Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
andymarksman: Without further corroboration from the participating flight captains, Sada's allegation is and remains, an allegation.
First, when servicemembers still serving in the military share information about what they did to a military retiree that they served with, you can't dismiss that as just "hearsay". Also, it's not an allegation. As with my experiences, information shared with retirees, in situations like this, tends to be dead accurate. Those who understand the friendships forged via bonding in the military would know that.
Second, his information has been corroborated:
"He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon, Israeli officer
"ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," -- Duelfer
Not having "further corroboration" does not turn a fact into an allegation. For example, prior to you seeing my first post, you had no idea that I existed. If someone were to tell you that I existed, yet you did not see my post here, your argument would indicate that the news about my existence would simply be on "allegation."
If I'm on combat patrol, and I see a hostile my battles do not also see, perhaps they could treat my report as on "allegation," and do nothing until the enemy fires on us. :roll: A fact is a fact, regardless of whether one person reports it, or multiple people report it.
If Sada's allegation had any shred of credibility, Cheney and Rumsfeld would have done everything within their power to track down all of the "alleged participants," dead or alive. The problem is that they wouldn't even give a feigned attempt on that lead, which demonstrates the "allegation" is plainly not worth pursuing.
The argument isn't on whether any of those that gave the ultimate sacrifice had done so as a result of WMD or not. The argument is on whether Saddam's Iraq had WMD or not. There are two sides of the argument on this. One side argues that Iraq "did not." The other side argues that Iraq did in fact have WMD. When they were made is irrelevant.
The argument is on whether Iraq had WMD or not. Not on when they were made, nor on whether or not they were involved with the deaths of US service members.
Articles generated during the Iraq war, and the above link that I provided, indicate that Iraq indeed had WMD as Bush argued.
You still haven't answered my question yet. Does Saddam's alleged WMD, which failed to claim a single member of the U.S. armed forces, justify the lives of 4,400 fine U.S. servicemen and women in Iraq?
Directly addressing the United Nations General Assembly, Bush continued, "We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of 'oil for food' and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction."
This was based on a pattern, by Saddam, of going full throttle on programs he was not supposed to have that the U.N. was inspecting. When inspection teams restarted in the early 21st century, Saddam immediately resorted to the tactics he used when dealing with inspectors back in the 1990s.
Colonel Stanislav Lunev, Senior GRU officer to defect to the United States as of this time, mentioned this in his book. The tactics Saddam used in 2002 were many of the same tactics he used in the 1990s. As part of an auxiliary Russian special forces unit, his task was to provide training to the Iraqis on how to move, hide, and camouflage WMD for the inspectors. He talked of Russian intelligence officials acting as inspectors, within the inspection team, providing information to the Russians assisting the Iraqis.
He wrote his book in the 1990s. The tactics, mentioned in his book, were repeated again when inspectors went back to Iraq in the early 21st century. That argument is extremely reasonable given Saddam's track record with regard to WMD. He had done this before, he was playing his same games again.
Stanislav Lunev!? Stationed in the U.S. since '88, then defected in '92. No, thanks. At least Snowden has "goods" to back up his claims.
DSK: While our best men waste time and treasure and their lives
As an Iraq War Veteran, I can confidently say that you don't speak for us. You don't speak for my comrades-at-arms. This is not a waste of time, or treasure, nor is this a fight of a logistically "hopeless" war. Do realize that what I've argued here is reflective of the philosophy of the majority of the people who have combat deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Understand that the majority of people that have combat deployed to either country wanted to combat deploy there again. They would not have wanted to do that if this were a waste of time. It wasn't, and it never was. We saw the results of our efforts over there. They were predominantly positive. We won every major battle in those two countries. It was plainly obvious, when I was there, that we won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory.
It was up to the Obama Administration to build on that, it didn't.
DSK: fighting logistically hopeless wars
Wrong again.
