View Full Version : Al-Qaeda (Al-Qaeda in Iraq) has reclaimed Fallujah.
Magic_Salad0892
01-03-14, 21:41
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/al-qaeda-force-captures-fallujah-amid-rise-in-violence-in-iraq/2014/01/03/8abaeb2a-74aa-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html
Apparently the Iraqi Army has absolutely no presence in Fallujah anymore. Welcome to 2003-4.
For the most part, those dudes are a bunch of cowards with no determination, courage, or resolve. Thus, this is no surprise to me.
I read the whole article. What a clusterf**k.
There was a time when we could have divided "Iraq" back into 2 or 3 separate countries, and had a permanent US military base in Greater Kurdistan. The Globalists had other ideas. Good job! Can't wait for Iraq to collapse into full blown civil war (again).
Iraq will restore itself to its former state as we draw down. The entire notion of "nation building" and spreading democracy was a crock. The Saudis wanted them stomped and we did it for them. AQ is their force in Iraq similar to how the Taliban are created and supported by Pakistan. And Afghanistan will revert to what it was even faster as we draw down there. The last 30,000 troops left there will be sitting in a hell hole worse than ever.
I'm blaming POTUS because I can
Sent from my DROID X2
Mauser KAR98K
01-04-14, 00:27
Iraq will restore itself to its former state as we draw down. The entire notion of "nation building" and spreading democracy was a crock. The Saudis wanted them stomped and we did it for them. AQ is their force in Iraq similar to how the Taliban are created and supported by Pakistan. And Afghanistan will revert to what it was even faster as we draw down there. The last 30,000 troops left there will be sitting in a hell hole worse than ever.
Because we didn't stick to the ****ing plan. We got qeezy, didn't learn from our mistakes fast enough, didn't adapt fast enough, and did not let three generations of Iraqis and Afghanies grow up in a new environment. We didn't put our foot down when needed, and we didn't fight the war as a declared war with winner take all. Al-Qaeda, Iran and other radical groups did just that. They declared war on us even before 9/11 and we called it a police ation. After they finally murdered over 3,000 Americans on U.S. soul, we got united to a point to go after them and topple their supporting Governments and put the rest of the radical hating islmaists and terrorist on notice, and many took note.
Until we got qeezy, bowed to the liberal world court, and the liberals at home, and declared what we were doing as imperialistic. Now since we are pulling out with the job not finished, the places that were still too weak to stand on their own are falling and Al-Qaeda is about to get their own state. Way to go. COIN takes lots of patients and we have been fighting an enemy with lots of patients. We failed and the next attack and counter to this will cost us a hell of a lot more. If you think a few trillion was bad, wait till we have to start taking regions.
Iran was the end game. Afghanistan was were our enemy was. Iraq was not complying to sanctions and inspections. Both countries sandwich Iran. A full victory and beating Al-Qaeda to a pulp and getting that backwards region more inline with the rest of the world would have relegated Iran to something of a push over. Hopefully a broke one as we could, and were, out spending them. They funded the insurgency. Anyone remember the ordinance that was being uncovered in Iraq with Iran's fingerprints all over it?
This isolationist attitude was what got us attacked over and over again until someone with a damn spine got in the hot seat. yeah, Bush made mistakes. Should have waited another 6 months to a year to go into Iraq. Maybe skipped Iraq and just went for Iran. Should have gotten Afghanistan in a little bit better of a position. Should have told Pakistan to pound sand and let us go further in and take out Taliban staging grounds and strong holds. But Bush did something, and was and still is being raked over the coals for it.
Meanwhile the enemy that declared war on us is back and in control.
America has no spine or courage anymore. We have PCed it away. With a Southern boarder wide open and the spreading isolationist attitude growing, the next attack will be big, and bad, and we may not survive to counter it.We blew our wad just to mam, not kill.
So Iraq was flipping the bird to the UN and it's sanctions. Much of the UN hates the United States as much as Al-Qaeda and we would flip the UN the bird as well if sanctions were ever imposed upon us. Iraq had no involvement in 9/11. Iraq had no WMD. And Al-Qaeda was not even in Iraq until we went there. And I have never understood why we should be sending Americans to fight and die so as to "spread democracy", a form of government detested by our Founding Fathers.
