Al Qaeda Fighting Alongside Iraqi Soldiers Against British Troops!!!

[Jedi Knight]

This just in....... (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html). Al Qaeda has been found to be attacking British troops in Southern Iraq!

This proves what I have been saying all along--that Saddam Hussein was interlinked with Al Qaeda. The leftist denial demonstrated by leftists to this new truth can no longer be tolerated.

JK

[Segnosaur]

I don't believe anything until its been verified by foxnews.

[Baker]

It hasn’t been confirmed yet but when it doe’s I’m predicting replies such as they only came once the war started or This is the first contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Thanks for sharing the information.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
I don't believe anything until its been verified by foxnews.

All second that!:D

[The Fool]

I see no reason why this would not be true. As time goes on more and more groups are going to send fighters into Iraq where there is a plentiful supply of american targets.
You had better get used to this Jedi....Most likely Iraq is going to be one huge headache for america for a long long time to come.

Most likely outcome that I can see is that the coalition forces are going to claim victory as soon as they have killed a sizeable number of people that run Saddams Govt. They will then clear out, leaving an installed regime, this regime will soon be overthrown by another band of Iraqi loonies and we are back where we started.

[LTC8K6]

Haven't several captured al-quaeda people claimed that there are training camps in N. Iraq, and/or that they have trained there?

[Richard G]

This is most welcome. The more rats we get in one place, the more vermin that will soon be exterminated.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Richard G
This is most welcome. The more rats we get in one place, the more vermin that will soon be exterminated.
Congratulations Mr "G" You are one tough dude! now go clean your room.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
This just in....... (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html). Al Qaeda has been found to be attacking British troops in Southern Iraq!

This proves what I have been saying all along--that Saddam Hussein was interlinked with Al Qaeda. The leftist denial demonstrated by leftists to this new truth can no longer be tolerated.

JK
I'm sorry, but it doesn't proove a link between Hussein and al Qaida. Bin Laden promised that if Iraq were attacked that he'd wage guerilla warfare against the "crusaders," but not to protect Hussein's regime. He's doing it (if indeed he's already started) to defend the Arab world from western military encroachment. That has been his motive all along. His ultimate goal would be to defeat the United States, see Hussein overthrown (if the US won't do it, his guerillas and the Shi'ites in the south will in a destabilized Iraq), and help establish a Taliban-like regime in Iraq. He has a good chance of success. (I warned you guys about this.)

Think I'm being overly pessimistic? The Pentagon is now warning that the war could take months. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33955-2003Mar26.html) Another 120,000 troops are being sent to Iraq. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/27/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html) This isn't Gulf War II. It's Vietnam II.

[Baggle]

Sorry to rain on your parade, Wayne, but more and more troops have been pouring into Iraq every day since the war started. 14,000 more troops have arrived in Iraq in the last 24 hours or so. Those 120,000 that are to arrive soon were planned to arrive at this point in time even before the war started, per every report I've heard about the matter(strait from Donny Rumsfield, I believe). If you think this war will be another Vietnam, that's fine, and you are entitled to your opinion, but get your facts strait first, please. Or at least acknowledge that you do not know all of the facts and that you may be wrong before you twist the facts in such a matter.

If there is any question about what I am talking about, I am referring to your stating that another 120,000 troops are headed to Iraq, and then directly afterward stating that this is another Vietnam, implying that the troops are being sent in because our forces that are already in the area are in trouble, when in fact this has been planned all along. If this wasn't what you meant to imply, I apologize in advance.

Thank you.
-Baggle

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Baggle
Sorry to rain on your parade, Wayne, but more and more troops have been pouring into Iraq every day since the war started. 14,000 more troops have arrived in Iraq in the last 24 hours or so. Those 120,000 that are to arrive soon were planned to arrive at this point in time even before the war started, per every report I've heard about the matter(strait from Donny Rumsfield, I believe).
You may be right, but this article (http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=364032003&tid=518) suggests otherwise. Reinforcements add weight to criticisms

JASON BEATTIE AND TIM RIPLEY AT US CENTRAL COMMAND, IN QATAR
GEORGE Bush ordered his 4th Infantry Division to the Gulf yesterday, a decision seen by critics as an admission that the original invasion force was too small and deployed too early.

Timed carefully to coincide with a rallying speech by the US president in Florida, the movement of 16,000 troops and 14,000 other military will start immediately.

(snip)

The call-up, along with 5,200 troops from the 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, will give further ammunition to those critical of Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the military operation. In particular, defence experts have questioned the size and punch of the invasion force compared with the coalition assembled by General Colin Powell, now the US Secretary of State, in 1991.

Gen Powell broke down Iraqi resistance by adhering strictly to his doctrine of "overwhelming force". Only after eight weeks of devastating aerial bombardment did the general unleash his massive force of 500,000 troops on the Iraqi army. Capitulation was almost immediate.

By contrast, Rumsfeld has attempted to crush Saddam Hussein with half the number of soldiers, sent into Iraq without preliminary air strikes.

I recall reading last Fall that Rumsfeld's original plans were to use a "quick strike" force of only 75,000 troops, but the Pentagon argued for a force of at least 250,000.

I believe Rummy was suckered by foolishly listening to these guys. (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/atraqchi2.html) Remember all those "intelligence sources" who promised that Iraqis would be cheering as the U.S. and U.K. armies rolled into Basra or Nasiriyah or any major town in southern Iraq? Apparently, in day 7 of the invasion of Iraq, these intelligence sources and their data are proving to be fallible.

Unfortunately, the North American public is not told who the intelligence sources are. No, they aren't CIA, NSA, or the FBI. They aren't MI-5 or the SAS. They aren't even spies working in Iraq.

They are members of the Iraqi National Congress(INC), an Iraqi opposition group made up of millionaires and businessmen, former Ba'athist henchmen, and generals who aided Saddam in his formative years but felt threatened by him and defected. Most of the INC's ruling hierarchy is comprised of people who have not set foot in Iraq in more than 30 years. Some have never set foot in Iraq. And yet they claim to be experts.


EDITED TO ADD: I just saw this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030327/ts_nm/iraq_usa_force_dc_3) that indicates that at least most of those 120,000 additional troops were planned before the war started to be phased in by the end of April.

[LTC8K6]

Yep, the media has been screwing the pooch a lot during this conflict. They have no clue about strategy, or why the enemy might still be in cities that have been bypassed, etc.....

[Baggle]

Sorry, I couldn't find the source I was looking for(a CBS interview with Rumsfeld(I think) that I heard part of on the radio today) where the question about sending in the 120,000 troops was directly asked and answered with a, "This was already planned," but I did find this article, which makes some mention of it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030328/ts_afp/iraq_war_forces_030328003351

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US commanders have poured 90,000 ground troops into Iraq (news - web sites) since the start of an invasion seven days ago and has another 120,000 troops in line to go to the region, a Pentagon (news - web sites) official said.

The deployment orders (for the 120,000 troops) had been previously announced, but Pentagon officials highlighted the quickening flow of forces amid mounting criticism from former military commanders that a larger force was needed to go against Baghdad.

Emphasis is mine.

So the troops were planned to head out to Iraq all along. This report seems to suggest that perhaps those troops were not meant to head out quite so soon, however. This is contradictory to what I heard today in that CBS radio interview, or perhaps I am remembering it wrong.

-Baggle

[Baggle]

Bleh. Your link is infinitely more informative on this topic than mine is. Thanks for the info:)

-Baggle

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
This isn't Gulf War II. It's Vietnam II.

Sorry Wayne....wrong answer! You are the weakest link! :)

Korea and 'Nam had the same problem....there was no political will to win. Men in Korea coined the phrase "We're here to die for the tie!"....the men in 'Nam died for even less. In both wars we allowed the enemy safe haven...(couldn't hit the enemy in China as they massed for the counter attack) 'Nam was the same...the enemy launched out of Laos, and Cambodia where they were free from attack. The enemy was supplied by rail from China in the north....US pilots we'ren't even allowed to hit ships in Haiphong that had SAMs stacked on deck...the ROE was written by politicians who would not allow their military men to do what it took to win.

Bush seems to have rectified this. There will be no safe havens for Iraq....no sacrosanct supply source. GWB says we fight only to win...and nothing less will do. He had better be true to that word. ....well at least he didn't ask us to watch his lips!! :D

Nope...no relation to 'Nam at all. Watch how it's done Wayne. Watch how our guys kick ass when the government is 100% comitted to total victory....and the war plan is left to General officers, not elected liars.

-zilla

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by rikzilla
In both wars we allowed the enemy safe haven...(couldn't hit the enemy in China as they massed for the counter attack) 'Nam was the same...the enemy launched out of Laos, and Cambodia where they were free from attack.

I disagree on VietNam.

Cambodia (http://ns.headroyce.org/~us2001/courtneyj/) and targets in Laos (http://www.b-57canberra.org/guns_of_tchepon.htm) were attacked. Neither place was a "safe haven."

[clk]

Quote from the article


British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.


Since when do you believe what the Iraqi soldiers say, Jedi Knight?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sorry Wayne....wrong answer! You are the weakest link! :)

Korea and 'Nam had the same problem....there was no political will to win.