Not only were we successful in the battlefield, we were also successful when it came to logistics. We had major forward operating bases that served as logistics hubs for the combat theater. Flights came in consistently providing supplies needed to continue to war. We conducted refit missions to these FOBS to resupply, to do advanced maintenance, and to do other things. We were never short on what we needed to carry out the mission. Albeit, there were times when we needed replacement for our tactical gear, but couldn't get it because the fobbits purchased the last set before we rolled in. That, however, did not stop the mission.
DSK: spurred on by deceptive and evil and/or greedy propagandists,
Wrong again. This is a real threat. Our enemies are real. This is not a conspiracy theory inventing a threat. In fact, this threat existed against the West since the beginning of the dark ages. It has changed faces, organization, location, but it is the same threat that existed for centuries. This threat is engaging in perpetual war against those that are not Islam. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this threat is embarking on a manifest destiny. This manifest destiny calls for bringing the entire world under the banner of Islam.
Listen to them speak, and watch the videos from the Islamists from that area. They have blatantly came out and announced what they intend to do. It speaks volumes that, during a Friday sermon, a key religious leader would talk about how Islam ruled the world once, and how it will rule the world again. I lost count of how many times I've seen a video showing someone talking about how Islam will dominate the United States and other parts of the West.
This is real.
DSK: the Muslims our quietly massing inside our country to set the stage for the takeover.
This is part of asymmetrical warfare. Even Qaddafi talk about how they could use population to take over a region. The onus is on us to culturally assimilate as many of these folks possible. Not all of them come here as a conqueror. The majority of them come here for a better life. However, if liberal/progressive policies have their way, they will form areas that would form the nursing ground for the radical Islamic movement in this country. If liberals/progressives keep getting their way, all we have to do is look to Europe to see what our future would be like.
DSK: However, at least they will kill all the faggots and feminists, then hopefully the liberals.
Never assume that they think like you. The radicals do not think in Western terms, but in their terms. In their eyes, it does not matter if you are gay, feminist, liberal, conservative, hetero, pro-man law, religious, atheist, etc. In their eyes, if you are not their brand of Islam, you are a target. They will NOT initially make the distinctions that you hint that. Bottom line, if you are not their brand of Islam, you face either forced conversion or death.
If they're nice, you will have an option to convert to Islam. If you choose that route, you'll be required to join the fight. If you choose not to, and if they're nice, you would be required to pay an extra tax. That's if they're nice.
DSK: If they come to my house to kill my wife or daughters, I'll kill them til I run out of bullets, then I'll stab as many of the invaders as I can.
That's easier said than done. In fact, you're speaking from pride and not from reality.
If you are not part of the militia unit fighting against him, it would be you against a certain number of them. You may think, like in the videogame, that you could rapidly react to kill all of them. I guarantee you; however, that as you are pointed towards one of them, another one of them will have a clear shot of your side. You will go down LONG before you use up all of your rounds.
Hopefully, you have trained your wife and daughters to continue the job that you left off. Or, to even fight alongside you. If they do not go down fighting, they will suffer the consequences that their counterparts in the Middle East are suffering. Oh yeah, don't expect to be effective at stabbing anybody if you're injured by multiple rounds in your body.
DSK: Empire building has ruined every country that ever became an empire, and it will bury us, also.
Wrong again. What we're doing is not Empire building. Not once, during my military career, have we conquered territory for the purpose of annexation in the same sense that the Romans did. The arrangement that I talked about in my earlier post, with regards to freedom of movement at sea, and securing the areas that resource come from, is an arrangement that multiple countries get involved with. In fact, it's an arrangement that the majority of the countries cooperate in.
This arrangement came about through actions of each of those countries consumers. That's right, you, everybody posting on this board, everybody related to everybody posting on this board, and anybody else that has gone out shopping and bought something. If you have ever purchased anything from any establishment, you have played a role, collectively with other buyers, to create the situation I talked about earlier.
If you look at the movement of goods all around the world, you'd find that the global economy is set up to support the United States economy. That was not done by force, but by actions of consumers in this country, as well as consumers in other countries. This is all done voluntarily, on the side of the civilians.