The simple fact is that Al-Qaeda would not be in control of Fallujah if Bush had not invaded Iraq.
All the evidence points to the fact that we were attacked by a terrorist group that was supported by Saudi Arabia, and this connection was apparently very well known to Bush, yet he decided to make the actual nation who attacked us our "allies" in the "war on terror".
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
Bush has not yet been justly "raked over the coals" for what he did, but here's hoping one day no one ever utters his name without contempt for letting those truly responsible for committing an act of war against the United States walk away scott free.
So Iraq was flipping the bird to the UN and it's sanctions. Much of the UN hates the United States as much as Al-Qaeda and we would flip the UN the bird as well if sanctions were ever imposed upon us. Iraq had no involvement in 9/11. Iraq had no WMD. And Al-Qaeda was not even in Iraq until we went there. And I have never understood why we should be sending Americans to fight and die so as to "spread democracy", a form of government detested by our Founding Fathers.
The simple fact is that Al-Qaeda would not be in control of Fallujah if Bush had not invaded Iraq.
All the evidence points to the fact that we were attacked by a terrorist group that was supported by Saudi Arabia, and this connection was apparently very well known to Bush, yet he decided to make the actual nation who attacked us our "allies" in the "war on terror".
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
Bush has not yet been justly "raked over the coals" for what he did, but here's hoping one day no one ever utters his name without contempt for letting those truly responsible for committing an act of war against the United States walk away scott free.
Bullshit. A "motherload" warehouse full? Probably not, but they did have them. Don't disagree totally with the other stuff you wrote but you drank the Kool Aid on this one.
Right or wrong for going into Afghanistan and Iraq, our military kicked ass and won the wars in about 3 months each. Then we spent 12 years pissing trillions into the desert wind and sand.
One of the basic tenets of COIN is not to allow the insurgents a sanctuary. If you harbor our enemy then keep your head down there will be incoming. But we seem to ignore that simple rule and get bled for it.
I agreed with the initial reasons for those wars but now with endless stupid string of supporting MB and AQ in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iran it is obvious we are just playing the lap dog to the Saudis. We need to get off our kneepads and wipe off our mouths and try to start acting like a civilized superpower and not some fag boy toy.
I would be glad to pay more for gas if it meant not one dollar went to Islam Wahhabis. And if we don't want Russia or China to get the oil I am fine with glazing the Arabian sands to glass and sealing them off to everyone. The world would be much better off if the Wahhabis were goat herders again.
You can say what you want, but I have personally been the former nuclear site south of Baghdad where they had tons of yellow cake. Now one can argue that they may never have done anything with it, but Saddam decided to play a game of bluff poker and he lost. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/#.Usffv9JDuSo
I will agree though that had we not intervened in Iraq and focused on A'stan we may have a had a chance to clean up better and get out. But, no one wants us out of A'stan. There also wouldn't have been an influx foreign fighters pouring into the country either. The worst mistake we made aside from going there was not understanding the shifts and rifts with the Kurds, Shia and Sunni. Saddam was the glue that held it together and once the "strongman" was gone it was inevitable that it fell apart.
So Iraq was flipping the bird to the UN and it's sanctions. Much of the UN hates the United States as much as Al-Qaeda and we would flip the UN the bird as well if sanctions were ever imposed upon us. Iraq had no involvement in 9/11. Iraq had no WMD. And Al-Qaeda was not even in Iraq until we went there. And I have never understood why we should be sending Americans to fight and die so as to "spread democracy", a form of government detested by our Founding Fathers.
The simple fact is that Al-Qaeda would not be in control of Fallujah if Bush had not invaded Iraq.
All the evidence points to the fact that we were attacked by a terrorist group that was supported by Saudi Arabia, and this connection was apparently very well known to Bush, yet he decided to make the actual nation who attacked us our "allies" in the "war on terror".
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
Bush has not yet been justly "raked over the coals" for what he did, but here's hoping one day no one ever utters his name without contempt for letting those truly responsible for committing an act of war against the United States walk away scott free.
Upon what are you basing your claim? As far as I know, all that was ever found were some old artillery shells that contained degraded mustard gas that could not have been ever fired because the shells were so corroded. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam knew they existed. And let's not forget that many of the WMDs that he used to possess were ones that the United States in fact gave him, knowing full well, even hoping, that he would use them, against Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War
"Documents since captured inside Iraq by coalition forces are reported to reveal Saddam's frustration with weapon inspections. Meeting transcripts record him saying to senior aides: "We don't have anything hidden!" In another, he remarks: "When is this going to end?" And another: "Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing."
Nightvisionary
01-04-14, 04:37
Bullshit. A "motherload" warehouse full? Probably not, but they did have them. Don't disagree totally with the other stuff you wrote but you drank the Kool Aid on this one.
I don't believe anyone has ever argued that Iraq never had WMD's. The problem is they didn't have them in 2003, at least in any quantities worthy of a major press conference and invasion.
You can say what you want, but I have personally been the former nuclear site south of Baghdad where they had tons of yellow cake. Now one can argue that they may never have done anything with it, but Saddam decided to play a game of bluff poker and he lost. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/#.Usffv9JDuSo
The article states that it was simply naturally occurring uranium that could not have even been used for a "dirty bomb" that the UN already knew existed and in fact had already been under UN safeguard.
"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
I will agree though that had we not intervened in Iraq and focused on A'stan we may have a had a chance to clean up better and get out. But, no one wants us out of A'stan. There also wouldn't have been an influx foreign fighters pouring into the country either. The worst mistake we made aside from going there was not understanding the shifts and rifts with the Kurds, Shia and Sunni. Saddam was the glue that held it together and once the "strongman" was gone it was inevitable that it fell apart.
Agreed.
Just as mad I'm reading "House to House." What timing.
Magic_Salad0892
01-04-14, 07:38
It was confirmed that Saddam was in possession of Uranium 235 right?
And the only reason to possess Uranium 235 is to enrich it to 238.
Weren't they in trucks circling the country or something at one point?
VooDoo6Actual
01-04-14, 08:42
Reading this parroting panoptic drivel reminds me why I go elsewhere for facts.
Some epic stellar logic & disinformation. Iraq voids Hussein, USA annexes Obama.
Goebbels was right. Carry on.
Just a preview of what's to come throughout Iraq and Afghanistan when the USA pulls out.
So Iraq was flipping the bird to the UN and it's sanctions. Much of the UN hates the United States as much as Al-Qaeda and we would flip the UN the bird as well if sanctions were ever imposed upon us. Iraq had no involvement in 9/11. Iraq had no WMD. And Al-Qaeda was not even in Iraq until we went there. And I have never understood why we should be sending Americans to fight and die so as to "spread democracy", a form of government detested by our Founding Fathers.
The simple fact is that Al-Qaeda would not be in control of Fallujah if Bush had not invaded Iraq.
All the evidence points to the fact that we were attacked by a terrorist group that was supported by Saudi Arabia, and this connection was apparently very well known to Bush, yet he decided to make the actual nation who attacked us our "allies" in the "war on terror".
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
Bush has not yet been justly "raked over the coals" for what he did, but here's hoping one day no one ever utters his name without contempt for letting those truly responsible for committing an act of war against the United States walk away scott free.
We have an Obama believer in our midst, using Wikipedia as a source no less.
"Belloc" from Wikipedia
His most lasting legacy is probably his verse, which encompasses comic verses for children and religious poetry. Among his best-remembered poems are from his humorous Cautionary Tales for Children, including "Jim, who ran away from his nurse, and was eaten by a lion" and "Matilda, who told lies and was burnt to death".[5]
HackerF15E
01-04-14, 10:05
They can have it. Never should have taken it in the first place.
I have to say, though, that I've worked with/trained several Iraqi officers/pilots, all of whom are extremely thankful for the removal of Saddam and the opportunity to start over -- even if there is a lot of chaos as a result.
We have an Obama believer in our midst, using Wikipedia as a source no less.
Yes, of course, not agreeing with the fake conservative that was Bush, puts one automatically in Obama's camp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1n5CQe1krI
Eventually, somewhere, sometime, we are going to have to spill more American blood on these ****ers...
