US, Iraq seek `general time horizon' on troop cuts »
Posted By STONERS 2 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsThe United States and Iraq have agreed to seek "a general time horizon" for further withdrawals of American troops from the war.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
Submitted By:
STONERS
I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it.. All welcome!!! ;~]
Add your ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 100
-
0%
STONERS2 months, 3 weeks ago
"The White House says President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the timing of troop reductions should be part of a broader security agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad. It described troop withdrawals as one of several "aspirational goals."
"The White House says the goals would be based on continued improvements on the ground in Iraq and would not be an arbitrary date for withdrawal."
Reply -
0%
Charlson2 months, 3 weeks ago
"The White House says President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the timing of troop reductions should be part of a broader security agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad. It described troop withdrawals as one of several "aspirational goals."
I wonder if an oil agreement is one of those aspirational goals? Or permanent U.S. bases?
Reply-
-
0%
Codi69342 months, 3 weeks ago
You jack*sses are all the same. You said we are losing, now we are winning. You want troop cuts, now that we are winning and cuts can be done, that make sense. You still b*tch. You can't be satisfied with anything can you?
Reply-
-
0%
bigG2 months, 3 weeks ago
But chef - you don't understand - we went there so we could "fight them over there and not here".
Of Course, no one can get it through those JACKASSES heads that Afghanistan is "over there". It also is clearly the front on the fight against terrorism since Al Qaeda is there on the Afghan/Pakistan border.
Reply -
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh no, we shouldn't have removed a warmongering dictator, who was at war with his neighbors during almost EVERY YEAR of his reign, who trained and funded international terrorism, murdered his his own countrymen by the tens of thousands, and showed no compunction in using the most vile sorts of WMD against both innocents who posed no threat to him and his foreign enemies. We also, according to you and the left, shouldn't have removed a dictator who continually and repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement which prevented his regime from being removed in 1991, after the Coalition had destroyed the bulk of his Republican Guard in Kuwait. We sholdn't have removed him despite the fact he continued to buy weapons, kept his WMD programs in place, failed to cooperate with weapons inspectors, AND fired upon Coalition aircraft enforcing the No-Fly Zones, which he had agreed to. So you are saying we shouldn't have held a regime responsible for continuing to wage a war they lost.
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
-
-
-
0%
mntnman4442 months, 3 weeks ago
Codi...hey jackass...
Nobody said we are losing but you jackasses want to keep saying the surge has succeeded and you are full of shiit.The surge was part of a plan that included benchmarks and those benchmarks have NOT been met.So we send more troops and there is a reduction in violence...big surprise...when the rest of the plan has succeeded ,then you can say it was a success.It's hard to believe you were ever in SF,as far as I'm concerned you are a black mark on all SF soldiers.SF used to produce leaders not a$$ kissing apologist followers.
We never should have invaded Iraq,it had NOTHING to do with 911 and is NOT the center of the war on terrorism...jackass!
Reply-
0%
mntnman4442 months, 3 weeks ago
Here's a little history lesson on some of your favorite heroes from one of the most respected SF soldiers in history who knows the truth and unlike you,is not afraid to say it...
http://www.bogritz.com/lookingglass.html
jackass!
Reply-
0%
Codi69342 months, 3 weeks ago
Hey, jack*ss, Iraq has meet 15 of the 18 benchmarks. More then the what Saddam did! I had SGM's that knew him, he was a so-called "hero" of Ruby Ridge. The next time he tries to kill himself tell him to aim more in the middle!JACK*SS!!
Reply -
0%
Codi69342 months, 3 weeks ago
Here is a nice bed time story or two. Be careful of false prophets!
http://www.townhall.com/news/us/2008/07/01/new_...
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_co...
http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/gritz.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/arti...
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timesto... GROUPS AND MOVEMENTS&...
Reply -
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Well, mtnman, you are AT it again, confabulating, and denying the FACTS.