So, if you are opposed to "empire building", you had best stop purchasing things. You need to start growing your own food and to start making your own clothing and materials. Because, the moment you start purchasing things from a store, you end up playing a role that will influence foreign policy. Your counterparts, living overseas, doing similar purchase actions, are doing the same thing.
The arrangement that I talked about earlier is consumer driven. Look in the mirror and point the finger at the person staring back at you.
DSK: We are being fucked over by our own government
If the government is "fucking" us over, it is because we, as the electorate, have failed in our constitutional duties. Far too many of the electorate think that their duties stop at the voting booth. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We, as an electorate, are responsible for governing ourselves through our local, state, and federal representatives. Congress works for the people. The people that we vote to become Congress personnel work for us. We, as an electorate, are supposed to leverage our will through them. Unfortunately, we have failed to do that repeatedly. Consequently, as with any other group, or person for the matter, left unsupervised, Congress has gotten away with doing what it is doing.
Saying that the government is screwing us over is nothing more but shifting the blame. Again, look in the mirror and you will find who is screwing us over. This is not just you, but the majority of the electorate.
DSK: - why do you want to die or kill for the government that hates you?
Go back and read my replies on this thread, I've provided extensive explanation as to why I do what I do. Your assumption, about what the government is, is erroneous. By extension, your assumption, that I want to do this for the government, is erroneous. If you have read my posts, as you've indicated above, you would realize I do this for cause. I've explained a part of that cause on this thread.
This is not about the US government or any other government for the matter. This is about fighting an entity that has every intention of remaking the United States, its philosophy, its culture, its people, etc. This is about fighting an entity that has every intention of eradicating Western civilization and any other civilization that does not abide by their brand of radical Islam.
On a strategic level, this is about the American people, and about the United States. By extension, the rest of Western Civilization and the world that does not want with the radical terrorists have in mind for the world.
I agree with your last two paragraphs. What I meant by going over there and fighting a logistically impossible war was that no matter how many people we can stomach killing, it is not useful because the survivors will want revenge - it is never ending.
Let us just accept the fact that we cannot cure the Middle East of its problems, exit completely, and let them sort out their own shit.
If the post-2003 discovery of a decaying chemical weapons program could serve as proof that the invasion was justified, the Bush White House would have seized the opportunity to proclaim so.
Because WMD was not the only reason for the Bush administration's arguing for going to war in Iraq. It also was not the main reason for going into Iraq. Again, the main thrust of Bush's arguments for going into Iraq were consistent with his statements and speeches after September 11, 2001. A common theme is the fact that we needed to change the environment that created the terrorist mentality. In order to do that, you have to create an economically prospering environment.
George Bush, in 2002, argued that people in Iraq needed to experience freedom. The conditions, to make that possible happen to be the same conditions that facilitate economic development.
So, when troops encountered WMD laced IED's, President Bush did not emphasize those reports. This was not only about WMD. This was about setting up conditions, in the Middle East, that would act as catalyst for change towards democracy in the region. I saw that in play when I was in Iraq.
The "main reason" doesn't alter its "criminal nature," since "that reason" is never been recognized as a lawful one.
The "main reason" doesn't alter its "criminal nature," since "that reason" is never been recognized as a lawful one.
Unlike Odumbo in Libya, and before taking action in Iran, W sought and received Congressional approval -- hence, his actions were LAWFUL. BTW, you must be myopic and senile because you keep forgetting that several lead dim-retards voted to intensify military action against Saddam. So, Andy the Nazi, you and Sean Penn can go play you're Harvey Milk and boyfriend BCD, okay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Why is this verbose blowhard still relevant?
Unless...
Notice how you never see HFC and IBIdiot in the same place...
Hasa Diga, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.
It would have been "lawful" if "that reason" is WMD....
There's no "would have been" about it, Andy the Nazi, because W's actions were entirely lawful. And W's justification -- backed by Congress, btw -- repeated almost verbatim Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's justification for his Operation Desert Fox:
