If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I posited:
Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion. To which Ed retorted: That doesn't stand the "common sense" test. If there were no linkages and AQ was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq, why would it be attractive to come rushing into the potentially hazardous environment post conflict? "Oh boy, the friendly regime is gone, I'd better buy a ticket to go there and get my ass kicked...."? Ed, you're trying to apply western military "common sense" to maniacal islamist ****S. That's like saying the Japanese wouldn't crash their perfectly good airplanes into our ships. I think you're making a terrible mistake. So how about this for "common sense?" Porous borders, target rich environment (that'd be our guys), and extremely friendly environment to conduct a guerilla war (that'd be the native populace that doesn't look like you or me). Tell us, what BETTER place to go kill the infidels than Iraq? There is no EASIER nation to find places to hide and kill Americans! And since when do islamist ****S that think becoming martyrs and getting 72 virgins use COMMON SENSE that you and I do? [note to anybody thinking of using the example of Ansar al-Islam, from a Washington TIMES not Post article on 21 Sep 2003, A military source recently told The Washington Times that Ansar al-Islam "certainly had al Qaeda ties," although it's "probably not correct" to say the group collaborated with Saddam, because it was based north of the "green line" - the border between Saddam's prewar Iraq and the protected northern no-fly zone. ] Further in a Mar 4 2004 Knight Ritter article.. Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings. Moreover, the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those meetings produced an operational relationship, American officials said. That verdict was in a secret report by the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence that was updated in January 2003, on the eve of the war. "We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda," a senior U.S. official acknowledged. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity. I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal. Ed...hate to burst your bubble (OK no I actually love it) read on. The implication of some sort of puppet-mastery, the labeling of the administration with the "pejorative du jour"--neo-con, Help me out here, Scott McConnell http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html the Executive Editor of The American Conservative is a dedicated liberal? [Answer: No he is not a dedicated liberal] Try this article on for size http://www.amconmag.com/04_21_03/cover.html Karen Kwiatkowski a dedicated liberal? How about this interview she did with LA Weekly http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php [quote] Kwiatkowski got there just as war fever was spreading, or being spread as she would later argue, through the halls of Washington. Indeed, shortly after her arrival, a piece of NESA was broken off, expanded and re-dubbed with the Orwellian name of the Office of Special Plans. The OSPs task was, ostensibly, to help the Pentagon develop policy around the Iraq crisis. She would soon conclude that the OSP a pet project of Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld was more akin to a nerve center for what she now calls a neoconservative coup, a hijacking of the Pentagon. Though a lifelong ****conservative,*** Kwiatkowski found herself appalled as the radical wing of the Bush administration, including her superiors in the Pentagon planning department, bulldozed internal dissent, overlooked its own intelligence and relentlessly pushed for confrontation with Iraq. [uquote] Ed you're gonna have to redefine liberal as anybody who opposes your way of thinking. Or perhaps you could simply call us "unpatriotic." Hows that for a pejorative du jour? the attribution of "arrogance" and the insertion of a clutch of red herrings like Iran, Syria and NK. I do think it was arrogant to invade Iraq and then take umbrage that long time allies/friends would deign to express opposition. "Old europe" ring any bells? It reasonably sounds like Rumsfeld was dismissing the opinions of old friends as irrelevant. That's not arrogant behavior? Please, Ed. Why do your cohorts "honestly think" (I question the verb and would substitute "believe" rather than "think",) that Iran and Syria are next? OK quibble with my grammar, give me an F on my next term paper 8-) Red herring? My happy ass! I guess when guys tell me flat out, "Hell yes once we finish in Iraq we gonna go for Iran and Syria." And these same guys say we're gonna find lots (OK they said **** loads) of WMD in Iraq I tend to think these guys think it. These are gentlemen that rose to equal to or higher rank than you or me. Most observers see a solid shift in Iran away from theocracy and a desire by the population at large to return to a moderately pro-West secularism. Good progress. Agreed and this was before 9/11, and who exactly enunciated "the Axis of Evil?" And which three countries did this obvious liberal indicate? Syria is still hostile but not as hostile as they were during Dad's regime. They know what they can and cannot get away with. So why does that last statement carry weight WRT to Syria, but SH kept bottled up in a fraction of his country posed an imminent threat? "Vast stockpiles" of WMD don't require lots of space. As noted, 3 liters of Sarin in a package the size of a half-gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. How far can you disperse 200 such packages in a country the size of Iraq.? OK, and maybe lots of stuff had been destroyed. According to Tom Brokaw's report tonight, this shell pre-dated Desert Storm. Why didn't Saddam use them? Maybe he felt it wasn't worth it? Maybe he didn't get the chance? Maybe he had a CCC/I breakdown and subordinates refused? Who knows. So how does a guy that from 1991 to 2003 couldn't get his collective **** together and coordinate "in the event of lost communications" shoot this **** into Kuwait, ALSO present a threat to use WMD? **** how much probable cause does somebody need? We invaded his country. Oh Ed..."maybe he felt it wasn't worth it?" The man fought a long ass war with Iran, he used WMD then. "Maybe he didn't get the chance?" My first thought in response is YGBSM, but hey if that's what you think OK. The point of the discussion is that with the introduction of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in small packages into the hands of non-national, and arguably irrational actors, the paradigm of war has changed. Indeed, **** happens. We can't continue to subsribe to the 18th century international law concept of justification for war being an invasion or violent attack. Why not? We can't pre-empt, willy-nilly around the world, but the complexities and interdependence of 21st century international relations effectively constrain any superpowers actions. Events from a year ago would clearly contradict that assertion. I agree that we should not. We haven't been known through out the last century for maintaining occupation of any nations beyond the need to stablilize the situation. The pedant in me would point to South Vietnam and our effort to prevent the domino effect in SEA. I'd argue that domestic public opposition and the resulting congressional termination of funding (rather than stability) dictated our withdrawal. (Just as an aside, how many times have you heard the word "gravitas" used in any context before the summer of 2000? Can you say "talking points" and "sound bite"? I knew that you could.) Sorry, I actually used it as an undergrad in political science, almost 30 years ago. [Later I had a Flight Surgeon friend that joked that fighter pilots could handle multisyllabic words like mayonaisse] Calling GWB a low C graduate of Yale and citing his Norm Crosby-isms would have been jejune. If however you inferred that I meant to slight GWB's intellectual prowess and his grasp of international relations, well that is indeed what I implied. As for gravitas, can we look at the administration of GWB and that of his predecessor? Albright vs Powell? Cohen vs Rumsfeld? Carville and 26-year old "senior advisor" Stephanopolous? Indeed GWB has many sharp folks in his administration, but the guy calling the shots...yeeesh. Gravitas in the closet of the Oval Office with an intern? Ahhh, blowjobs bad, invasions good. Got it. FWIW I would never introduce any female I admired or respected to Clinton, but I'd trust him to get a bigger and more united coalition going before he invaded Iraq. Not that I think he would have invaded Iraq. Finally...a crusty old LtCol SEFE that I flew with 20 years ago liked to ask," What's the BOLDFACE for A Bad Blowjob?" To which I loudly replied, "There's no such thing as a Bad Blowjob." "Shut up Robey!...now anybody else?" 1. HAIR-PULL 2. FACE-SLAP 3. HEAD-PUSH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |