To the Liberals, Anti war crowd, and Bush critics

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
exactly.

lets see how international law does in getting NK to play by the rules.

the UN just passed a useless resolution with no teeth in it whatsoever. NK has no reason to abide by any UN resolutions. They are well aware that they have a minimum of a decade, and a dozen more resolutions to go before anyone even thinks about actually enforcing them.

And what's your alternative? To have everyone declare that the US is the king of the world and start doing everything we tell them to do?

NK uses a nuke, they glow in the dark.

 

[POLITICAL JEDI]

So we don't need to follow laws we find to be inconvient or cumbersome?

When our enemies don't follow international laws or the rules of war, why should we? Why should America fight an "A semetrical war" with one hand tied behind it's back?

As far as firing on our jets, we were bombing the holy s.hit out of Iraq to provoke them into a war. Don't they have a right to defend themselves when were running over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement? That's not a joke, that is sick to think we can just bomb away and they just have to sit there and take it!

As to the latter part of your rebuttel. . .Are you sure your not exaggerating those numbers and tatics? If not, could you post the official document from the Pentagon that backs up your statement that we flew over 2,000 sorties, dropped over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets? I'd love to peep it. Thx.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI
As to the latter part of your rebuttel. . .Are you sure your not exaggerating those numbers and tatics? If not, could you post the official document from the Pentagon that backs up your statement that we flew over 2,000 sorties, dropped over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets? I'd love to peep it. Thx.

Okie dokie...

General admits to secret air war
Michael Smith

THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.

Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started.

Don't ever say that I never gave you anything. Now chew-a-little-baca on that!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI
When our enemies don't follow international laws or the rules of war, why should we? Why should America fight an "A semetrical war" with one hand tied behind it's back?

Because that's what makes this country great. Following the rule of law in a civilized society. If we act like our enemies, then we are no better than our enemies. We need to lead by example. But not the example were setting right now.

 

[POLITICAL JEDI]

Okie dokie...Don't ever say that I never gave you anything. Now chew-a-little-baca on that!

Dude if that had any truth to it what-so-ever, I'm sure it would've found it's way into impeachment meetings on Capital Hill. Why weren't there any meetings in the Senate on it? Seems to me if it really happened, there would be more then just 1 general coming forward to testify right?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI
Dude if that had any truth to it what-so-ever, I'm sure it would've found it's way into impeachment meetings on Capital Hill. Why weren't there any meetings in the Senate on it? Seems to me if it really happened, there would be more then just 1 general coming forward to testify right?

Dude, that General was the commander in charge of the air wing that ran the sorties. Your not going to get a more credible a source than that!

 

[POLITICAL JEDI]

Because that's what makes this country great. Following the rule of law in a civilized society. If we act like our enemies, then we are no better than our enemies. We need to lead by example. But not the example were setting right now.

When the enemy captures a U.S Marine, physically tortures him (driving spikes threw his testicals, electric shock, drilling holes in kneecaps) for 3 days, and then dumps his headless corpse "boobytrapped" with explosives on some corner in the sunni triangle. . .I say funk your brand of ethics and the "rules of war." But this isn't a matter of debate per say, it's more a matter of opinion. It is clear you prefer a more kindler and gentler approach to the enemy where I champion a "no quarter shall be given" approach.

 

[POLITICAL JEDI]

Dude, that General was the commander in charge of the air wing that ran the sorties. Your not going to get a more credible a source than that!

So why were there no misconduct or impeachment hearings on the Hill? Seems to me, if this guys story is credible, the "crats" would've gone apes.hit with it???

 

[ProudAmerican]

When the enemy captures a U.S Marine, physically tortures him (driving spikes threw his testicals, electric shock, drilling holes in kneecaps) for 3 days, and then dumps his headless corpse "boobytrapped" with explosives on some corner in the sunni triangle. . .I say funk your brand of ethics and the "rules of war." But this isn't a matter of debate per say, it's more a matter of opinion. It is clear you prefer a more kindler and gentler approach to the enemy where I champion a "no quarter shall be given" approach.

if we had followed the "rules" in WWII we would have lost. period.

the "ethical rules" would have never allowed us to end that war using nukes. thankfully radical liberals werent allowed to make the decisions that ended that conflict.

its unfortunate that so many radical liberals are given a voice today.

if we were to fight the war the way it should be faught, our soldiers would have been home from Iraq long ago.

the left wants it both ways. they want to be kind to the enemy, and then they want to bitch about the conflict taking too long and our soldiers not comming home soon enough.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI
When the enemy captures a U.S Marine, physically tortures him (driving spikes threw his testicals, electric shock, drilling holes in kneecaps) for 3 days, and then dumps his headless corpse "boobytrapped" with explosives on some corner in the sunni triangle. . .I say funk your brand of ethics and the "rules of war." But this isn't a matter of debate per say, it's more a matter of opinion. It is clear you prefer a more kindler and gentler approach to the enemy where I champion a "no quarter shall be given" approach.

But it is perfectly OK to do that to someone who is innocent of any terrorist charges (if they happen to be filed). Or it is perfectly acceptable to destroy 75% a city [Falluja] the size of Long Beach, California just to get at .01% of their population.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI
So why were there no misconduct or impeachment hearings on the Hill? Seems to me, if this guys story is credible, the "crats" would've gone apes.hit with it???

It blows my mind too that hasn't happened. First Congress would have to go down to the local sporting goods store and pick themselves up a set of balls. I don't even know if that would do the trick.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
if we had followed the "rules" in WWII we would have lost. period.

the "ethical rules" would have never allowed us to end that war using nukes. thankfully radical liberals werent allowed to make the decisions that ended that conflict.

its unfortunate that so many radical liberals are given a voice today.

if we were to fight the war the way it should be faught, our soldiers would have been home from Iraq long ago.

the left wants it both ways. they want to be kind to the enemy, and then they want to bitch about the conflict taking too long and our soldiers not comming home soon enough.

Earth to PA, earth to PA, there were no rules regarding nukes back in WWII!

 

[POLITICAL JEDI]

But it is perfectly OK to do that to someone who is innocent of any terrorist charges (if they happen to be filed). Or it is perfectly acceptable to destroy 75% a city [Falluja] the size of Long Beach, California just to get at .01% of their population.

Look, war is hard. And yes, in all wars, the innocent are either prosecuted or made to suffer and die. It's been like that since the beginning of time. My heart bleeds for them, but not as much as it bleeds for the families of the 2,700+ american dead.

As to Falluja. . .Yes. It is perfectly acceptable to destroy not only 75% of a city, but 100% of a city in which the majority of residents fled before the fighting began. 92 Americans were killed in the fighting. Reliable news reports indicate that some 1,500 insurgents were killed and another 1,000 were captured. Hitting that city with "daisy cutters" was what we should've done. Now we have to feed 1,000 terrorist 3 squares a day and house them indefinitely. Wheres the logic in that?

 

[Jack Pott]

evidence has come forward that there were WMDs

Again:

If you think there were WMD, then how come US weapons inspectors stated that no WMD have been found?

If you think there were WMD, then how come Bush stated that no WMD have been found?

If you think WMD have been found, then how come the CIA, the White House and US weapons inspectors stated that the old abandoned shells weren't the WMD sought in Iraq?

and AQ connections. you can continue to claim it doesnt exist even after seeing it. it wont make you right.

Again:

If you are so sure that there is evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, then how come Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell have stated that they haven't seen any hard evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda?

If you are so sure that there is evidence of a connection, then how come the CIA, the DIA, the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that there is no evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda?

Stop dodging my questions.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Again:

If you think there were WMD, then how come US weapons inspectors stated that no WMD have been found?

If you think there were WMD, then how come Bush stated that no WMD have been found?

If you think WMD have been found, then how come the CIA, the White House and US weapons inspectors stated that the old abandoned shells weren't the WMD sought in Iraq?



Again:

If you are so sure that there is evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, then how come Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell have stated that they haven't seen any hard evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda?

If you are so sure that there is evidence of a connection, then how come the CIA, the DIA, the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that there is no evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda?

Stop dodging my questions.

