguing here is people who deny it and play holier than thou. Those who mock libs and call CTer crazy. Those who refuse to believe Iraq had anything to do with oil. We're just kinds on forums, we know nothing here matters much. It's just the arrogance of stupid people here that annoys me more.
Today Cheney told troops on CNN "We are doing this so our children and grandchildren can live better lives" - and he is completely right. And I can't criticize cheney because he is doing what he thinks is best for 300 mil americans to live better.
the ignorant yet smug a-holes on getbig actually annoy me more, as much as they are as irrelevant as the rest of us in the bigger picture.
Translation: Mr. Intensone