Iraq 2007

[Eddie Haskell]

Based on the great Satan's (Cheney) response to the Senates resolution on Iraq, it appears that the only way to oppose Bush's plan is to begin impeachment proceedings in the House. In other words, Bush says troop build up regardless of what the country, house, or senate think. House can cut off funding for troops but that would be political suicide.

Only alternative for them is to begin impeachment. Still think they should increase troop strength. Just throwing this out for the sake of argument and to show how arrogant and dug-in this neo-conservative administration is.

Eddie

 

[AR182]

Based on the great Satan's (Cheney) response to the Senates resolution on Iraq, it appears that the only way to oppose Bush's plan is to begin impeachment proceedings in the House. In other words, Bush says troop build up regardless of what the country, house, or senate think. House can cut off funding for troops but that would be political suicide.

Only alternative for them is to begin impeachment. Still think they should increase troop strength. Just throwing this out for the sake of argument and to show how arrogant and dug-in this neo-conservative administration is.

Eddie

without debating the merits of why we went into iraq.....the fact is that we are there...so we should do everything we can to win it....i felt from the beginining that 500,000 troops should have been sent in the first place.. & i think around 100,000 more troops should be sent now.....the borders to iraq must be sealed off in order to get control of that country.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

AR:

I understand your point, but don't you think this administration continues to act in a rather dictatorial fashion? Kinda my way or the highway?

I mean Bush gets up there and says we looked at the other ways but rejected them. Never any compromise. Can't he go to Reid and Pelosi and say if this doesn't work we will begin withdrawal by....... He doesn't give them a bone.

He (really Cheney) reminds me of Slim Pickens riding that nuke with the cowboy hat in Dr. Strangelove. I mean this is real scarry stuff.

Eddie

 

[AR182]

AR:

I understand your point, but don't you think this administration continues to act in a rather dictatorial fashion? Kinda my way or the highway?

I mean Bush gets up there and says we looked at the other ways but rejected them. Never any compromise. Can't he go to Reid and Pelosi and say if this doesn't work we will begin withdrawal by....... He doesn't give them a bone.

He (really Cheney) reminds me of Slim Pickens riding that nuke with the cowboy hat in Dr. Strangelove. I mean this is real scarry stuff.

Eddie

this very scary stuff...that's why i think pulling out will be a catastrophy.

but if i was him i wouldn't go to reid or pelosi either...i may be wrong but i view them as weak minded. if i was him i would have talked to lieberman (when he was a democrat), biden, or even clinton...but definitely not the 2 leaders of the democratic party.

and just on a little different topic....every time i see pelosi sitting in the speaker's chair, she seems so, so, so happy to be sitting there that she's going to have an orgasm at anythime.

 

[gardenweasel]

In closing, I belive that this invasion has diverted our resources from fighting terrorists at home, created more terrorists in the future for which our children will pay and will cause future terrorist strikes here in the US. I think Bush and his administration are criminals and are by far the worst administration I have seen in my lifetime.


Eddie

""If we defend ourselves, we will only create more terrorists.""

eddie/moonbat logic

sadly, a slim majority seem to have bought into this as well....our startling success against the jihadis (admit it; who would have thought we'd have come this far without a major terrorist incident in the u.s.) has given them room to nurse their complacency.....

 

[kosar]

and just on a little different topic....every time i see pelosi sitting in the speaker's chair, she seems so, so, so happy to be sitting there that she's going to have an orgasm at anythime.

:142smilie :mj07:

I've thought the same exact thing.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Gentlemen:

As much as you don't like it, Pelosi is speaker of the house. #3 in the order of ascendancy. I'm not suggesting going to Pelosi as head of the Democratic Party.

Weasel. May I call you Weasel? Would you please cite me to the exact quote where I said "If we defend ourselves, we will create more terrorists." Our is that your spin on my belief that the US invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists, you big galoot. I have a lot of man love for you.

I also love your proof of a negative. IE the fact that we've had no terrorist attacks in the US is a direct result of the American invasion of Iraq. You say I've got moonbat logic. Wow. I mean, double, super duper, wow.

