The Myth of AQI

[diesel96]

It's even funnier that they were all for the war in the beginning but as soon as the terrorist bombings started they quickly flipped the script and did what they are known best for.....curling up in the fetal position and calling for the immediate pullout of or troops.

Oh, you mean Bush ordering the UN Weapons Inspectors to pull out of Iraq early. They did after all had free rein to search any suspect WMD site of their choosing and also sites chosen by Wash. as possible hiding places.The Inspectors operating at full strength instead was forced to leave early which shows this Adminstration was determined to invade reguardless of the WMD outcome. So who flipped the script ? And GW tried to rewrite the script by insinuating Iraq was somehow 9/11 related, and the War keeps America safer.And Far Righties buy into all this.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Oh, you mean Bush ordering the UN Weapons Inspectors to pull out of Iraq early. They did after all had free rein to search any suspect WMD site of their choosing and also sites chosen by Wash. as possible hiding places.The Inspectors operating at full strength instead was forced to leave early which shows this Adminstration was determined to invade reguardless of the WMD outcome. So who flipped the script ? And GW tried to rewrite the script by insinuating Iraq was somehow 9/11 related, and the War keeps America safer.And Far Righties buy into all this.

LOL! So now you are saying that the inspectors being pulled "early" is supposed to be some sort of proof that Bush was just dying to go to war, yet, more than a decent number of your leftist representatives were behind Bush. LOL! Talk about a point back firing on someone! LOL! Let's stick to the point I was making.....the left backed out as soon as it was evident that an army of terrorists weren't going to come out of hiding with a white flag of surrender. The reasons why, whether they were valid or not, for going into Iraq are not a factor. Especially considering the fact that the left supported the war. I've said it before and I must say it again....I'm glad the Democrats weren't so timid during World War 1 and 2. We might all be speaking German or Japanese right now.

 

[diesel96]

.... The reasons why, whether they were valid or not, for going into Iraq are not a factor.

It's attitudes like this, and those that support it, that gives our country a black eye, and further seperates chances of World Peace. Not only does this drive a wedge between us an the Middle East but puts strains on our relations with China and Russia and other European and South American Nations. If this type of Administration continues past 2008 say hello to WWIII. This is not being timid..It also takes great Military might and ingenuity to preserve and resolve conflicts. But that might be asking to much from the Neanderthal Neo-Con mentality of this Administration and those who share their views....UGH

 

[av8torntn]

Wow diesel You may have reached a new low now. Do you really think if it was not for the US there would be world peace? Or is it that if we do not support our troops that we sent to war there would be world peace? I know you want us to surrender to the terrorists but I had no idea that you thought there would be world peace. UGH as you say.

 

[wkmac]

wkmac

About the time I made it to page nine I thought maybe you wrote the article.

At the risk of getting my hand slapped by diesel again for straying off the topic of the thread I will answer your question.

They covered many topics and the major question I would have is what did they leave out. On the first topic they covered they would leave you to believe that that patrol had no situational awareness. They were heading straight for a major hiding place with very poorly trained enemy sentries watching. They then turned away at the last second. They never noticed that they were being watched and they never picked up any of the radio traffic as Al Queada fighters communicated with each other. I think this is unlikely from what I have experienced. Were our soldiers turned away because they were over the border?

On the thing with Rumsfield they kind of make my previous point for me in a round about way. I thought they operation had grown much larger in size but I was not there. This is a good reason to have civilian oversight for the military because many times there are more things to consider.


On the force protection I will say there are career officers who are more worried about their future than doing their job. That being said I do not think the things he brought up were force protection issues solely. Many soldiers have aggressive personalities. This is a good thing but they have to have rules put in place for a reason.

On a lighter note I think any high school freshman could make a better video than either of the two that were released this week. Maybe he is becoming ineffective.