The vice chairman of the 9-11 commission stated that he did not dissagree with the vice president when he claimed there was a connection.

the vice chairman stated the 9-11 commission came to the conclusion that there was no cooperative or corroborative relationship WITH REGARDS TO 9-11. not in general.

you and the left have been missrepresenting AND LYING about what the 9-11 commission stated this entire time.

"The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States." -- Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman who is the 9/11 commission's vice chairman

so, you sir, are A LIAR!!!!!

the vice chairman clearly agreed with the vice president that there WERE CONNECTIONS.

further, he states there was no cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States

clearly the 9-11 commission NEVER SAID there was no cooperative or corroborative relationship between the two in general.

 

[ProudAmerican]

im done with you.

my evidence has now proven you ARE A LIAR.

 

[Jack Pott]

The vice chairman of the 9-11 commission stated that he did not dissagree with the vice president when he claimed there was a connection.

the vice chairman clearly agreed with the vice president that there WERE CONNECTIONS.

Wrong.

The Commission agreed that there have been contacts. No one has denied the fact that there were tentative contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda in the 1990s. Cheney claimed that Iraq and al Qaeda were working together. The Commission debunked Cheney's (and your) claim. The Commission stated that there is no evidence of a collaborative operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

the vice chairman stated the 9-11 commission came to the conclusion that there was no cooperative or corroborative relationship WITH REGARDS TO 9-11. not in general.

further, he states there was no cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States

clearly the 9-11 commission NEVER SAID there was no cooperative or corroborative relationship between the two in general.

Wrong.

Again, the report by the 9/11 Commission stated that there have been tentative contacts between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda in the 1990s, but the Commission concluded that, "To date we have seen no evidence that those contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship".

Here's the report:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Your comments show that you have never even read the report, which means you have no idea what you're talking about...

you and the left have been missrepresenting AND LYING about what the 9-11 commission stated this entire time.

so, you sir, are A LIAR!!!!!

Wrong.

You are the one who has twisted facts in order to strengthen your own political point of view...

Your claims are totally false and I've proved it (again)...

 

[Jack Pott]

my evidence has now proven you ARE A LIAR.

Your "evidence" has been a quote (which you misinterpreted) and an old article from 2003 that has been debunked.

The fact is that I've exposed your lies and distortions.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/iraqal.htm

very good read. Jack will falsley claim its all been "debunked" for sure.

Sorry to burst your bubble (again) but the allegations in Richard Miniter's article from 2003 have been debunked. For instance: Miniter mentioned Abdul Rahman Yasin. Here are some facts about Yasin:

After the 1993 WTC attack, he was questioned and then set free. Yasin said he was released after giving agents names and addresses. He then went to Iraq where he lived freely for at least a year. The Iraqi government claimed that Yasin was arrested and put in prison. On several occasions, Iraq offered to turn Yasin over to the US government in exchange for lifting UN economic sanctions. Tariq Aziz claimed that in the 1990's all Iraq wanted in return was a signed statement that Iraq had handed over Yasin. But reportedly the statement presented to the U.S. at the time contained lengthy wording essentially exonerating Iraqi involvement in the 1993 WTC attack. Nevertheless, Kenneth Pollack of the State Department stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing.

CBS interviewed Yasin when he was a prisoner in Hussein's Iraq for a segment on 60 Minutes on May 23, 2002:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in510795.shtml

Here's more info about Yasin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Said_Yasin

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by POLITICAL JEDI
Look, war is hard. And yes, in all wars, the innocent are either prosecuted or made to suffer and die. It's been like that since the beginning of time. My heart bleeds for them, but not as much as it bleeds for the families of the 2,700+ american dead.

Uh, PJ, what does that have to do with Iraq? Is it right for me to carry on a war against you because you have a girlfriend while mine died this past summer? Does that make sense? Is that legal? Moral? My responsibility to liberate you from all women?

Originally posted by POLITICAL JEDI
As to Falluja. . .Yes. It is perfectly acceptable to destroy not only 75% of a city, but 100% of a city in which the majority of residents fled before the fighting began. 92 Americans were killed in the fighting. Reliable news reports indicate that some 1,500 insurgents were killed and another 1,000 were captured. Hitting that city with "daisy cutters" was what we should've done. Now we have to feed 1,000 terrorist 3 squares a day and house them indefinitely. Wheres the logic in that?