You can't prove a negative. It's like saying Kosar would have banged those 5 babes at last years Super Bowl party if only he hadn't passed out. No way to prove that (other than common sense).

Silly.

Eddie

 

[IntenseOperator]

among other sources, including many Democrats.....

didn't the former leader of Iraq publicly tout all of the weapons he had at his disposal and threaten using them on anyone that intervened with his ruling agenda?

 

[The Sponge]

this very scary stuff...that's why i think pulling out will be a catastrophy.

but if i was him i wouldn't go to reid or pelosi either...i may be wrong but i view them as weak minded. if i was him i would have talked to lieberman (when he was a democrat), biden, or even clinton...but definitely not the 2 leaders of the democratic party.

and just on a little different topic....every time i see pelosi sitting in the speaker's chair, she seems so, so, so happy to be sitting there that she's going to have an orgasm at anythime.

I honestly believe i could write your answers down even before you write them. Its not hard at all.

 

[gardenweasel]

big galoot?.....as gabby hayes would say,"whyyy youuu"!!...

edward,i actually liked the gist of your opening panel.....it showed me that there actually may be a neuron or two in that brain that isn`t consumed with:

1)bj clinton is not culpable in 9/11....

2)gwb is a fascist dictator slowly eliminating our cherished freedoms with the patriot act in the false name of reducing the terorrist threat....

3)there is no terrorist threat.....

4)obama is the answer to america's problems....

5)(BOOM!...mushroom cloud)

6)it was all bush`s fault...

(and, of course,the next slip and fall scam)...



i`m encouraged....that you actually have some concern for our security...economy..our long range foreign policy aims ....our well being...

at least,that`s what i want to believe...

here`s some food for thought,my friend......

""TBILISI (AFP) - Georgian authorities have imprisoned a Russian citizen for attempting to sell 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of weapons-grade uranium after a joint operation with the FBI, officials announced.

Georgia’s security services arrested Oleg Khiltsagov as he tried to sell “100 grams of 90-percent enriched uranium” in the sting operation last year, said the interior ministry’s analytical department chief, Shota Utiashvili.

The material appeared “to be ready for an atomic bomb,” the ministry said in a statement, although experts say a total of between 15 and 25 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium is needed to make an atomic bomb.

The UN nuclear agency warned that the operation, which took place over the first half of last year, could point to a greater availability of nuclear material on the black market.""

i mean,how scary is that?...."""Khiltsagov tried to sell the uranium for one million dollars (770,000 euros) and was caught with the radioactive substance in a plastic bag in his pocket, he said."

instead of,"hey man, I got some good columbian blow here"....we`re now dealing with,"hey man,i`ve got some good russian blow(up) here"......


we caught this one,but, how many have we missed?...

anyone have stats on how many former usssr weapons are unaccounted for?...

it reminds me of how stupid I felt it was to bail russia out of it's cashflow woes in the early '90's.....

my attitude then was "let's just buy all their nukes....they get cash, we know the nukes are safe - everybody wins!" ......

nobody else thought of that??.............

the stuff came from georgia?......theres a jimmy carter joke here somewhere....but i was so impressed with your pseudo-objectivity,i`ll give it a rest....

edward...there was some actual common sense stuff in this one.....first kosar...now you.....:shrug:..i`m verklempt.....

i`m now waiting for the obligatory spytheweb response to the "enriched uranium baggie" article......something like:


"i question the timing....clearly, a well-choreographed bush-rovian conspiracy to sell nukes to our enemies designed to go off after president rodham is sworn in".......

and yes....of course you may call me weasel....or skippy...or even oprah....:sadwave:

 

[flapjack]

I also love your proof of a negative. IE the fact that we've had no terrorist attacks in the US is a direct result of the American invasion of Iraq.

I actually think that statement might very well be true, but no credit to Bush and not as a result of dealing AQ a blow. The oppoiste I think.

Why have we not been attacked in 5 years despite our wide open borders and the extreme difficulty in stopping a suicide bomber from carrying out his act?