Here is an abstract from a study on the links between Saddam and terrorism, published by the Federation of American Scientists (surely you are not going to claim THEY are a bunch of 'neocons'?):
"Abstract: Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terroristÃ... monitored closely."
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
FAS document abstract, cont:
"Because Saddam�s security organizations and Osama bin Laden�s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a �de facto� link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam�s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime."
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html
Reply-
0%
mntnman4442 months, 3 weeks ago
Wow...pretty serious stuff...better go hide under your bed.
The "facts" are that anyone who believes Saddam was a threat to our country is a ...jackass.
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
OK, mtnman, meet the JACKASSES:
#1 - Howard Dean (D):
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."
"I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. (Hussein) is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb."
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
JACKASS #1, continued:
"Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given."
Reply -
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS #2-
Wesley Clark:
". . There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."
"There's no question that . . . there have been such contacts (between Iraq and al Qaeda). It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that, regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections, that Saddam Hussein is a threat."
Reply -
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS #3!!! -
BILL CLINTON:
"Former President Bill Clinton, more recently, visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso in October 2003. The prime minister said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime." "
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Jackass #3 cont:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
Reply-
0%
mntnman4442 months, 3 weeks ago
Congratulations...you make a very good official spokesman for jackasses...but you really should keep up with the latest news...seems while you were wasting your time on Bill, Maliki pulled the rug out from under you...
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/07/19/...
jackass
Reply-
-
0%
mntnman4442 months, 3 weeks ago
If your definition of jackass is anyone who believes the Iraq invasion was a huge mistake then ,yeah...I'll stick with the 80% of patriotic Americans who agree that you are the jackass.
The subject is how long will it be before we leave Iraq,apparently the Iraqi govt agrees with Obama.
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
SOOOO..., now that we have established that YOU, mtnman, consider practically EVERY leading Democrat to be, in YOUR words, a JACKASS, we can clear up your misconception.
I have called NO ONE a jackass; those are YOUR words; I was simply making a list for you of ALL the people you consider jackasses.
I consider people who say one thing and, then when the political winds shift, say another, in regards to decisions regarding national security, war, life and death to be moral cowards, unprincipled, and verbal sophists, who use and twist words to their advantage. I TRY not to vote for such people; I can only hope that you do not.
You, on the other hand, are faced with, since you brought it up, B. Hussein, who has done JUST what these Democrats you call jackasses have done: change his tune in the face of fleeting fortune, showing a lack of judgement, if not of character, also.
Reply-
0%
mntnman4442 months, 3 weeks ago
LOL!
The only thing you have established is that you're dumb enough to spend this much time ranting on a dead story.
If you don't like people who flow with the political winds and hate reversal...you'll love this...a herd of jackasses...
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/01/16/...
Reply
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
What has become of HIS, B. Hussein's talk of a 'timetable'? The 'timetable' of 16 months he so gleefully trumpeted for months has now VANISHED into the ether, replaced by calls for a "responsible and phased... ...removal", "directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government."
What happened to the 16 month PROMISE???
Now, it has been replaced by this pablum: "Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months..." and this even more ALARMING REVERSAL:
"Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel."
WHAT?!?!?!
How LONG is he intending to stay there?
100 YEARS???
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS #4 -
Hillary Clinton:
" "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.""
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Reply -
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS #5!!! -
Sen. Jay Rockefeller:
""There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction... ...Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002"
Reply -
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS #6!!!
TED KENNEDY:
""We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction... ...There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
Reply -
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS #7!!!
AlGore:
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country... ...Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Reply -
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS #8!!!
Carl Levin:
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
Reply -
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS #9!!!
Henry Waxman:
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. - Henry Taxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Jackass #9, cont:
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."
Reply
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS # 10!!!
John Kerry:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Jackass #10 (and friends), cont:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sense. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Jackass #10, cont:
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
Reply
-
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS #11!!!
John Edwards:
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
Reply -
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Meet JACKASS #12!!!