Well I remember hearing the same rhetoric from the politicians. "as long as it takes, right verses evil, we're doing it to liberate the people" etc etc. When we got there we discovered that the majority of the people did not want to be liberated, they wanted us to piss off and leave them alone. That is sounding familiar now too......


Men in Korea coined the phrase "We're here to die for the tie!"....the men in 'Nam died for even less. In both wars we allowed the enemy safe haven...(couldn't hit the enemy in China as they massed for the counter attack) 'Nam was the same...the enemy launched out of Laos, and Cambodia where they were free from attack. The enemy was supplied by rail from China in the north....US pilots we'ren't even allowed to hit ships in Haiphong that had SAMs stacked on deck...the ROE was written by politicians who would not allow their military men to do what it took to win.

And the surrounding countries won't be havens after the US occupation is complete? It looks to me like the ROE are also written by politicians in Iraq too.....Don't bomb here, don't fire there.


Bush seems to have rectified this. There will be no safe havens for Iraq....no sacrosanct supply source.

Not yet anyway.....wait till they need them. I can't see Iran stopping anyone who wants to blow up americans from using the long border for infiltration, can you?

GWB says we fight only to win...and nothing less will do. He had better be true to that word. ....well at least he didn't ask us to watch his lips!! :D

yep, thems fightin words..... However, everyone fights to win. Its a silly statement.


Nope...no relation to 'Nam at all. Watch how it's done Wayne. Watch how our guys kick ass when the government is 100% comitted to total victory....and the war plan is left to General officers, not elected liars.


And if the result is that Iraq becomes a huge palestine with the US in the role of Israel? Israel cannot subdue the palestinians with tanks and jets, why will Iraq be any different? If its because you still believe that the population is going to suddenly start singing the star spangled banner after saddam is dead....I think you may be very wrong.

If it took whooping and yelling "kick ass" to win....I think you are in with a good chance....However, troops that think they are invincible are still not bulletproof. As soon as the US becomes an occupier they loose the initiative and just become targets of oportunity that even irregulars with ad-hoc weaponry can inflict casualties on.....You've gotta get out of your tank to crap(eventually). When Saddams irregulars see the occupation is nearly complete they will stash thier weapons, go and get a feed, shower and change of clothes courtesy of the USA (hell, you will probably give them icecream too) They will then start planning the next stage of this war...The bombing and ambushing of small bands of the occupation forces. This is going to go on for a long long time rick, start getting used to the constant casualty lists....Nothing in common with Vietnam??????

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


I disagree on VietNam.

Cambodia (http://ns.headroyce.org/~us2001/courtneyj/) and targets in Laos (http://www.b-57canberra.org/guns_of_tchepon.htm) were attacked. Neither place was a "safe haven."

Limited bombing done in the "secret war" in Laos and Cambodia doesn't really count. #1. These countries were used as safe havens long before the "secret war" was launched. Also the need to keep it secret limited it's effectiveness. Why couldn't we just go after these havens publicly and early on? Because of the protesters and general domestic and international opinion....we didn't want to be seen widening the conflict! What a crock!

#2. You never addressed China...why not? China was a rock solid safe haven....what about the ROE. Pilots who saw SAMs stacked on rail cars and on Haiphong docked ships were not allowed to bomb them. The only SAMs that were fair game in the north were sites that were directly firing on our planes.

So....we decided to hit Cambodian and Laotian safe havens....but did nothing about China....and we even had a ROE that all but tied the hands of our pilots....and we expected victory???

No...we did not. The Vietnam war was wrong, I agree.....if we had comitted to victory there, we would not have lost. My point still stands....luckily GWB isn't interested in fighting over the shape of a negotiating table. He's fighting to win.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by The Fool

When Saddams irregulars see the occupation is nearly complete they will stash thier weapons, go and get a feed, shower and change of clothes courtesy of the USA (hell, you will probably give them icecream too) They will then start planning the next stage of this war...The bombing and ambushing of small bands of the occupation forces. This is going to go on for a long long time rick, start getting used to the constant casualty lists....Nothing in common with Vietnam??????

Wow Fool,

What are we, 6 days in and the chorus of "VietnamII" from the left is already deafening! Why don't you leave the predictions and tea-leaf reading to Sylvia and give this operation a chance?

Honestly! Why aren't the Koreans still picking us off over there? We've had an occupying force there for almost 50 years now. How 'bout West Germany? I spent 3 and a half years there from 78 to 81...other than a few commie red brigades terrorists we had nobody shooting at us there when we went to pinch a loaf, and we were by-God occupiers! What about Japan? How come they didn't shoot us up??

You are no skeptic man....you are making crazy sweeping predictions and claims based on no evidence. give it a rest and wait and see....you may even eventually be proven right. But right now you are talkin' outta yer ass.

-z

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by clk
Since when do you believe what the Iraqi soldiers say, Jedi Knight?

He knows they are al Qaeda because they are all carrying al Qaeda ID badges and secret decoder rings.

[jj]

While I wouldn't be surprised at all, I'll wait for more confirmation. As somebody noted, "the first report is always wrong".

The primary reason that it wouldn't surprise me is that I wouldn't be surprised if AQ was trying to cause conflict between Iraqui and Coalition troops, simply because they can.

[The Fool]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rikzilla


Wow Fool,

What are we, 6 days in and the chorus of "VietnamII" from the left is already deafening! Why don't you leave the predictions and tea-leaf reading to Sylvia and give this operation a chance?

enough with the "left" ********. In my case you have no Idea what you are talking about. Its getting tiresome. You said this war had nothing in common with vietnam....well Rik, all wars have a great deal in common. This one is no exception.


Honestly! Why aren't the Koreans still picking us off over there? We've had an occupying force there for almost 50 years now.

maybe its because you are occupying the south, they were on your side remember.


How 'bout West Germany? I spent 3 and a half years there from 78 to 81...other than a few commie red brigades terrorists we had nobody shooting at us there when we went to pinch a loaf, and we were by-God occupiers!


Rick...I know you were there but Jesus Christ....Are you saying you were there keeping the west germans in line?? or protecting them from the Soviets? do you really need to think about that one?


You are no skeptic man....you are making crazy sweeping predictions and claims based on no evidence.

hmmm, maybe it balances out all the predictions that iraqis have all got US flags in thier back pockets, ready to wave when saddam is gone. Thats the main problem I see with the US grand plan...there is no evidence it will happen, so far it hasn't. I know its only been 6 days. I am talking about what happens after the occupation is complete. Whats your opinion, the population starts singing the star spangled banner?



give it a rest and wait and see....you may even eventually be proven right. But right now you are talkin' outta yer ass.

-z
There seems to be a bit of this going on lately........maybe we two could form a band? The ass talking duet? :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Limited bombing done in the "secret war" in Laos and Cambodia doesn't really count. #1.

#2. You never addressed China...why not?

1. I'm sorry, but you can't just poopoo away the fact that action was (admittedly only "eventually) against VC supply lines Laos and Cambodia. There were a lot of heroic AC-130 pilots at Tchepone and I won't dishonor their actions by poopooing it.

2. I should have said, I disagree on Laos and Cambodia. I agree on China being a safe haven during Korea or VietNam.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


I disagree on VietNam.

Cambodia (http://ns.headroyce.org/~us2001/courtneyj/) and targets in Laos (http://www.b-57canberra.org/guns_of_tchepon.htm) were attacked. Neither place was a "safe haven."

and the destabilisation of cambodia sqw the rise of pol pot.

The will to win in vietnam was there, the amount of money and men poured into that place was phenomenal. The only problem was, the will of the 'south vietnamese' to win. The only will their leasers had to win was to think the US would not want to lose. Now, the US couldn't prop up nothing at all, and it couldn't keep up a war of attrition that was only, in the end, going to keep on killing americans, and 'destroy the country to save it'.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Limited bombing done in the "secret war" in Laos and Cambodia doesn't really count. #1. These countries were used as safe havens long before the "secret war" was launched. Also the need to keep it secret limited it's effectiveness. Why couldn't we just go after these havens publicly and early on? Because of the protesters and general domestic and international opinion....we didn't want to be seen widening the conflict! What a crock!

#2. You never addressed China...why not? China was a rock solid safe haven....what about the ROE. Pilots who saw SAMs stacked on rail cars and on Haiphong docked ships were not allowed to bomb them. The only SAMs that were fair game in the north were sites that were directly firing on our planes.

So....we decided to hit Cambodian and Laotian safe havens....but did nothing about China....and we even had a ROE that all but tied the hands of our pilots....and we expected victory???

No...we did not. The Vietnam war was wrong, I agree.....if we had comitted to victory there, we would not have lost. My point still stands....luckily GWB isn't interested in fighting over the shape of a negotiating table. He's fighting to win.

-zilla

yes rick, the only country in the world that matters is the US, and the only events that matter are the ones that affect it.

The ROE for Iraq includes those same cluster bombs that are so cheap that they don't all go off, and lie around for years killing civilians.

[peptoabysmal]

I find this war parallels World War II more than Vietnam or Korea. We are fighting the closest thing to Hitler that anyone has seen in a long time, using a very Patton-like strategy.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sorry Wayne....wrong answer! You are the weakest link! :)

Korea and 'Nam had the same problem....there was no political will to win.