AV8,

I haven't forgot about you or this issue but it's just been busy the last week or so for me. I will get back with you but it may be a few more days. I did have some time to read some of the Patreaus testimony to Congress and found it of interest. Hope to discuss some of that as well.
C ya soon!

mac

BTW: Col. Hunt has spoken again and here's an opinion to mull over in the meantime.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297180,00.html

 

[diesel96]

Wow diesel You may have reached a new low now. Do you really think if it was not for the US there would be world peace? Or is it that if we do not support our troops that we sent to war there would be world peace? I know you want us to surrender to the terrorists but I had no idea that you thought there would be world peace. UGH as you say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by big_arrow_up
.... The reasons why, whether they were valid or not, for going into Iraq are not a factor.


I take it you agree with Big A...Lets attack a country whether they were valid reasons or not....and when we realize we went in for the wrong reasons lets make new reasons to justify why we are still there and not correct and remedy the situation. And don't give me that "I don't support the troops"speech...I don't support the Current Administration, big difference.
"Surrender to the Terrorist"...Say we kill All the terrorist(Al-Qeda) in Iraq and go home....but wait a sec...there's more Terrorist in Syria,Afghanistan, Pakistan,SaudiArabia,UK.Germany,Spain.Indonisia Etc....I wonder what spurred all these other cells to mulitply....I guess we have to go attack those Countries to, cause I don't want to be accused of "surrendering to the terrorist".

 

[av8torntn]

Yes I agree with BAU on this one. Our country sent our military to war and it is a small thing to ask for our countries support. To you it is a large thing to ask and yes I believe that when you spread your lies it does aid our enemy in a small way. They have no chance to beat our military but people like you give them hope to hold out until we surrender to them.

We are already at war in Afghanistan and terrorists from the other countries you listed come to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight so why do you want to attack our allies now and surrender to our enemies.

Ugh as you say.

 

[diesel96]

Yes I agree with BAU on this one. Our country sent our military to war and it is a small thing to ask for our countries support. To you it is a large thing to ask and yes I believe that when you spread your lies it does aid our enemy in a small way. They have no chance to beat our military but people like you give them hope to hold out until we surrender to them.

If being a realist in your eyes means "spreading lies" I take that as a compliment. Or maybe those who share your views want to go out on a limb an call 70% of Americans Liars because they see the big picture and are not mentally incapacitated by This Administration and the Neo's.

 

[av8torntn]

Yes Yes I know it is hard to believe so why don't you prove to me where 70% of Americans think that it is our fault there is no world peace.
Here you go 85% of Americans do not think that way 10% think Elvis is still alive and 5% probably think your way.See I can just make up numbers also. I love the way some people take one poll about the Iraq war and think it means everything they want it to to prove any point they have against the war. I will stand behind my point. The time to debate going to war is before we go. The debate was loud and thorough. The vast majority of Americans supported sending our military to Iraq. Because you do not like that does not mean we should surrender. You and others like you who do not see the big picture want to make Iraq just like the Soviet Union made Afghanistan so we will have to go back in 10 or 15 years. I know I know this is your way to support our troops. We can pull them out of a war they are winning and wait and let them fight a much harder one down the road. Oh no that is right there would be world peace if we just left the terrorists alone. They must be in Iraq since you said they were in another thread. So just to make sure that I am clear on what you advocate. 1) Surrender to our enemies 2) attack our allies 3) raise taxes so we can spend more money on social programs 4) by this point we can surrender to our allies that are now our enemies since we invaded them. You really should be careful who you call "mentally incapacitated" since you know not who you are talking to. That does not get you anywhere to advance your views. I know this is long and there are no paragraphs and it is not well written but I am tired. Anyway good luck with your word peace thing.