Nancy Pelosi:
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
Reply-
0%
Blackacereturn2 months, 3 weeks ago
Said after being fed fals information from the Bush administration...oh how quick the cons forget. Why do you think Colin Is out of politics? He may have been the best chance for the GOPers but these cruds lied to him and let him make an ass out of himself infont of the entire world!
So there you go Jackass #1
Reply-
0%
Blackacereturn2 months, 3 weeks ago
All of the people were lied to by the guy with the information if you are making a jackass list you should start there idiotI Oh and while you are it add yourself at the top because you are the King!
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn2 months, 3 weeks ago
All of the people were lied to by the guy with the information if you are making a jackass list you should start there idiotI Oh and while you are it add yourself at the top because you are the King!
Reply -
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Blackaceretum, if you think the Bush Administration CREATED the intelligence it got from the CIA, which was CREATED IN the 1990's DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, then you must believe a black helicopter is hovering over your house right this minute.
You are repeating a FALSEHOOD that the Bush Administration 'falsified' the intelligence. If they did, how did they falsify MI-5 intelligence? French intelligence? Italian intelligence? Russian Intelligence?
Please explain.
Reply-
0%
Blackacereturn2 months, 3 weeks ago
I don't think they created it I think they lied about it. The Clinton administration are you freaking kidding me ass? Since when did the bush administration listen to anything coming from the Clinton years? If they did we would not have had 9/11. And I thought it was the British that gave us the wrong info? I wish you people would make up your minds. Those are two different things! Do you think Colin quit the administration because he found out they were being truthful? You need to start thinking it's very frustrating to see people sustain this level of stupidity for such a long duration! When are you going to wake up? A 4th grader could tell you it was a big fat freaking lie!
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
The information came from the CIA; I'm sure you've heard of it, and yes, it was IN EXISTENCE during the time of the Clinton Administration, and the intelligence on Saddam's WMD was NOT DEVELOPED in just two short years, after Bush took office, but compiled over the entire period after the end of the GULF WAR.
For instance the stockpiles of chemical and biological WMD that were never found were based upon estimates of what Saddam had in the 90's, that were never accounted for by weapons inspectors, NOT what he had developed after January 21st, 2001.
If you would care to produce even ONE QUOTE from Colin Powell saying that the intelligence he received was a lie produced by anyone within the White House, please PRODUCE IT!
You cannot, because he did not say it. In fact, Powell was advised by Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense NOT to rely so heavily upon intelligence on suspected WMD stockpiles in his presentation to the UN, but he chose to rely on Tenet and the CIA.
Reply -
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
If you don't believe me, would you believe... ...COLIN POWELL?
"In the speech, Powell said he had relied on information he received at Central Intelligence Agency briefings. He said Thursday that then-director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate." "
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09...
black,
you are entitled to your own OPINIONS, but not to your own FACTS!
Now that's something a 4th grader could tell you!
BTW, could you tell me who appointed George Tenet as Director of the CIA in 1997?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
Svensun: where would you put this jackass.
"a glimpse into the true thinking of those, like McCain, who backed launching the war in Iraq and committing our forces there indefinitely. Particularly, they believed that Afghanistan wasn't a concern and we didn't need to take it seriously. In fact, just a year earlier, on CBS' Face the Nation, McCain said capturing Osama bin Laden wasn't "that important."
Five years later, we now see where that poor judgment and lack of insight has gotten us. The Taliban has regained large swaths of Afghanistan, al Qaeda has reconstituted itself, Osama bin Laden still is free, and Afghanistan is in crisis. All of that lends itself to our nation being that much less secure, and in much greater danger of another terrorist attack from extremists from the Pakistan/Afghanistan region.
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
I think those who say capturing OBL isn't that important are RIGHT.
If you think the terrorist threat to America from Waziristan is as great as the terrorist threat to America was from Iraq, or is from Iran, then your judgement and common sense are greatly impaired.