There was plenty of political will to win. I didn't bring up Korea, but provoking the involvement of China is what pushed the US back to where the DMZ is now.

In Vietnam the problem was that the South Vietnamese did not want us there. It was their will that made the situation a no-winner. (It amazes me how often I've had to educate people on this point, even on this board.) The majority of South Vietnamese regarded us as the enemy, not as their protectors or liberators. They made up the guerillas known as the Viet Cong.

Whether or not Iraq becomes another Vietnam will depend on the attitudes of the Iraqi people. The neoconservatives convinced themselves that the US troops would be welcomed with open arms as liberators. Instead, it appears that many Iraqis regard them with contempt as invaders. Even the Iraqis in the south who want to see Hussein overthrown have made it known that they expect the US and the UK armies to leave immediately after Saddam falls or else they'll turn their sites on our troops.

It will be different than Vietnam in that the civil war that follows Saddam's removal will be a much more complicated, multifaceted one, and you will have terrorists groups joining in on the guerilla attacks.

EDITED TO ADD: I now notice that AUP made the same points on Vietnam. Cheers to AUP, that zany rapscallion! :)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Wow Fool,

What are we, 6 days in and the chorus of "VietnamII" from the left is already deafening!
Actually, it's been eight days. I never knew mine and the Fool's voices were so loud, but I'm always happy when the Fool agrees with me to any degree. He's a funny dude and he ain't no fool.

EDITED TO ADD: Like the Fool, I don't consider myself to be from the left. Like Jedi Knight, I consider myself to be in the center politically.

EDITED FURTHER TO ADD: Maybe that second comparison wasn't the best choice to make my point. :D

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by The Fool
There seems to be a bit of this going on lately........maybe we two could form a band? The ass talking duet? :) [/B]

:D :D :D
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH

go on ya mite.... You Aussie dags ain't all bad....at least your sense of humor is still intact. :D

Cheers mite!
-z :p

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

There was plenty of political will to win.

No there was not...why the restrictive ROE?? We were fighting for the status quo...nothing more. The men were sacrificed for nothing...it was a political abomination. The NVA won the war by launching the Tet offensive...a complete military disaster for them. Ah, but it sure played their way on tv....nope...the will to win was gone long before Tet....

I didn't bring up Korea, but provoking the involvement of China is what pushed the US back to where the DMZ is now.
Please explain how we "provoked" China? Perhaps it was by kicking the NK's ass into China? I think it was.
From Col. Robert Black's memoir "A Ranger Born"
(page 123)
The Chinese were beaten. Our forces were now moving forward with minimal opposition. From General Van Fleet to GI Joe, we knew we could run the Chinese out of Korea. We heard a rumor that the development of tactical nuclear artillery would make their numbers meaningless. We heard that General James Van Fleet had plans to make amphibious end runs behind the Chinese. Marines would spearhead the landings with infantry divisions of the army exploiting the lodgement. Our Ranger companies would be formed into a battalion and, with the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team, parachute inland and isolate the battlefield-we were eager to do this.
(snip)
Even though the Chinese were in retreat, the political will of America was lacking. The threats of a wider war and a Russian attack in Europe had our allies in a panic. The British and French governments wanted out and so did the Truman administration. When MacArthur was relieved, newspapers in England cheered. Seeing those who were doing their fighting being beaten, the Soviet Union proposed a truce. Talks were begun, and the Chinese sought and gained a stabilization of the lines. Now our strategy changed. Ordered to halt our advance, we were now employed in what those not on the battlefield called "limited war". War, however, is never limited for the infantryman, marine, or fighter pilot, or indeed any of those who go in harm's way. For us, war is and always will be, kill or be killed.
(snip)
To stop our offensive while truce talks were on-going was a mistake; the truce talks bought the Chinese the time they needed to rebuild their shattered units, reinforce, and dig in.


Excuse me if I prefer to listen to the experience of an honorable soldier who actually experienced the event. Your ignorance of the facts of the Korean war is apalling. You should not make statements out of ignorance and pass it off as knowledge Wayne...leave that to AUP and Shanek...you're usually better than that.


In Vietnam the problem was that the South Vietnamese did not want us there. It was their will that made the situation a no-winner. (It amazes me how often I've had to educate people on this point, even on this board.) The majority of South Vietnamese regarded us as the enemy, not as their protectors or liberators. They made up the guerillas known as the Viet Cong.


Then who were ]these people? (http://www.boatpeople.com/)
From the link
(Written & Submitted by Nguyen Anh Tuan)
One morning, on the last day of April some twenty years ago, I woke up to find out that I lost everything I worked for and in which I invested the best and most fruitful twenty years of my life: The Republic of Viet-Nam has ceased to exist. The South has been defeated and conquered by the North Communist Regime.
I lost everything, my properties have been confiscated and nationalized, the bank in which I deposited my meager savings has been taken over by the new government and all accounts seized, my home invaded and property deed surrendered. It was a shock to realize then, not only I lost parts of my own body in the war, but I lost everything, including a two square yard spot which was "reserved" for every soldier in the National Cemetery - for there was no more National cemetery, since the Communists desecrated it and started to rip it apart, digging up the graves of our fallen comrades on the day of their arrivals.
I lost everything, that morning of April 1975. I lost my dignity, I lost my pride, I was humiliated and insulted, I was kicked and beaten, and I was starved, thrown in a crowded cell. I was forced to crawl since my crutches have been taken away and broken. In order to be ambulatory, I had to make my own crutches with two pieces of wood tied together with strings. I was refused transfusion for the operation to reattach my hip, for I was "Traitor to the People's cause" and did not therefore deserve to be treated and receive "People" blood. I was forced to clean by myself and crawl up to the second floor where I would be operated.
I lost everything, that morning of April 1975. I lost track of time; I lost contact with the outside world. I lost sight of the world's civilization. I woke up that morning to realize that everyone and everything around me have gone back thirty years. I saw myself back as a kid riding a bus going to see my relatives in the countryside, riding a bus which made several stops, not to take passengers, but to take some water, for it used charcoal as fuel to run. I stepped back thirty years, since now I have to line up to buy my ration of rice every week like I used to do after the Second World War. I stepped back in time, when I realized that soldiers and cadres from the North did not even know how to use a toilet seat and shower in my home they partially occupied.
I lost everything, that morning of April 1975. I lost the most valuable property any human being can have, Freedom. I was under house arrest after my release from hospital. I had to surrender myself to the local police station every Sunday, to make a written "voluntary" report of my activities, my whereabouts, all whom I saw during the week, and in quintuplet, not with carbon paper, but five times on different sheets of paper to be verified by a commissar. I was checked in the middle of the night, and my house searched to see if there was anyone hidden inside. Even agents came to see what I had for dinner, not out of compassion and to offer me help, but to see if I had any food other than the ones allotted to me. I had to "roll and turn my tongue seven times in my mouth" before speaking to any one, for fear to make a "faux pas" which could send me back to jail.
Finally, I fled my own country by boat, abandoning everything. I made that decision to leave, knowing very well all the dangers of such a daring enterprise. I chose possible death on seas, or being shot and executed if being captured, than a lifelong of misery and persecution, and a prolonged agony before the Ultimate Goal that anyone of us has to face in the end. But in the making that decision to escape, I had a fifty-fifty chance of success, and a dream of a better life for me and my children. I took that chance.
It was very hard for us in the beginning. I was in my mid-forties, and it was a shock for me to have to apply for public assistance for the first time in my life.
Me? A university graduate, a European educated, a "somebody" in my own country, now a no one here. Me? Who came here just a few years ago on quite a different status, now I have to bow myself down and apply for public welfare and assistance? I was shocked and humiliated. But I had no choice and the system was there to help us. We had only one chicken and some rice the first week for five kids and an adult, me, to live on. But this Land of Opportunity has been very good to us. We worked our way back up. In few months I got a part-time job, I went back to school, graduated. All my kids also got their degrees since then. I am now working in electronic engineering. We are paying back our dues to this Great Country that gave us everything we lost, our self-esteem, our dignity, our feelings of being worth of something, and mostly, FREEDOM.
Fifteen years have passed... I wish to thank this Great Country and all the people who extended their help and assistance for my family and me to rebuild our lives together. And we are now all very proud to be its citizens.
This story was written and submitted by Nguyen Anh Tuan
Hayward, CA

This is but one story among many, many thousands of Vietnamese refugees known as boat people. Read it...go to the site and read many more just like it. So the people in the south were mostly Cong eh? I think you're info is a little suspect there Wayne. Also...the "Cadre" he speaks of from the north? Wonderful folks huh? You can see them every day leading our own "useful idiots" in anti-war (America) protests. :mad:

Whether or not Iraq becomes another Vietnam will depend on the attitudes of the Iraqi people. The neoconservatives convinced themselves that the US troops would be welcomed with open arms as liberators. Instead, it appears that many Iraqis regard them with contempt as invaders. Even the Iraqis in the south who want to see Hussein overthrown have made it known that they expect the US and the UK armies to leave immediately after Saddam falls or else they'll turn their sites on our troops.