UGH as you say.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Yes Yes I know it is hard to believe so why don't you prove to me where 70% of Americans think that it is our fault there is no world peace.
Here you go 85% of Americans do not think that way 10% think Elvis is still alive and 5% probably think your way.See I can just make up numbers also. I love the way some people take one poll about the Iraq war and think it means everything they want it to to prove any point they have against the war. I will stand behind my point. The time to debate going to war is before we go. The debate was loud and thorough. The vast majority of Americans supported sending our military to Iraq. Because you do not like that does not mean we should surrender. You and others like you who do not see the big picture want to make Iraq just like the Soviet Union made Afghanistan so we will have to go back in 10 or 15 years. I know I know this is your way to support our troops. We can pull them out of a war they are winning and wait and let them fight a much harder one down the road. Oh no that is right there would be world peace if we just left the terrorists alone. They must be in Iraq since you said they were in another thread. So just to make sure that I am clear on what you advocate. 1) Surrender to our enemies 2) attack our allies 3) raise taxes so we can spend more money on social programs 4) by this point we can surrender to our allies that are now our enemies since we invaded them. You really should be careful who you call "mentally incapacitated" since you know not who you are talking to. That does not get you anywhere to advance your views. I know this is long and there are no paragraphs and it is not well written but I am tired. Anyway good luck with your word peace thing.

UGH as you say.

Give it up man. Some people just don't want to see the truth. Even if they are staring it in the face.

 

[av8torntn]

I know you are right and I will. It is just so hard to back down.

 

[diesel96]

Yes Yes I know it is hard to believe so why don't you prove to me where 70% of Americans think that it is our fault there is no world peace.
Here you go 85% of Americans do not think that way 10% think Elvis is still alive and 5% probably think your way.See I can just make up numbers also. I love the way some people take one poll about the Iraq war and think it means everything they want it to to prove any point they have against the war. I will stand behind my point.

Here's the most recent Fox News(neo-con) Poll....even though their averages are higher than most polls; most polls roughly 70/30
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296712,00.html
NEW YORK — The latest FOX News poll shows that while President Bush’s job rating remains low and a majority of Americans disapproves of his performance, his approval rating is up this week to its highest level in five months. Today 37 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Bush is doing, up from 33 percent last month, and 58 percent disapprove.

 

[av8torntn]

How many different people use your screen name? It is nice that you found a poll that shows only 1% of American have never heard of Oprah. Seriously why in the world would you quote me and then put a link to that poll. There was not one question about your world peace. Oh wait a minute maybe you thought I would not read it. Fox news must be really good for you to dislike them so much. Keep up the good work.

 

[diesel96]

How many different people use your screen name? It is nice that you found a poll that shows only 1% of American have never heard of Oprah. Seriously why in the world would you quote me and then put a link to that poll. There was not one question about your world peace. Oh wait a minute maybe you thought I would not read it. Fox news must be really good for you to dislike them so much. Keep up the good work.

I'm sorry your not capable of understanding the correlation of removing ourselves and GW's brillant foreign policy from the Middle East Equation (and Irseal's illegal occupation from the West Bank) will dramatically increase the odds of "WorldPeace" (something not part of your vocabulary). Your argument of "surrending" and "not supporting the troops" is just a cop out response from the Repulican manuel handbook.
BTW..I guess you only go by polls if they support your argument, thats why I used a Neo-Con (Fox) poll.
Going off subject and speaking of Fox polls, It's remarkable how Rep' (actually Libertarian) Canidate Ron Paul leads Fox News Text polls after every Rep Debate over all the other Rep' Lame Duck "war hungry" incumbents.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I'm sorry your not capable of understanding the correlation of removing ourselves and GW's brillant foreign policy from the Middle East Equation (and Irseal's illegal occupation from the West Bank) will dramatically increase the odds of "WorldPeace" (something not part of your vocabulary). Your argument of "surrending" and "not supporting the troops" is just a cop out response from the Repulican manuel handbook.
BTW..I guess you only go by polls if they support your argument, thats why I used a Neo-Con (Fox) poll.
Going off subject and speaking of Fox polls, It's remarkable how Rep' (actually Libertarian) Canidate Ron Paul leads Fox News Text polls after every Rep Debate over all the other Rep' Lame Duck "war hungry" incumbents.

If you honestly think that by removing ourselves from the Middle East, along with Israel backing out of the West Bank, which they legally acquired according to the laws of war, will improve world peace than you are more naive than I could ever have thought.