I think its a real Catch-22. Thanks to failures in Iraq, AQ is winning the war in world public opinion and that is why we have not been attacked again. Fear that it would rally support to us. Why would AQ upset the current balance - their leaders remain free and protected, they are turning the American public against its president, Americans are getting bogged down and spending a fortune in Iraq, they are getting great publicity in the Muslim world that will bring them $ and recruits.

However, if we did not go into Iraq, we still would not have broken AQ because we dont dare go into a nuclear, unstable Pakistan. If we succeeded or never went in, we most surely would have suffered more domestic attack(s) as big as or bigger than 9-11. We would look weak and pathetic to the rest of the world, AQ would look even stronger, many more American civilians would be dead and once again they would be winning the war.

Does anybody really think AQ would have any problem pulling off another 9-11 style attack over and over again? Its a situation we have been losing since they set their sights on us long ago. They ramped up the violence against US citizens, embassies, etc. year after year culminating in 9-11. Then, post 9-11 we dont see any attacks. Why? They had the opportunities. There's CIA intellegience that confirms that they have had opperatives over here with plans for a chemical weapons attack ready to unleash on NY subways. Same sources say that the attacker were ordered to stop by AQ Al-Zaweri-sp?. Why?
Maybe because they like the way things are going in Iraq?

We are in a lose/lose situation, we are giving them what they want with this war in Iraq. However, if we didnt give it to them, I have no doubt they would have continued to hit us until we did. A swift victory in Iraq would have been a blow to AQ for several reasons. Although with that crew in the WH calling the shots and making error after error, a slim chance became no chance.

Anyway, thats my opinion, some based on fact, some based on best guess.

 

[The Sponge]

I actually think that statement might very well be true, but no credit to Bush and not as a result of dealing AQ a blow. The oppoiste I think.

Why have we not been attacked in 5 years despite our wide open borders and the extreme difficulty in stopping a suicide bomber from carrying out his act?

I think its a real Catch-22. Thanks to failures in Iraq, AQ is winning the war in world public opinion and that is why we have not been attacked again. Fear that it would rally support to us. Why would AQ upset the current balance - their leaders remain free and protected, they are turning the American public against its president, Americans are getting bogged down and spending a fortune in Iraq, they are getting great publicity in the Muslim world that will bring them $ and recruits.

However, if we did not go into Iraq, we still would not have broken AQ because we dont dare go into a nuclear, unstable Pakistan. If we succeeded or never went in, we most surely would have suffered more domestic attack(s) as big as or bigger than 9-11. We would look weak and pathetic to the rest of the world, AQ would look even stronger, many more American civilians would be dead and once again they would be winning the war.

Does anybody really think AQ would have any problem pulling off another 9-11 style attack over and over again? Its a situation we have been losing since they set their sights on us long ago. They ramped up the violence against US citizens, embassies, etc. year after year culminating in 9-11. Then, post 9-11 we dont see any attacks. Why? They had the opportunities. There's CIA intellegience that confirms that they have had opperatives over here with plans for a chemical weapons attack ready to unleash on NY subways. Same sources say that the attacker were ordered to stop by AQ Al-Zaweri-sp?. Why?
Maybe because they like the way things are going in Iraq?

We are in a lose/lose situation, we are giving them what they want with this war in Iraq. However, if we didnt give it to them, I have no doubt they would have continued to hit us until we did. A swift victory in Iraq would have been a blow to AQ for several reasons. Although with that crew in the WH calling the shots and making error after error, a slim chance became no chance.

Anyway, thats my opinion, some based on fact, some based on best guess.

Flap you make a bunch of great points in my opinion. I also think they dont work on our rush time tables. The first attack was in 93. They waited till 01 for the next. This is eight years. With us knowing its bound to happen they might just lull us to sleep. Bin Laden predicted every thing Bush has done and Bush did it to the tee. The only thing he was wrong about was us going bankrupt. Maybe in another two years.

 

[flapjack]

I also think they dont work on our rush time tables. The first attack was in 93. They waited till 01 for the next. This is eight years.