They remember Gulf War I....I don't blame them for mistrusting us. If they rise too early they know Saddam's men will show them no mercy. Already in Basra there have been accounts of Iraqi forces putting mortars onto protesters there. I refuse to believe the educated people of Iraq would support Saddam after all the pain and suffering he has brought them. Those that fight fanatically have invested their futures in this regime...they will fight to their last breath rather than lose everything. The rest are fighting at the point of a gun. Our will to win in the face of Iraqi propaganda is our biggest asset.

It will be different than Vietnam in that the civil war that follows Saddam's removal will be a much more complicated, multifaceted one, and you will have terrorists groups joining in on the guerilla attacks.
Thanks you Sylvia Browne. :rolleyes:

EDITED TO ADD: I now notice that AUP made the same points on Vietnam. Cheers to AUP, that zany rapscallion! :)
AUP is a pompous ass who refuses to acknowledge when he's wrong. You like to be associated with such people?? He's as wrong as you are, the difference is he'll never admit it, no matter how much evidence you produce to the contrary.

-z

[rikzilla]

what...no reply from the lefties??? ...and it's some of my best work...

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by rikzilla
what...no reply from the lefties??? ...and it's some of my best work...

They are shocked speechless.

baha

Oh, and that is the very system conditions they want to bring into America.

JK

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla

No there was not...why the restrictive ROE??
What restrictive rules of engagement? Don't kill all the South Vietnamese? You're listening to ******** from clueless conservatives who can't accept that they supported a stupid decision. To "win" the war, we'd have had to kill the very people we were supposed to be fighting to defend. It was a senseless, useless exercise. Preserving the status quo was more than what could be accomplished. They were fighting to cover the asses of politicians who couldn't admit they made a mistake and who used lies to get us involved. (Sounds familiar.)

Originally posted by rikzilla
Excuse me if I prefer to listen to the experience of an honorable soldier who actually experienced the event. Your ignorance of the facts of the Korean war is apalling. You should not make statements out of ignorance and pass it off as knowledge Wayne...leave that to AUP and Shanek...you're usually better than that.
Excuse me if I prefer to acknowledge history (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0828118.html) rather then the propaganda of a military man who wants to find excuses and scapegoats for why his forces got pushed south.

On Oct. 19, the North Korean capital of Pyongyang was captured; by Nov. 24, North Korean forces were driven by the 8th Army, under Gen. Walton Walker, and the X Corp, under Gen. Edward Almond, almost to the Yalu River, which marked the border of Communist China. As MacArthur prepared for a final offensive, the Chinese Communists joined with the North Koreans to launch (Nov. 26) a successful counterattack. The UN troops were forced back, and in Jan., 1951, the Communists again advanced into the South, recapturing Seoul, the South Korean capital.

After months of heavy fighting, the center of the conflict was returned to the 38th parallel, where it remained for the rest of the war.
What your honorable military man doesn't understand is the concept of Pyrrhic victory. The people of the United States as well as the UN and the people they represented did not think defeating the North Koreans was worth starting World War III with its use of "tactical" nuclear weapons. Duh!

No less an honorable military man than Dwight Eisenhower campaigned for president on the promise to negotiate an end to the Korean War. So I suppose Eisenhower was North Korea's "useful idiot."

Originally posted by rikzilla
Then who were ]these people? (http://www.boatpeople.com/)
Simple. Some South Vietnamese supported the Saigon government. Most of them were in Saigon. Outside of Saigon, most South Vietnamese overwhelmingly opposed the South Vietnamese government. Other South Vietnamese, I'm sure, changed their minds about the communists after 1975. You don't make any point that refutes what I've said.

Originally posted by rikzilla
Thanks you Sylvia Browne. :rolleyes:
There's a difference, Rik, between a "psychic" prediction and making one based on a knowledge of the facts. If you want Sylvia Brown, I give you the disgraced Richard Perle, (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/5498573.htm) who confidently predicted the current war would be a "cakewalk" and that we could win so quickly and easily with a force of only
40,000 troops! (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13098)

I noted there were widespread media reports saying an attack would require up to 250,000 troops. These soldiers could not all be air-dropped into Iraq. They would have to come from somewhere, such as Saudi Arabia. And a military action of this size would need extensive logistical support nearby.

Forget the 250,000 figure, Perle said: "The Army guys don't know anything. They said we needed 500,000 troops in 1991 [for the Gulf War]. Did we need that many to win? No."

What's the Perle Plan? I asked.

"Forty thousand troops." he said.

To take Baghdad? Nah, he replied. To take control of the north and the south, particularly the north, where the oil fields are. Cut off Saddam's oil, make him a pauper, that should do the trick.

"We don't need anyone else," he said, in a distinctly imperial fashion.

This was illuminating, for here was a top Pentagon adviser, a comrade of the get-Saddam ideologues of the Defense Department, asserting the United States could de-Saddamize Iraq with a relatively small force and without asking any other nation for assistance. Was anyone else at the Pentagon on this same page? Might Perle be reflecting proposals already drawn up there?

I admit I am no military expert – but I do know a few. The next day, I described the Perle option to two of them. A military analyst, who had served many years in the Special Forces, replied (requesting confidentiality):

"The question that has not been asked or answered is what do we want to do in Iraq. We need to distill it down to its simplest form. Is our goal to kill Saddam (how can you exile him) or do you put him in prison for the rest of his life (a la Noriega)? Are we going after the weapons of mass destruction sites? Do we know where they are? (No!) Once you answer all of these questions, you realize that you need an army of occupation to run Iraq until we set up a puppet government. Do you really think that once we occupy Iraq we are going to allow the Iraqi people to elect anyone they want? Guys like Perle and [deputy defense secretary Paul] Wolfowitz are so blinded by their loyalty to Israel that they seldom look at the long-term consequences. Finally, once we occupy Iraq, the Perles of the world are going to say, 'Why don't we just go into Iran and solve that problem, too?' I really think occupation is something the Bush administration has not thought through yet. It will be a huge problem, especially if we decide to go it alone."

(snip)

Another military analyst, who worked 20 years on US counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, was also doubtful:

"I think Perle is smoking dope, just like the majority of these guys who've held high level positions but never served a stitch of time in combat. It's a lot hotter on the battlefield than it is in the halls of the Pentagon, and the margin of error is much slimmer. I'm not sure what the number is, but I do know it's a hell of a lot more than 40K. And indeed we most certainly need the support of Arab allies in the region. Where else would we base the helos needed for quick recovery of downed pilots, immediate air support for ground ops, etc., etc, etc.?"
It's know-nothings like Perle who got us into the current war with promises that the Iraqi citizens would welcome us with open arms and flowers and that Iraq's resistence would quickly fold. Similar to the hubris that got us into Vietnam.

EDITED to make a couple of word changes for clarity.

[max]

In the first world war it took British Empire troops two weeks to take Basra and three years to take Bagdad.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


They are shocked speechless.

baha

Oh, and that is the very system conditions they want to bring into America.

JK

No, we right-wing moderates that you unethically and dishonestly call "lefties" know that it was the US who set the stage for the horrid disaster that hit SV after the "police action". What happened to the Hmong, our supporters in the cities, etc, after we left is our own direct responsibility.

You and your kind bear DIRECT responsibility for the US supporters who we abandoned, refused to bring with us, and who couldn't immigrate because of the arch-right-wing support for anti-immigration laws. I still remember those photos of people being thrown off of helicopters during the final evacuation.

It was obvious for several years before Nixon had the sense to get out that we were going to completely, utterly, and absolutely lose in every fashion possible in Vietnam. A responsible, sensible reaction would have been to extract the troops AND the supporters, because of the obvious retribution that our own actions made "justifiable" (please notice the quotes of contempt) to the lying thugs on the other side.

And let's not even think about the atrocious way that the 'nam Vets were treated afterwards. That's just as bad.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

EDITED TO ADD: Like the Fool, I don't consider myself to be from the left. Like Jedi Knight, I consider myself to be in the center politically.

EDITED FURTHER TO ADD: Maybe that second comparison wasn't the best choice to make my point. :D

Oh, the comparison is apt.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by LukeT


Oh, the comparison is apt.
Which shows your great capacity to assume--wrongly. At least you're consistent.Example. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15686&perpage=40&highlight=Iraq%20victory&pagenumber=1) Second, the Iraqis are going to surrender at the first opportunity. Just like 1991. There may be resistance from the Republican Guard, but they will only hold out long enough for Saddam to fly away to Algiers.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Which shows your great capacity to assume--wrongly. At least you're consistent.Example. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15686&perpage=40&highlight=Iraq%20victory&pagenumber=1)

I doubt you want to compare posts, WG. Your similarities to the marxists' Bush-Is-Hitler speeches at anti-war rallies pretty much places you on the fringe.

[Lord Kenneth]

You very well might be right, Jedi... but there's no conclusive evidence to link Al Qaeda with Saddam, yet.

I heard that bin Laden doesn't even like Saddam.. called him Satan or something... Saddam isn't a religious extremist, at least not at the level that bin Laden is...

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by LukeT


I doubt you want to compare posts, WG. Your similarities to the marxists' Bush-Is-Hitler speeches at anti-war rallies pretty much places you on the fringe.
:rolleyes: I've got news for you, Luke. The anti-war movement covers the entire political spectrum.