Do you really think a bunch of mountain tribesmen running around as if they were living in the 12th Century poses as great a threat to Americans as the technology, wealth and industrial might of a modern nation-state like Saddam's Iraq or the Islamic Republic of Iran? There could be an ARMY of terrorists running around Waziristan, and they wouldn't pose the threat that those two states pose. Don't get me wrong; these terrorists pose a threat, but we're discussing the issue of which is a GREATER threat.
If you don't think that terrorism linked to the power, wealth and technology of a modern nation-state isn't a greater threat, then you will most likely never be able to prioritize ANY threat, I'm afraid.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
ROTFLMAO, oh hell that comment beats the comedy channel, and I only read till the middle, hold on I will now read the rest.
"Do you really think a bunch of mountain tribesmen running around as if they were living in the 12th Century poses as great a threat to Americans" ..LMAO, tell that to the Russians, they were no slouches at technology.
"a threat to Americans as the technology, wealth and industrial might of a modern nation-state like Saddam's Iraq or the Islamic Republic of Iran?"...ROTFLMAO, oh please stop.
What flipping army, it was destroyed in Desert Storm, and even then it wasn't much, and Iran? well the only reason they still have an air force is because the Pentagon keeps seeling them spare parts for their Tomcats..LMAO
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
HB, we were not talking about the danger of trying to occupy Afghanistan, we were discussing the danger to America from terrorists.
If you truly believe that fanatics with suicide belts filled with rat poison, nails and ball bearings are in the same class of threat as fanatics armed with cannisters of smallpox virus, weaponized anthrax, nerve gas, or God forbid, a nuclear device, then I don't see how we can carry on a rational discussion of this topic.
I said nothing about CONVENTIONAL threats to the US from states like Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, for that matter. If you believe the Bush Administration went to war with Saddam because they feared Saddam's armored formations or his strategic bomber fleet, then you completely misunderstand the entire nature of the modern terrorist threat. The danger is not from the conventional arms of nation-states, or even from THEIR WMD, if they possess it, like North Korea. The REAL DANGER is what they can accomplish via a third party.
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
HB, to illustrate the potential danger, let's imagine a scenario where we had followed Illinois State Senator B. Hussein's advice in 2002, and NOT invaded Iraq in 2003, leaving Saddam in place. Jump ahead to 2008; Iran is most definitely in the process of developing a nuclear weapon; even Mohammed al Baradei and the IAEA recognize that. Do you honestly think that Saddam would have sat back and allowed the Iranians to develop a nuke while he did NOTHING? Of course NOT! He would want one too, in fact he would likely believe it was necessary for his political survival. So, then we would have, by some date not too far off, a situation where THREE rogue nations have nuclear weapons: North Korea, Iran AND Iraq.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
Sorry but Iran is USA's problem they created the atmosphere there, not them.
Carter and Reagen admins both supported the mujahideen with arms and training to fight the Soviets, and this is the grass roots of the taliban
Ronald Reagan praised mujahideen as "freedom fighters", and three mainstream Western films, the 1987 James Bond film The Living Daylights, the 1988 action film Rambo III and the 2007 biographical movie Charlie Wilson's War, portrayed them as heroic.
But Iraq was not part of this at all, nada, nothing, but after Afgan this is who USA choose to start the "War on Terror " on
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
HB,
SOME of the mujahedeen WERE/ARE heroic!
I've always considered Massoud a heroic figure. He was a warlord, sure, but he was brave, and not a fanatic, like the leaders of the Taliban, or as questionable in his actions as other colorful figures like Dostum, the former Communist boss.
HB, you are wrong about the Taliban/US connection - it is a Pakistani ISI creation, not the work of the US. Besides, if you really believe such fanatical Muslims would consent to working with infidels, how can one argue that Al Qaeda and the Baathists would NEVER have worked together?
I don't quite understand your comment on Iran. Are you blaming the existence of the Islamic Republic on the US? If so, then in part I agree with you, because the Carter Administration did almost everything it could to destroy the rule of the Shah, who was, in comparison to the Ayatollahs, extremely PROGRESSIVE.