I agree they work on their own time tables, but I was looking at all their attacks and the pattern seemed to be increasing frequency and destruction until 2001:

1993 WTC 1 attack
1996 Khobar Towers
1998 US Embassys
2000 US Cole
2001 WTC 2 attack

 

[djv]

Send 100000 more men. One problem where we get them from. I think we have 30000 in S Korea. Have a hunch there staying there. NATO commanders say we need extra 20000 in Afghanistan. So that is out. I guess we can call up rest of the reservist up to age 45. I hope were not that nuts. Maybe go the way of Titan Industry They for one are soldiers of fortune in away. But Titan is re-thinking now that they lost 220 men. This is just one American company over there losing people we never here about. All this so Iraq can have there civil war. That is sad to say was on hold while Saddam was in charge. He just killed who had to be killed so 90% of the country worked. Not the right way but some places just don't get it. Just like we didn't in 1860's. After we killed off over 600000 of our own and wounded another million we woke up. And if any one would have interfered we would have killed them to.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"I agree they work on their own time tables, but I was looking at all their attacks and the pattern seemed to be increasing frequency and destruction until 2001:

1993 WTC 1 attack
1996 Khobar Towers
1998 US Embassys
2000 US Cole
2001 WTC 2 attack
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
agree matter of another attack is when not if--but can't discount decline on attacks like above--simply for fact most of AQ upper echelon have been killed and the others confined to caves--and over half of these captures/killings has been result of other countries who are now aiding in efforts against them--where before the terrorist had carte blanc atmosphere to operate in..

 

[gardenweasel]

why haven`t we been attacked since 9/11?....

it`s not a black and white answer(sorry libs)....

part of the answer is that our security is much better....despite the attempts of the aclu and morons like patrick leahy...

part of it is that al qaeda believes that iraq is a crucial front in the war of radical islam on the west...and it has not only consumed some of our resources...but much of theirs....

also,you have to think realistically....is it more beneficial for them to hit numerous "smaller" targets.....with the result being that one of the jihadi`s biggest alliy-blocks in country(anti-war types,uber liberals,dem politicians,celebrities,communists,socialists,mass media and other assorted 5th columnists)being seriously hamstrung in their anti-war/anti-american efforts..........

islamists know that it`s not worth a few malls...an office building.....not even a ballpark....considering the REAL scrutiny they`d receive with a few lesser attacks....compared to the politically correct crap that presently passes for vigilance ....


the public won`t buy the kerry`s and dean`s`s going overseas and berating the administration and the country time and again with fresh victims of the jihad laying in our streets......attacks and slaughter fresh in the minds of the memory impaired average american...the nyt`s won`t be able to splooge secret documents and tactics with impunity.....groups like cair won`t be able to manipulate our ridiculous judicial system and sue everybody in sight for perceived indignities and other foolishness........

the democrats,the media et al are turning public opinion in their favor....they`re winning the war for them....their allies on the home front...

why attack now?

sooo,it makes sense for them to lay low.....and wait for the big homerun shot....maybe a nuclear plant......a dirty bomb in a major metropolitan area.....maybe the mass poisoning of a major city`s water supply....

 

[The Sponge]

"I agree they work on their own time tables, but I was looking at all their attacks and the pattern seemed to be increasing frequency and destruction until 2001:

1993 WTC 1 attack
1996 Khobar Towers
1998 US Embassys
2000 US Cole
2001 WTC 2 attack
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
agree matter of another attack is when not if--but can't discount decline on attacks like above--simply for fact most of AQ upper echelon have been killed and the others confined to caves--and over half of these captures/killings has been result of other countries who are now aiding in efforts against them--where before the terrorist had carte blanc atmosphere to operate in..

no dog they waited eight years to do it on our soil again. This is what im talking about. Im not even worried about AQ. im worried about the guys who would have never done a thing and now they are so furious with us that this might make them do something. I think they call um copycat killers or sum shit like that. That is the surprising thing and it has nothing to do with our security we have now. I could take a bomb and blow up our Mall if i wanted to and nobody could stop me. I just dont want to get blown up plus i have a few better things to do. Lets not forget a couple of idiots scared the hell out of a few states shooting people coming out of stores recently. i cant imagine what trained people could do.