Here is an essay written by a Republican Congressman (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/duncan1.html) published on a Libertarian site.
Most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.

A strong majority of nationally syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war. Just three of many examples I could give include the following:

Charley Reese, a staunch conservative, who was selected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-Span viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq: "is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension – urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another – has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the costs in both blood and treasure."

Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally-syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: "an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history."

James Webb, a hero in Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: "The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."
I think saying "a strong majority of nationally syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war" is an overstatement, but he helps me make my point.

Most of the anti-war protesters were political moderates.

I am a nonpartisan liberal in the classical (non-Leftist) sense and have never been a Marxist. I don't equate Bush with Hitler (Napoleon would be a better choice), though I have compared his dishonest propaganda methods with those of the Nazis.

Your attempts to marginalize the antiwar movement (as though that would make them wrong anyway) and to misrepresent me show the consistency of your dishonesty.

I'd welcome a comparison of my posts to yours to see who knew what he was talking about. I wasn't the one parroting the Bush line of ********. Just wait and see how events unfold to see how right I've been.

No doubt when it becomes too painfully obvious what disasterous act of stupidity it was to start Operation Iraqi Fiefdom (hey, I just thought of that :cool: ), wankers like you will try to blame the failure of your policies on the antiwar protesters who tried to warn you that you'd be making a mistake. It would be consistent with the pattern of dishonesty used to win support for this debacle (forged documents, nonexistent terrorist links, and other false claims).

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

:rolleyes: I've got news for you, Luke. The anti-war movement covers the entire political spectrum.

Here is an essay written by a Republican Congressman (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/duncan1.html) published on a Libertarian site.
I think saying "a strong majority of nationally syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war" is an overstatement, but he helps me make my point.

Most of the anti-war protesters were political moderates.

I am a nonpartisan liberal in the classical (non-Leftist) sense and have never been a Marxist. I don't equate Bush with Hitler (Napoleon would be a better choice), though I have compared his dishonest propaganda methods with those of the Nazis.

Your attempts to marginalize the antiwar movement (as though that would make them wrong anyway) and to misrepresent me show the consistency of your dishonesty.

I'd welcome a comparison of my posts to yours to see who knew what he was talking about. I wasn't the one parroting the Bush line of ********. Just wait and see how events unfold to see how right I've been.

No doubt when it becomes too painfully obvious what disasterous act of stupidity it was to start Operation Iraqi Fiefdom (hey, I just thought of that :cool: ), wankers like you will try to blame the failure of your policies on the antiwar protesters who tried to warn you that you'd be making a mistake. It would be consistent with the pattern of dishonesty used to win support for this debacle (forged documents, nonexistent terrorist links, and other false claims).

Odd, your quote says most people do not realize the number of republicans against the war and yet it itself fails to mention the number.

Most idiots don't know when their ass is kicked in debate and or discussion. Tally? at least one in this thread. :rolleyes:

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll


Odd, your quote says most people do not realize the number of republicans against the war and yet it itself fails to mention the number.

Most idiots don't know when their ass is kicked in debate and or discussion. Tally? at least one in this thread. :rolleyes:
That ass would be yours.

Notice that I said the author overstated his case. My point was that the anti-war movement stretches across the political spectrum. Perhaps that's too difficult a point for you to understand.

Anyway, while I'm at it, Robert Novak (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030327.shtml) is another conservative columnist who has been against this war. From his most recent column: WASHINGTON -- "There were some who were supportive of going to war with Iraq who described it as a cakewalk," Tim Russert told Donald Rumsfeld on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday. The secretary of Defense seemed surprised. "I never did," he replied. "No one I know in the Pentagon ever did." While Rumsfeld spoke the literal truth, his response was still disingenuous.

Rumsfeld had been asked about the cakewalk description several times, rejecting it but still defending the premises for such a judgment. While its source was not technically a Pentagon official, it was a longtime Rumsfeld friend and lieutenant: Kenneth Adelman, appointed by the secretary to the Defense Policy Board (an outside advisory panel). In demanding military action against Saddam Hussein, Adelman has promised repeatedly there would be no military difficulty.

(snip)

Nevertheless, Adelman and Rumsfeld both overestimated the gap between U.S. and Iraqi military prowess. According to Defense Department sources, Rumsfeld at first insisted that vast air superiority and a degraded Iraqi military would enable 75,000 U.S. troops to win the war. Gen. Tommy Franks, the theater commander-in-chief, convinced Rumsfeld to send 250,000 (augmented by 45,000 British). However, the Army would have preferred a much deeper force, leading to anxiety inside the Pentagon in the first week of war.

Unlike Vietnam, strongest advocates of action against the Iraqi regime had estimated the lowest troop needs. Former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle, named by Rumsfeld to head the Defense Policy Board, predicted in February 2001 that Hussein would be gone within a year. I asked Perle whether a major U.S. expeditionary force would be needed. "No, certainly not," he replied. "I don't think that's necessary."

Adelman, Perle's Defense Policy Board colleague who held important government posts as Rumsfeld's subordinate, was interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Dec. 6, 2001. "I don't agree that you need an enormous number of American troops," said Adelman. Hussein's army "is down to one-third than it was before, and I think it would be a cakewalk." Since then, Adelman has stuck to that estimate.

Last Nov. 23, I asked Rumsfeld whether he agreed with Adelman. "Well, I really don't," he said, but then indicated he understood how his friend came to that conclusion. "Saddam Hussein's forces are considerably weaker today than" in 1991, while "our forces are considerably stronger." He suggested that only Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" -- presumably chemical weapons -- could "change the equation." No such weapons have yet been used, but the Iraqis have put up stout resistance.

Not all conservatives are clueless, just the neo-conservatives and their gullible supporters.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

That ass would be yours.

Notice that I said the author overstated his case. My point was that the anti-war movement stretches across the political spectrum. Perhaps that's too difficult a point for you to understand.

Anyway, while I'm at it, Robert Novak (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030327.shtml) is another conservative columnist who has been against this war. From his most recent column:
Not all conservatives are clueless, just the neo-conservatives and their gullible supporters.

actually that shows nothing of Novak being against the war. Just being a media guy that wants to keep things alive so he has readers and viewers. Yes you stated that he overstated things when he said "a strong majority of nationally syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war"
But you did nothing but agree with the overstatement and even offered to us as proof.

Try again, try harder.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll

But you did nothing but agree with the overstatement and even offered to us as proof.


:confused: I'm trying to make sense of your semi-literate statement above. The point I was trying to prove when I cited that source was that conservatives and Libertarians were part of the anti-war movement. How can I call something an overstatement and simultaenously agree that it is accurate? Do you know what "overstatement" means? It means that a claimed condition exists, but its magnitude is exaggerated. (Now you'll have a few more words to look up in your dictionary--if you own one.)

As to Novak's antiwar sentiments, this article (http://www.hillnews.com/keene/032503.aspx) discusses the attacks on him by that moron David Frum who brags about coining the "axis of evil" phrase.
The debate over whether we should have adopted the policy we are now pursuing was a legitimate one and the continuing debate about what all this will mean in the post-Saddam world is going to prove to be even more important. It is a debate that won’t divide us all along neat ideological lines, but it is one that must nonetheless be joined.

And it is going to be far too important to be decided on the basis of the sort of ad hominem attacks launched against Novak this week by former White House speechwriter David Frum. Frum is among those who can’t seem to accept the fact that those who disagree with him may not be in league with the devil. His vituperative attack on one of the nation’s most respected conservative columnists marks the man as neither conservative nor intellectually respectable. Like many other conservatives, I happen to disagree with Novak’s analysis of what’s going on in the Middle East. But to suggest, as does Frum, that his disagreement with Bush’s Iraq policy stems from a hatred of the president and the country is scandalously and irresponsibly absurd.

EDITED TO ADD: You and LukeT would do well to read that quote over a few times or more till you understand the points being made in it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert


:confused: I'm trying to make sense of your semi-literate statement above. The point I was trying to prove when I cited that source was that conservatives and Libertarians were part of the anti-war movement. How can I call something an overstatement and simultaenously agree that it is accurate? Do you know what "overstatement" means? It means that a claimed condition exists, but its magnitude is exaggerated. (Now you'll have a few more words to look up in your dictionary--if you own one.)

As to Novak's antiwar sentiments, this article (http://www.hillnews.com/keene/032503.aspx) discusses the attacks on him by that moron David Frum who brags about coining the "axis of evil" phrase.

EDITED TO ADD: You and LukeT would do well to read that quote over a few times or more till you understand the points being made in it.

So you use a quote from a guy you call a moron to prove your point about Novak being against the war? Is that the kind of support you actually seek or are ya getting desperate here? I mean I'd quote a moron, as my siggy shows, to show that the moron is in fact a moron. I'd never use the moron as support for my own claims as that would be, well, quite frankly, it would be moronic to do so.