HB, you still don't understand the terrorist/nation-state nexus, if you think Iraq was not a threat.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here. "I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."
Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.
"the Shah, who was, in comparison to the Ayatollahs, extremely PROGRESSIVE."
But a democratic elected Iraian Gov. was overthrown by the CIA to impose the Shah.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
Understand terrorists? sure, they have been around since time began, only you see them every where, you even create them.
Oh and another little fact 1953 USA also overthrew another democratic Gov, Guatemala.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
scenario, cont:
Then, one day, a mushroom cloud appears over, say, Los Angeles, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans are dead and dying. Yet, whoever it was that planted the bomb has managed to thoroughly cover their tracks, such that we are unable to ascertain WHO it was that planted this device, or even where it came from.
For, unbeknownst to us, one of these rogue states provided a portable nuclear device to an Islamic terrorist group, whose goal is nothing more than killing as many infidels as possible. We know that's their goal, because they SAY it loudly and proudly.
The question I have for you, is after such an event, what does the US do? We do not know who planted the bomb. We don't know the source of the bomb. Who shall we retaliate against? No one? All of the 'bad' countries with nuclear bombmaking technology? Who?
And if we can't deter an attack, or thwart it, what's to stop more such attacks?
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
Sorry again, with the collapse of the USSR and the Russian black market, the nuclear threat 10 years ago was selling Russian bombs, and since your friends the Saudi's have done nothing but finance terrorists would you attack them if your fantasy came to pass, nope, 9/11 proved that.
And since your ally, Pakistan has the bomb, but also harbours the Taliban, now what.
Gee you will have to take over the world to feel safe, kind of.
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
The Saudis are NOT my friends, believe me. As for attacking the Saudis, if you have evidence that the Saudi government was behind 9/11, please produce it, otherwise to say that because terrorists come from a certain country, that then we should PUNISH that country, sounds like something out of a WWII movie, with Nazis rounding up villagers and machine-gunning them because there are partisans in the area. Do you really believe that would be just, or even effective in preventing terrorism? What you advocate sounds LIKE TERRORISM.
Pakistan IS a problem, no doubt about it. It just may very well make the list of rogue states, but so far, what keeps Pakistan in line, I believe, is their dependence upon the US to face the threat they perceive, real or imagined, from India. Because of India, Pakistan has an incentive to keep on relatively good terms with the US. Apparently they still harbor illusions about occupying Kashmir some day, and retaking control of Bangladesh.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
Who is OBL, who finances the Taliban, who flew the planes.
Saudi Arabia, and just those three examples are more than Iraq ever had.
As for Pakistan, never will USA do something there, as India will be dragged in and Pakistan will use the bomb.
Reply
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
In order to feel safe, the US will have to strictly enforce the efforts of the IAEA to prevent nuclear proliferation. CW and BW are separate, more difficult threats to contain.
The US CANNOT tolerate a United Nations that is toothless, ineffective, and refuses to enforce its own regulations regarding weapons proliferation.
The world cannot bear another failure like the League of Nations. The consequences of allowing such failure are too grim to consider.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
Well the UN will never work as long as a select few have the veto, hell your Pres. shows that when dealing with congress.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
It would be tragic and foolish to allow such a scenario even a chance of becoming a reality. Americans would, for generations to follow, curse the name of the leader or leaders who allowed such a tragedy to befall the nation.
Scenarios like this, and many others, some not so extreme, and others even worse, are exactly what we would face in a world where a multitude of dangerous nation-states possess WMD.
Any President who sat back and did nothing to prevent such a threat from emerging would not be worthy of that high office.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
Well you have totally half baked ideas, and this is what I think USA does everywhere and at the same time feel it is ok, and if some nation doesn't think it is ok; tough chit.