Do you have any idea how many the "majority of the residents" that fled are? You think it is OK to displace almost 300,000 people to go after less than 1200 (approximately 600 foreign based)? 300,000 people that hated Hussein too! That's like evacuating Long Beach. Can you get any sense of magnitude here? Or do you just not care? If it is the latter, then there is no way we are there for their benifit. Especially, when we put snipers on rooftops and shoot at ambulance drivers!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Jack Pott:
The fact is that I've exposed your lies and distortions.

You better watch it, Jack. You keep this up and he will put you on the "IL". The "ignore list" is no safe haven for people that try to nuke his convoluted juxtaposing.

 

[Jack Pott]

You better watch it, Jack. You keep this up and he will put you on the "IL". The "ignore list" is no safe haven for people that try to nuke his convoluted juxtaposing.

"Proud American" is a self-righteous phony.

He claims that facts that are inconsistent with his political point of view are just "partisan opinions" while presenting his own (partisan) opinions as facts...

He systematically ignores real facts while accusing others of ignoring his "facts"...

He accuses others of being blinded by partisan politics when everyone knows he is the one who is blinded by partisan politics...

 

[Jack Pott]

the left has MISSREPRESENTED what the 9-11 commission said about ties between saddam and AQ. plain and simple.

You are being dishonest again, you are lying again, you are distorting the truth again, you are twisting the facts again, etc...

THE LIE:

the 9-11 commission NEVER EVER EVER SAID THERE WAS NO WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SADDAM AND AQ.

they simply said there was no working relationship between the two WITH REGARDS TO THE 9-11 ATTACKS ON AMERICA.

THE FACTS:

The report by the 9/11 Commission stated:

"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq."

Here's the report:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

 

[Mr. D]

History repeats itself only to those who study history and are open minded enough to learn from it! Obviously many are not. For many, no lessons were learned from Vietnam. I'm old enough to remember all the domino theory scare tactics used to scare us into the Vietnam War. "We better fight them there, or we'll be fighting them here!" Polls at the time showed that Ho Chi Minh would have be elected president by both North and South Vietnam, but we had to have a blood bath before we could accept the inevitable. Now we visit Vietnam and build Starbucks there! How many died for patriotic stupidity? If our leaders learned from history we wouldn't be in Iraq! We would have learned from past mistakes! Very likely if another guy comes along in a few years and appeals to the prejudices and fears of the American public spouting words of superior Christian values and his guidance from God much of the public follow him to another blood bath! Learn from history? When?

 

[Jack Pott]

the left has MISSREPRESENTED what the 9-11 commission said about ties between saddam and AQ. plain and simple.

the 9-11 commission NEVER EVER EVER SAID THERE WAS NO WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SADDAM AND AQ.

From the 9/11 Commission report:

"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Donald Rumsfeld: No "Strong, Hard Evidence" of Saddam-Qaeda Connection

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he has seen no "strong, hard evidence" linking former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda, backing away from his pre-war assertions that contacts between the two went back over a decade.

Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180176

Colin Powell: No Smoking Gun Showing Terrorist Ties

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged Thursday that he had seen no "smoking gun, concrete evidence" of ties between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terror network.

"My presentation ... made it clear that we had seen some links and connections to terrorist organizations over time," Powell said. "I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150

 

[Moot]

much more difficult to get someone to fall in line after they have been provided nuclear technology from a previous president.

It might be a bit off topic but I think it needs addressing....

Rumsfeld sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for N. Koreas reactors.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/index.htm

Clinton may have helped sign "the 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. "

But Rummy's company was going to help N. Korea build the two reactors and gain a hefty profit from it. And why not, it was only business.

Just thought you should know, PA.

Sorry for the slight change in topic but it looked like this thread was winding down anyway with the major opposition throwing in the towel.

Good work Jack Pott, Quik and Billo. Well done and well said. Badda-boom-badda-bing, another one bites the dust.