[Troll]

as for support of the anti-war movement, you can also find christian, muslim, buddhist, pagan, Green Party, tea drinkers, pedophiles, nuns, and the list goes on that are agaisnt the war. What's your point? Would other nuns be shocked at the number of nuns against the war? Why would only conservatives be shocked? I'm a conservative and I'm not shocked nor surprised that some are against the war. So again, why conservatives? Why not one legged figure skaters? Is it because of your own bias?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

That ass would be yours.

Notice that I said the author overstated his case. My point was that the anti-war movement stretches across the political spectrum. Perhaps that's too difficult a point for you to understand.

Anyway, while I'm at it, Robert Novak (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030327.shtml) is another conservative columnist who has been against this war. From his most recent column:
Not all conservatives are clueless, just the neo-conservatives and their gullible supporters.

The only problem I have with anti-war demonstrations in the US recently is that they were organized by communists with the agenda to not support the troops as well as their deliberate agenda to attack the United States.

I don't care if people get together and demonstrate, but when demonstrations become tools of international hostile groups who seek to destroy the United States, that subversion must have a spotlight shined upon it.

The other day in my community, unbelievably, I was driving past one of our high-schools and there was a high-school "walk out" blocking the road. One of the students was carrying the affinity group communist slogan "books not bombs". I stopped to ask her if she knew if she was demonstrating for communists since communists organized her march.

Her response was: "Communists? What is Communists?"

As Stalin said: "useful idiots".

JK

P.S. That has nothing to do with you Wayne. I think you are OK. ;)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll


So you use a quote from a guy you call a moron to prove your point about Novak being against the war? Is that the kind of support you actually seek or are ya getting desperate here? I mean I'd quote a moron, as my siggy shows, to show that the moron is in fact a moron. I'd never use the moron as support for my own claims as that would be, well, quite frankly, it would be moronic to do so.
I didn't use a quote from David Frum, whom I called a moron. Click on the link. The column was written by David Keene who was criticizing Frum for his attacks on Novak because of Novak's antiwar stand. Your comprehension continues to disappoint.

I'll concede that I understandably may have confused you on the quotes from the Novak column. I claimed that Novak was against the war, but I wasn't citing his latest column to prove that claim. I was citing his column to reinforce things I'd written earlier in the thread about the miscalculations of the neoconservatives. I should have taken the time to make that clear.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll
as for support of the anti-war movement, you can also find christian, muslim, buddhist, pagan, Green Party, tea drinkers, pedophiles, nuns, and the list goes on that are agaisnt the war. What's your point? Would other nuns be shocked at the number of nuns against the war? Why would only conservatives be shocked? I'm a conservative and I'm not shocked nor surprised that some are against the war. So again, why conservatives? Why not one legged figure skaters? Is it because of your own bias?
Why conservatives? Because LukeT was calling the antiwar protesters Marxists. Since when are conservatives and Libertarians at the same end of the spectrum as Marxists? I'm getting annoyed that I have to spend time explaining the most simple things to you. Try thinking, for a change.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I didn't use a quote from David Frum, whom I called a moron. Click on the link. The column was written by David Keene who was criticizing Frum for his attacks on Novak because of Novak's antiwar stand. Your comprehension continues to disappoint.

I'll concede that I understandably may have confused you on the quotes from the Novak column. I claimed that Novak was against the war, but I wasn't citing his latest column to prove that claim. I was citing his column to reinforce things I'd written earlier in the thread about the miscalculations of the neoconservatives. I should have taken the time to make that clear.

Well I'm glad my comprehension of your posts do indeed disappoint if it serves for you to in fact take the time to be more clear in the future. But again I must ask for proof that Novak is in fact against the war, and then show where a "surprising" number of conservatives are against the war. that was in fact your claim and so far you've mentioned one man and have not even shown proof via anything he himself has said which would prove his stance on said war.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

P.S. That has nothing to do with you Wayne. I think you are OK. ;)
Thank you, Jedi. I think you are OK too. :)

Never underestimate the power of a good excuse to skip class.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Why conservatives? Because LukeT was calling the antiwar protesters Marxists. Since when are conservatives and Libertarians at the same end of the spectrum as Marxists? I'm getting annoyed that I have to spend time explaining the most simple things to you. Try thinking, for a change.

That's a good question. But does membership of a party exclude behavior from variations of the party lines? Are there not liberals that a guy like JK would just love to meet? I'm a conservative and pro-choice. How many people would that surprise?

Again, I ask you, show the number so that we may indeed be surprised. You made the claim that conservatives would be surprised to see the number of conservatives against the war. You named one and even then you failed to offer proof that he has openly said he was opposed to it. i know I could look all of this up in a quick search, but you made the claim so I wanna know if you can support it. It's not a big deal really. Just testing your convictions and maybe a little testing of your ability to support your claim ;)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll

But again I must ask for proof that Novak is in fact against the war, and then show where a "surprising" number of conservatives are against the war. that was in fact your claim and so far you've mentioned one man and have not even shown proof via anything he himself has said which would prove his stance on said war.
That was not my claim since I don't know what a "surprising" number would be. You were the first to use the word "surprising." Also, if you were not so retarded, you'd know that citing a source to show that conservatives are opposed to the war does not mean I stand behind every point or qualification made by that source as my own. The source was a conservative. His essay was carried by a Libertarian site. Libertarians also oppose the war. (Find more conservative and Libertarian columnists who oppose the war by visiting antiwar.com. (http://www.antiwar.com/) ) The source cited other antiwar conservatives. By any reasonable standard, I've proven my point that the antiwar movement is not limited to Marxists.

You can do a little research on Robert Novak's columns if you think both David Frum and David Keene were lying about Novak being against the war.

I'm not going to spend my time trying to quantify for you how many conservatives are against the war. If you're so interested in that, then do the research yourself.

Here is an editorial (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j032203.html) written by one of the antiwar conservatives attacked by Frum. Entertain yourself. I don't want to. Comrade Frum puts all of us antiwar conservatives in the dock, and conducts the literary equivalent of the Moscow Show Trials, with Pat Buchanan in the role of Trotsky, the popular conservative columnist Robert J. Novak playing the part of Bukharin, and various and sundry minor figures equally deserving of a one-way trip to the frozen tundra:

"You may know the names of these antiwar conservatives. Some are famous: Patrick Buchanan and Robert Novak. Others are not: Llewellyn Rockwell, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Scott McConnell, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis, and Taki Theodoracopulos."

EDITED TO ADD: You seemed surprised to learn that even one conservative is antiwar. So, though I never made the claim you ascribe to me, it is nonetheless already proven.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

That was not my claim since I don't know what a "surprising" number would be. You were the first to use the word "surprising." Also, if you were not so retarded, you'd know that citing a source to show that conservatives are opposed to the war does not mean I stand behind every point or qualification made by that source as my own. The source was a conservative. His essay was carried by a Libertarian site. Libertarians also oppose the war. (Find more conservative and Libertarian columnists who oppose the war by visiting antiwar.com. (http://www.antiwar.com/) ) The source cited other antiwar conservatives. By any reasonable standard, I've proven my point that the antiwar movement is not limited to Marxists.

You can do a little research on Robert Novak's columns if you think both David Frum and David Keene were lying about Novak being against the war.

I'm not going to spend my time trying to quantify for you how many conservatives are against the war. If you're so interested in that, then do the research yourself.

Here is an editorial (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j032203.html) written by one of the antiwar conservatives attacked by Frum. Entertain yourself. I don't want to.
EDITED TO ADD: You seemed surprised to learn that even one conservative is antiwar. So, though I never made the claim you ascribe to me, it is nonetheless already proven.

well it's true that I used the word surprised first. Sorry about that. But your comment:

[quote] Most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.[quote]

did surprise me as it appeared as though you have some sort of insight to the numbers and that they would be higher than expected. so I asked you to show me the numbers.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll


well it's true that I used the word surprised first. Sorry about that. But your comment:

[quote] Most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.[quote]

did surprise me as it appeared as though you have some sort of insight to the numbers and that they would be higher than expected. so I asked you to show me the numbers.
That wasn't my comment. :rolleyes:

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

That wasn't my comment. :rolleyes:

sorry but

[quote] Most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.[quote]

Was your comment.

So make me realize how many and give me the numbers and stop jerking me around. How many conservatives are against the war in Iraq?

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Troll


sorry but

[quote] Most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.[quote]

Was your comment.

So make me realize how many and give me the numbers and stop jerking me around. How many conservatives are against the war in Iraq?

Ah, what the hell. I'll answer the question for him:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=691

From Zogby Webpage:
1. Two in three voters (67%) support the war being waged against Saddam Hussein; 31% oppose. Support is strongest in the Central/Great Lakes region (72%-27%), as well as in the South (69%-28%) and West (69%-30%). While 58% support in the East, 41% are opposed. Greatest support is among Republicans (91%-8%), while only 46% of Democrats are supportive and 52% are opposed. Independents support the war 69% to 30%.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Andalyn


Ah, what the hell. I'll answer the question for him:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=691



thanks Andalyn. And to use my own word, I am surprised. I would have thought , what with the given claim, that the percentage of conservatives in favor of said war would be much lower.

glad to see that some right thinking is being done. ;)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll


sorry but

[quote] Most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.[quote]

Was your comment.