We had FLIR imagery showing truck convoys fleeing Iraq, into Syria. During our first hours back in country. Saddam used gas against the Kurds. There is no disputing that. There are some very believable "stories" that we may have sold, or leveraged delivery of, chemical weapons for influence in the region, or hoping to create a stalemate with Iran/Ayatollah.
Oddly, some years after the truck convoys leaves Iraq into Syria, some element in Syria uses the same type of gas against Free Syrian Army & civilians.
Probably nothing to it, just a mere coincidence. I buy into Occam's Razor though.
SeriousStudent
01-04-14, 11:00
It was confirmed that Saddam was in possession of Uranium 235 right?
And the only reason to possess Uranium 235 is to enrich it to 238.
Weren't they in trucks circling the country or something at one point?
You have your isotopes reversed. 235 is fissionable, 238 is not. You separate 235 from 238 to get weapons-grade material.
You can use either gaseous diffusion to do this, or centrifuges. Both are expensive and difficult. Work has also been done using lasers, but not on any scale big enough for a weapons program.
More uranium is require for a weapon than with plutonium. But you can gather enough uranium to build a weapon, without having to build what is often called a "breeder" reactor. Plutonium is a natural by-product of fission reactions in reactors.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress.
We had FLIR imagery showing truck convoys fleeing Iraq, into Syria. During our first hours back in country. Saddam used gas against the Kurds. There is no disputing that. There are some very believable "stories" that we may have sold, or leveraged delivery of, chemical weapons for influence in the region, or hoping to create a stalemate with Iran/Ayatollah.
Oddly, some years after the truck convoys leaves Iraq into Syria, some element in Syria uses the same type of gas against Free Syrian Army & civilians.
Probably nothing to it, just a mere coincidence. I buy into Occam's Razor though.
No way! That isn't in Wikipedia and wasn't in the MSM.
Well I don't work for Wikipedia or the U.N. I did however work for the company that had the contract to safeguard the material and team that was there on the ground gathering up all of it. As I recall there was a small team of U.S military there along with our personnel.
The article states that it was simply naturally occurring uranium that could not have even been used for a "dirty bomb" that the UN already knew existed and in fact had already been under UN safeguard.
"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
Agreed.
Upon what are you basing your claim? As far as I know, all that was ever found were some old artillery shells that contained degraded mustard gas that could not have been ever fired because the shells were so corroded. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam knew they existed. And let's not forget that many of the WMDs that he used to possess were ones that the United States in fact gave him, knowing full well, even hoping, that he would use them, against Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War
"Documents since captured inside Iraq by coalition forces are reported to reveal Saddam's frustration with weapon inspections. Meeting transcripts record him saying to senior aides: "We don't have anything hidden!" In another, he remarks: "When is this going to end?" And another: "Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing."
There were several of those caches found. The MSM played them down and Bush, for whatever reason, chose not to make them an issue and say "See!". Degraded and unusable? According to who? The MSM? And Saddam, the omnipotent strongman, didn't know they were there? Yeah, whatever. Let's not forget that it is strongly suspected that the chem weapons the Syrians have used (you know, being the OTHER country with a Baath Party) came from Iraq. There have been numerous reports of Saddam's shifting of those at the 11th hour.
Iraqgunz states he personally saw the yellow cake facility. I spoke to a retiring SgtMaj a few years ago whose guys were hit with an IED made from a nerve agent shell. Although he said it was unlikely the insurgents knew exactly what it was, or else didn't know it was binary and had to be fired to properly mix, it nonetheless caused a few of his guys to do "the funky chicken" (his words). This was in late '03 or early '04 and he said fortunately most Hummers still had chem kits on board so they were able to inject these guys and get them a medevac. IIRC it happened more than once. So, don't tell me he had no WMD. He did.
Oh, although it's not a WMD-related issue, there WAS that airplane fuselage at Salman Pak set up for training a takeover of a commercial aircraft. What was that for, training Iraq's Delta Force?
I don't believe anyone has ever argued that Iraq never had WMD's. The problem is they didn't have them in 2003, at least in any quantities worthy of a major press conference and invasion.