"While in Tbilisi, she called for international mediation to stop violence spilling over in Georgia's beakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abhkazia, which have been sources of rising tensions, with Georgia accusing Russia of trying to annex the regions. To carry matters further, the US began a joint military exercise with Georgia codenamed Immediate Response 2008, near Tbilisi, which will continue through the month of July.
The exercise, financed by the Pentagon and planned by the US Armed Forces Eastern Command, is intended as a warning to Russia that Georgia is America's project and Washington wouldn't hesitate to do some heavy lifting to safeguard the "Rose Revolution".
What the hell is USA thinking? military exercises on Russia's doorstep.
Reply-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
If the US was attempting to pressure Mexico into ceding her sovereignty towards us, or if we were seeking to seize Mexican territory, as we did in 1848, then YES, Mexico would have the right to seek allies to prevent us, and Russia would be correct in intervening to protect Mexican sovereignty.
Listen, what are you talking about, as if Russia is NOT intervening in the Americas? Haven't you heard about the massive arms deals Putin negotiated with Chavez in Venezuela? Venezuela is now home to one of the largest AK-47 factories in the world! And all other sorts of Russian military equipment is flowing into Venezuela. Do you see the US threatening 'severe measures' against Venezuela? Oh sure, Chavez makes a lot of noise, but the fact is, he has more to worry about from his own people than he does from the US.
We're a 'bully'? Well, if you are a Baathist, then yes, we are a 'bully'. If you are an Islamic terrorist, then yes, we are a 'bully'. And to that, I say 'bully'!
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
Sorry but the arms chit holds no water when USA is the biggest arms dealer in the world, where did Iran get those tomcats.
Besides, building a factory is not the same as a military exercise, are there Russian troops in Mexico? Venezuela?
And as for arms deals, what about those 100 F-35 going to Turkey, or missiles to Poland, again on Russia doorstep.
And again, if Russia or Iraq don't like, your answer is "Bully"
And Iraq was never a problem, just oil rich and a very good strategic location.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
So, the USA is supposed to sit back and allow Russia to reconquer by any means possible countries that escaped from her imperial clutches? Aren't the Georgians sovereign in their own country?
Don't THEY have the right to decide who are their allies and who are NOT?
Or do you just believe in REALPOLITIK? That the big countries should sacrifice and carve up the little countries to further their own interests, as was done for centuries?
Are you really that cynical about the rise of democracy and self-rule? I'm shocked that a Canadian would so devalue freedom, autonomy and the right of self-determination.
I know you don't have a Declaration of Independence, but don't you have any belief at all in the idea that 'all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights', including 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
"I'm shocked that a Canadian would so devalue freedom, autonomy and the right of self-determination"
WTF, why are we in Afgan? to help our neighbour and friend is why.
Why are we not in Iraq; because our neighbour and friend is wrong.
"So, the USA is supposed to sit back and allow Russia to reconquer by any means possible countries that escaped from her imperial clutches? Aren't the Georgians sovereign in their own country?"
So if Que. decided to split from Canada, you would have no problem with Russian troops on your border as they would be there to stop us from taking it back? Yeah right.
"Or do you just believe in REALPOLITIK? That the big countries should sacrifice and carve up the little countries to further their own interests"
Gee that sounds like PNAC
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca2 months, 3 weeks ago
What I am saying is put the shoe on the other foot, missiles in Cuba and Russian soldiers on your border would petrify you; so why not the same for them, only what others think has no value to some Americans.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Blackacereturn2 months, 3 weeks ago
See the problem is you don't think, you parrot there is a difference. A thinking person gathers the information and base their decision on the consistencies or lack there of. You Watch fox and fall that thinking i have news for ya it's not! OBL killed 4000 Americans and getting him is not important? Ok buddy whatever you say, fool!
Reply-
-
0%
Blackacereturn2 months, 3 weeks ago
Svensun - I do know what i am talking about. For your viewing pleasure the mans own words! There is more, here is an idea go to Youtube.com and type in his name!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