So make me realize how many and give me the numbers and stop jerking me around. How many conservatives are against the war in Iraq?
Retard, it wasn't my comment. It was part of a quote I extracted. I explained this to you. No wonder you're a conservative.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Retard, it wasn't my comment. It was part of a quote I extracted. I explained this to you. No wonder you're a conservative.

Awwww, name calling? Look, I know there's all sorts of freaking fallacies that could apply to this. But let's be realistic. You posted it because you agree with it. You used it as support, so you must agree with it. Otherwise you're not to keen on the concept of supporting your own claims.

Now I will admit to misreading who the quote was attributed to. Sorry

And I will agree that the anti-war protestors do cover the whole political spectrum. But if you desire to support your claims, why use a quote or link that is erroneous or does "overstate" things? Isn't that self-defeating?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Why conservatives? Because LukeT was calling the antiwar protesters Marxists. Since when are conservatives and Libertarians at the same end of the spectrum as Marxists? I'm getting annoyed that I have to spend time explaining the most simple things to you. Try thinking, for a change.

I have never said the anti-war protestors were marxists. I have said the people who organize the protests are. Christ, just go to the internationalanswer.org website to see what I'm talking about, and look up the "coalition" of organizations behind them. A fair number of them are all fronts for the Workers World Party, including International ANSWER. Look for yourself.

I also posted photos of the signs they hand out for their useful idiots to carry in another topic. And the speeches they give are the Bush-Is-Hitler variety, just like your attempt to compare Bush to Hitler in your Goering-quote topic.

You are the one who needs to open his eyes, Wayne. I know the Libertarians are also against the war. Shanek pointed me to their Truth About War website. But they aren't the ones behind the protest marches.

If you look at the web sites of the "coalition" behind the protest marches, you will not be able to deny they are marxist. It is as plain as the nose on your face that you refuse to look beyond.

(edited for spelling/typos)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll


Awwww, name calling? Look, I know there's all sorts of freaking fallacies that could apply to this. But let's be realistic. You posted it because you agree with it. You used it as support, so you must agree with it. Otherwise you're not to keen on the concept of supporting your own claims.

Now I will admit to misreading who the quote was attributed to. Sorry

And I will agree that the anti-war protestors do cover the whole political spectrum. But if you desire to support your claims, why use a quote or link that is erroneous or does "overstate" things? Isn't that self-defeating?
I was using the article only for the limited purposes of demonstrating that there were antiwar conservatives. I was not endorsing every claim therein as my own. Why are you too dense to understand this? Besides, the claim made by that author was "most people don't know how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq." You can test this claim by asking people if they know how many such conservatives there are. You didn't know, did you? So you've done nothing to refute his claim. Further, I stated my disagreement with one of the statements included within the quote I used.

So don't waste my time any further with your pettiness. Are you really that stupid or are you just being a prick?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I was using the article only for the limited purposes of demonstrating that there were antiwar conservatives. I was not endorsing every claim therein as my own. Why are you too dense to understand this? Besides, the claim made by that author was "most people don't know how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq." You can test this claim by asking people if they know how many such conservatives there are. You didn't know, did you? So you've done nothing to refute his claim. Further, I stated my disagreement with one of the statements included within the quote I used.

So don't waste my time any further with your pettiness. Are you really that stupid or are you just being a prick?

Actually I was tired and misread, as I've explained. Also, I was not trying to refute his claim, but merely the way it was stated which would lead a person to believe that the number would be huge. But for pity's sake man, do you really think that anyone thought there were absolutely no conservatives against the war? Trying to prove that there is seemed a bit petty to me.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by LukeT


I have never said the anti-war protestors were marxists. I have said the people who organize the protests are. Christ, just go to the internationalanswer.org website to see what I'm talking about, and look up the "coalition" of organizations behind them. A fair number of them are all fronts for the Workers World Party, including International ANSWER. Look for yourself.


Sure, I'll agree that the senior organizers of ANSWER are leftist, and that some of them are Marxists. So what? There are other anti-war groups that have organized protests that are not Marxists ( Vietnam Veterans Against the War, (http://www.vvaw.org/) MoveOn.org and others). ANSWER has been the most active. So what if they are Marxist? That is completely irrelevant. It is an ad hominem. Besides, the overwhelming majority of those who have participated in ANSWER's protests are not Marxist.

So rather than being able to refute the arguments of the antiwar crowd, you resort to cheap smears.

[shanek]

So, since some members of Al-Qaeda are (allegedly) fighting for Iraq, that automatically means that there's a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Right. :rolleyes:

I just can't help but wonder...so many people insist that the evidence is there and they just can't tell us because of "national security"...but if they really did have evidence, why would they have to resort to such transparently desperate assertions like this?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by shanek
So, since some members of Al-Qaeda are (allegedly) fighting for Iraq, that automatically means that there's a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Right. :rolleyes:

I just can't help but wonder...so many people insist that the evidence is there and they just can't tell us because of "national security"...but if they really did have evidence, why would they have to resort to such transparently desperate assertions like this?

Well George Bush made the claim of the connection between the Regime and Al-Qeada, so hoping and wishing that Al-Qeada troops are operating in Iraq will have to do for now until factual evidence presents itself.;)

PPG

[Wolverine]

Interesting: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82557,00.html)

Non-Iraqi Arabs belonging to Al Qaeda are ready to carry out terrorist acts against coalition forces in Iraq, an Iraqi opposition spokesman told Fox News Saturday.

Nabeel Masawi of the Iraqi National Congress said via telephone from Iraqi Kurdistan that Al Qaeda operatives were in the region of Najaf and Karbala in central Iraq.

The INC also issued a press release stating, in part, that there existed "an agreement made between [Usama] Bin Ladin (sic) and Saddam to allow Bin Ladin's men to take control of the [Najaf and Karbala] area if they can defend it."

...

"Iraqi intelligence officers traveled to Afghanistan in 1998," Masawi told Fox News. "They met Usama bin Laden and some of his lieutenants. Financial help was offered and was received by Al Qaeda from Saddam Hussein's intelligence service."

I too would like to see conclusive evidence establishing a definitive link between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Personally, I don't think the possibility of collaboration is as remote as some contend. Until such a time when a determination can be made, I'll just stay tuned.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Interesting: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82557,00.html)

I too would like to see conclusive evidence establishing a definitive link between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Personally, I don't think the possibility of collaboration is as remote as some contend. Until such a time when a determination can be made, I'll just stay tuned.
I'm glad that you are maintaining skepticism, Wolverine, because the Iraqi National Congress has been an unreliable source (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/atraqchi2.html) only interested in fooling the Bush Administration into doing its bidding.
Remember all those "intelligence sources" who promised that Iraqis would be cheering as the U.S. and U.K. armies rolled into Basra or Nasiriyah or any major town in southern Iraq? Apparently, in day 7 of the invasion of Iraq, these intelligence sources and their data are proving to be fallible.

Unfortunately, the North American public is not told who the intelligence sources are. No, they aren't CIA, NSA, or the FBI. They aren't MI-5 or the SAS. They aren't even spies working in Iraq.

They are members of the Iraqi National Congress(INC), an Iraqi opposition group made up of millionaires and businessmen, former Ba'athist henchmen, and generals who aided Saddam in his formative years but felt threatened by him and defected. Most of the INC's ruling hierarchy is comprised of people who have not set foot in Iraq in more than 30 years. Some have never set foot in Iraq. And yet they claim to be experts.
They'll say anything to persuade Americans to spill their blood and spend their treasure to put them into power and greater prosperity in Iraq because they couldn't give a **** less about our troops or our country. I am not willing to be a dupe for these pathological, black hearted liars.

However, I expect al Qaida to eventually be involved in guerilla operations in Iraq as they promised, but NOT in collusion with Hussein whom they hate. Bin Laden has already said that Muslims should fight in Iraq, but not to defend Hussein's regime, which he calls socialist, or Saddam whom he calls an infidel, but to defend Islam against "crusaders."

Here's more on the truthfulness and reliability of the INC:
Earlier in March, the CIA admitted that an invaluable document linking Niger with Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium had been forged - a claim initially made by IAEA head Mohammed Al Baradei. The CIA said that the document had been forged by a third party. Guess who? No, not Israel. The INC.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No doubt when it becomes too painfully obvious what disasterous act of stupidity it was to start Operation Iraqi Fiefdom (hey, I just thought of that :cool: ), wankers like you will try to blame the failure of your policies on the antiwar protesters who tried to warn you that you'd be making a mistake. It would be consistent with the pattern of dishonesty used to win support for this debacle (forged documents, nonexistent terrorist links, and other false claims). [/B]

Wayne...I invite your response to the points I outlined in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12904&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

It's been around since just after the super bowl...and yet has not been refuted! You say above that there are no terrorism links...and yet I personally have posted them to this board, and bumped my thread ever since. You don't even have to go find the info Wayne...the info is right here on JREF and predates this war by years!! You are starting to play the game Shanek and AUP play....ignoring the facts you don't like.

-z

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla

You say above that there are no terrorism links...and yet I personally have posted them to this board, and bumped my thread ever since.
And I have refuted them more than once on this Board. I'm not going to waste my time going over the same old ****. Laurie Mylorie is a propagandist and you had the dishonesty to say she claimed more than she did. Yet you are going to criticize AUP and ShaneK for dishonesty. You invent the facts you want.

[Wayne Grabert]

This article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$BZT1LI2LOEMWFQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2003/03/30/wus30.xml/) reinforces the one I linked above about how Rummy and company were duped by the INC.
_
Judith Yaphe, the chief CIA analyst on Iraq during the first Gulf War, said that Mr Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, consistently preferred to rely on the optimism of Iraqi opposition groups in exile, and Israeli intelligence.

"It was a fantasy," she said. "They had a strategic vision that we would face no opposition, that everyone would surrender, that Iraqis would throw rose petals and rice. Clearly those judgments were not based on reality."

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

And I have refuted them more than once on this Board. I'm not going to waste my time going over the same old ****. Laurie Mylorie is a propagandist and you had the dishonesty to say she claimed more than she did. Yet you are going to criticize AUP and ShaneK for dishonesty. You invent the facts you want.

I merely drew the same conclusions from the evidence that she did. But why don't we exclude the evidence of Mylroie?? Let's give you that one Wayne...it leaves the following points still standing:
#1. Saddam gave haven and support to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his organization (before he had him killed recently that is) in violation of 687, paragraph 32 which imposes the obligation under international law to report suspected acts of Iraqi support for international terrorism to the UN secretary general.which also addresses Iraq's support of terrorism.

#2. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one terrorist not captured from the first WTC bombing is currently living free in Baghdad. The only named conspirator still at large. He was one of the "blind Sheik's" nutty Islamic fundie followers....so why did he run for Iraq...and why did Saddam harbor him in full disregard of UN Security Council Resolution 687? (paragraph 32 again)

#3. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi (al Qaida senior operative) is apparently free to operate in Baghdad as well. (pesky paragraph 32 again)
the link
(snip to remove Mylroie evidence)

#5. Dr. Hamza's testimony that Iraq's Mukhabarat (political secret police) are running the concealment mechanism for their ongoing proscribed nuclear program. The link

#6. On August 8, 1995 Hussein Kamil (Saddam's son-in-law) defected to Jordan. He had supervised Iraqi unconventional weapons programs. His information confirmed that Iraq had developed and possesed weaponized biological agents.

#7. Egyptian officials arrested one of the first WTC bombers where he was hiding with family in Cairo. He is Abu Halima. He told them about the involvement of two Iraqi intelligence agents who had managed to flee.

#8. UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

#9. Calutrons (magnetic isotope seperators) of the kind used in the Manhattan project were found in the process of being moved around by the Iraqis way back in 1991. (another instance of deception, and active nuclear program)

#10. Mukhabarat terrorism "school" inadvertently found by UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996. (not part of UNSCOM mandated mission...not WMD's...just terror/torture etc...the issue of this find was not taken up by the UNSC) page 120 "Endgame.


Wow Wayne! Lookee there! Who's being intellectually dishonest now? By ignoring Mylroie's evidence we have eliminated just one point! One down, nine to go Wayne.

Congratulations....you are the hardest working leftie on the JREF forum! You actually read Mylroie! :D So, I have accomodated you. You correctly say that Mylroie merely "believes" that Ramzi Yusef was an Iraqi intel agent...even though her beliefs are grounded on some pretty good info. So now all you have to do is work on all these other tie-ins. Any one of which shows either Iraqi official ties to terrorism or the systematic gathering and concealment of WMDs.

I remind you that you said: " It would be consistent with the pattern of dishonesty used to win support for this debacle (forged documents, nonexistent terrorist links, and other false claims). "

This assertion of yours has been proven wrong ages ago....and everyday more info will be coming to light proving you wrong over and over again. With every terrorist base that is captured. :D

You see, unlike you I'm a good skeptic...my 10 points are from a variety of sources. You tick off one (one that you didn't even effectively dispute) and say you're done....don't Holocaust Deniers do that too?? Why, Wayn...I think they do! :confused:

-z

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla

You correctly say that Mylroie merely "believes" that Ramzi Yusef was an Iraqi intel agent...even though her beliefs are grounded on some pretty good info.
No, her beliefs are highly speculative as I've argued before. And you didn't "accommodate" me. I exposed your dishonesty and you admitted it. So where's your credibility?

Originally posted by rikzilla

So now all you have to do is work on all these other tie-ins. Any one of which shows either Iraqi official ties to terrorism or the systematic gathering and concealment of WMDs.
All you have provided is uncorroborated claims and old information that is irrelevant as it is about weapons programs that predate the Gulf War. Dr. Hamza's information has led to...nothing. (Could it be that Hamza had something to gain by telling Americans what they wanted to hear?) An Egyptian, probably under torture, talks about (with no supporting evidence?) two Iraqi agents who conveniently fled. (That's weak.)

Sure, Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad. He was not part of al Qaida. There may other assorted terrorists running around Iraq just as they run around in many other countries--including the US. Big deal.

Originally posted by rikzilla
I remind you that you said: " It would be consistent with the pattern of dishonesty used to win support for this debacle (forged documents, nonexistent terrorist links, and other false claims). "

This assertion of yours has been proven wrong ages ago....and everyday more info will be coming to light proving you wrong over and over again. With every terrorist base that is captured. :D

You see, unlike you I'm a good skeptic...my 10 points are from a variety of sources. You tick off one (one that you didn't even effectively dispute) and say you're done....don't Holocaust Deniers do that too?? Why, Wayn...I think they do! :confused:

-z
There you go fantasizing again. My assertions on the forged documents are well documented and the Bush administration has not contested the UN's conclusions that they were forged. The nonexistent terrorist links refer to al Qaida. There is still no such linkage, though Powell tried to manufacture one. And paragraph 32, in your own words, merely requires reporting suspected support of international acts terrorism. It does not say making unsupported accusations should be a trigger for war. Saddam has shown sympathy for Palestinian groups (paying money to families of suicide bombers). However, Palestinian terrorists are not international terrorists.

The whole argument about UN resolutions is irrelevant. Bush did an end run around the UN because he wanted this war no matter what. He made that clear from the start. He was willing to go it alone.

The bottom line is that Operation Iraqi Fiefdom is not justified, is based on lies and it will be a disaster in the long run. Watch as events unfold.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I'm glad that you are maintaining skepticism, Wolverine, because the Iraqi National Congress has been an unreliable source (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/atraqchi2.html) only interested in fooling the Bush Administration into doing its bidding.

Also interesting, yes, but speaking of reliability (not to mention objectivity), www.antiwar.com doesn't particularly rank highly on my list. ;)

Max Singer (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-singer030702.shtml) disagrees with the information posted previously pertaining to the INC:

An American reader would normally find it easy to believe that the INC, like most exile groups, is self-serving and unreliable, and that that the CIA is providing realistic information based on objective professional analysis. But for Iraq, history suggests the opposite. The INC has a long record of providing reliable information and being proven correct by later developments.

Maintaining skepticism is important, and all-too-often overlooked in this category. I would point out once again that IMHO many posters here apply selective skepticism to ongoing events, and abandon the true M.O. of critical thought when partisan rhetoric reflecting their convictions becomes more appealing. Crap, I'll shut up before I start to sound any more like Lucianarchy. :eek: ;)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Also interesting, yes, but speaking of reliability (not to mention objectivity), www.antiwar.com doesn't particularly rank highly on my list. ;)

Max Singer (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-singer030702.shtml) disagrees with the information posted previously pertaining to the INC:

You can't serously consider National Review a reliable or objective source.

Do you know who Max Singer is? He's a member of the Hudson Institute, a neo-conservative propaganda tank filled with many of the same folks as the Project for a New American Century. Those people have been using every lie at their disposal to promote a war with Iraq (and Iran and Syria and Lebanon and Lybia and Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority).

The events of the last 11 days prove who the more reliable source is regarding the "fantasy" (as the CIA analyst put it) spun by the INC and embraced by the neo-conservative echo chamber.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You can't serously consider National Review a reliable or objective source.

I never claimed it to be. :)

Do you know who Max Singer is?

Yes, and please note I take his (and others') views with a grain of salt. ;)

Those people have been using every lie at their disposal...

Such as? Just curious.

The events of the last 11 days prove who the more reliable source is regarding the "fantasy" (as the CIA analyst put it) spun by the INC and embraced by the neo-conservative echo chamber.

I find this rather assumptive, in all honesty. You can't possibly have access to all (particularly classified or sensitive) data so early in an ongoing military campaign which would either confirm or deny the authenticity of every submission provided by the INC. Essentially, it appears you've assembled an opinion from reliance upon sources neither more reliable nor objective than National Review and are attempting to present it as fact. Should my inference be incorrect, I apologize in advance; it just seems to come across in that fashion. ;)

Am I supposed to view the INC as ultimately dishonest because Firas Al-Atraqchi at YellowTimes.org/antiwar.com says so? No evidence was presented to substantiate the claims in said article (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/atraqchi2.html), concerning the matter of the purported forged documents or other assertions.

Please don't get me wrong -- I remain quite open-minded to all the facets of these ongoing developments, I'm just of the opinion that it's far too early to etch arguments such as you've presented in stone.