 

[Jones]

along with Israel backing out of the West Bank, which they legally acquired according to the laws of war

I don't think I've ever heard it put quite like that. If there's a section in the Laws of War that governs the legal acquisition of (someone else's)territory I'm not aware of it.

 

[av8torntn]

I'm sorry your not capable of understanding the correlation of removing ourselves and GW's brillant foreign policy from the Middle East Equation (and Irseal's illegal occupation from the West Bank) will dramatically increase the odds of "WorldPeace" (something not part of your vocabulary). Your argument of "surrending" and "not supporting the troops" is just a cop out response from the Repulican manuel handbook.
BTW..I guess you only go by polls if they support your argument, thats why I used a Neo-Con (Fox) poll.
Going off subject and speaking of Fox polls, It's remarkable how Rep' (actually Libertarian) Canidate Ron Paul leads Fox News Text polls after every Rep Debate over all the other Rep' Lame Duck "war hungry" incumbents.

You really do have your head in the sand. How do you know what I can or cannot understand? So now you say if there was no Israel or United States there would be world peace? You do know that there is recorded history of wars before there was an Israel or a United States do you not? On second thought you probably do not. What debate was Ron Paul in with a Lame Duck incumbent? Or do you even know what an incumbent is? I am not trying to make fun of you but what? You keep proving my point for me over and over but I really do not want your help. The poll you posted had nothing to do with world peace. Well anyway not in a non fantasy way. The numbers I posted I just made up. I thought that was clear to anyone. My point was if you can make up something why can't I? What do you mean" going off subject" ? You stay off subject. This was supposed to be about the myth of Al Queada in Iraq. I would think you would love this topic. I have personal knowledge on this subject maybe that is why you stay off topic. Maybe it is something else. I thought maybe about 15 people use your screen name that is why when confronted on something you post you just change the subject or call someone some name or cry about free speech or checks and balances. Anyhow if you want to challenge me on Al Queada in Iraq I guess bring it on but I will not be drawn into some name calling contest with someone on the Internet.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I don't think I've ever heard it put quite like that. If there's a section in the Laws of War that governs the legal acquisition of (someone else's)territory I'm not aware of it.

The West Bank was acquired during "The 6 Day War". It was a defensive war so according to international law Israel maintains the rights to hold any territory captured during that war. Plus, the West Bank was never legally part of Jordan so how could anyone expect Israel (evenif we pretend international law doesn't already support their holding of the territory) be expected to give it back?

 

[Jones]

The West Bank was acquired during "The 6 Day War". It was a defensive war so according to international law Israel maintains the rights to hold any territory captured during that war. Plus, the West Bank was never legally part of Jordan so how could anyone expect Israel (evenif we pretend international law doesn't already support their holding of the territory) be expected to give it back?

Well, considering that the Six Day War started with an Israeli pre-emptive strike, and was fought almost exclusively on Arab territory, it might be a bit of a stretch to call it a "defensive war" since it was the Arabs who wound up on the defensive.

Leaving that aside though, could you point me to the relevant passage in International Law/ The Law of War that states that Israel(or any country) has the right to keep territroy that it captures in a "defensive war"? I'm pretty curious about that.

 

[av8torntn]

Leaving that aside though, could you point me to the relevant passage in International Law/ The Law of War that states that Israel(or any country) has the right to keep territroy that it captures in a "defensive war"? I'm pretty curious about that.

While I am not sure about the distinction between defensive or offensive war there have been many treaties and conventions of war that deal with this going all the way back to the old Roman empire. There have been countless wars fought to gain new territory yet it seems that people only have a problem with the war that Israel waged that expanded their borders. Here is a link to some background information for you. It will not answer your question directly but it will give you a great place to start your quest for knowledge on International law. I am far from an expert on this but a quick google search turned up a few rules that would govern captured territory during a war. I could not find one that said you had to give it back but there are a couple of articles in the Hague that lay out rules on governing captured land. Anyway hope some of this helps.


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/econ/int04.htm

This guy makes an interesting point.


http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2005/07/is-gaza-captured-territory.html


And if you want to make the point of Sharia law instead of international law. Just for fun.


http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017098.php