Look, you either DO have them or you DO NOT have them. That's like being a little bit pregnant.
ClearedHot
01-04-14, 12:42
Back to the topic of AQI reclaiming Fallujah...what a kick in the balls this is to all the Marines and other service members that fought in Phantom Fury.
We had FLIR imagery showing truck convoys fleeing Iraq, into Syria. During our first hours back in country. Saddam used gas against the Kurds. There is no disputing that. There are some very believable "stories" that we may have sold, or leveraged delivery of, chemical weapons for influence in the region, or hoping to create a stalemate with Iran/Ayatollah.
Oddly, some years after the truck convoys leaves Iraq into Syria, some element in Syria uses the same type of gas against Free Syrian Army & civilians.
Probably nothing to it, just a mere coincidence. I buy into Occam's Razor though.
C'mon Shivan, you're not buying the [insert extremely sarcastic voice here] WELL KNOWN fact...you know, like EVERYBODY knows it.... that Saddam didn't have WMD. Get on the train dude!
No way! That isn't in Wikipedia and wasn't in the MSM.
Go figure......
Nightvisionary
01-04-14, 12:57
Look, you either DO have them or you DO NOT have them. That's like being a little bit pregnant.
Exactly. The U.S. Government acknowledged a total of 53 degraded pre-1991 chemical munitions were discovered. That doesn't seem like much of a program to me. The equates to 680 U.S. casualties per munition recovered. If that was the reason for initiating a war then the reason was insufficient.
Look, you either DO have them or you DO NOT have them. That's like being a little bit pregnant.
Just because someone was pregnant years ago, it does not follow that that person must then still be pregnant today.
Removed - SeriousStudent.
SeriousStudent
01-04-14, 13:06
Do not let this thread take a personal tone.
Only warning.
Exactly. The U.S. Government acknowledged a total of 53 degraded pre-1991 chemical munitions were discovered. That doesn't seem like much of a program to me. The equates to 680 U.S. casualties per munition recovered. If that was the reason for initiating a war then the reason was insufficient.
Once again, who makes that determination? Wiki? The MSM? Apparently they were undegraded enough to cause casualties when used as IED's as per my face-to-face with someone who was actually there and saw it. I'm sure it's not like milk.
Then there's the (true, not hard evidence) shifting of them to Syria as all hell was about to break loose.
Iraqgunz states he personally saw the yellow cake facility.
Everyone knew the yellowcake was there. Saddam wasn't hiding it. It was under UN safeguard and had been for years. Perhaps you should have actually clicked on the link that Iraqgunz provided in his post.
Do not let this thread take a personal tone.
Only warning.
Hey, no problem. This disinformation has been something I've been railing against for almost 11 years now, and will continue to until I croak. There will always be a divide and a "definition" war over this topic.
SeriousStudent
01-04-14, 13:16
Hey, no problem. This disinformation has been something I've been railing against for almost 11 years now, and will continue to until I croak. There will always be a divide and a "definition" war over this topic.
And discussion is fine. But people better take personal disagreements to PM, or be prepared to take a vacation from this board.
Everyone knew the yellowcake was there. Saddam wasn't hiding it. It was under UN safeguard and had been for years. Perhaps you should have actually clicked on the link that Iraqgunz provided in his post.
I was only side-referencing his mention of yellow cake; my jist was the chems.
Since you brought it up concerning the yellow cake: I'm 48 so I was well into my adult political/war/current events attention-paying years when this all went down. I watched this all develop like a hawk (was off work for 6 weeks with shoulder surgery so there wasn't much else to do). I specifically remember the MSM poo-poo'ing the assertions of yellow cake and that Saddam had sought it in Africa. BIG stink about it. Then quietly a year or two later you heard that indeed there WAS some hanky-panky and he DID indeed have it and had made attempts to get it (just like was originally claimed....go figure). Of course it was NEVER screamed from the mountaintops by the MSM like the initial Bush-bashing accusations were.
Nightvisionary
01-04-14, 13:52
Once again, who makes that determination? Wiki? The MSM? Apparently they were undegraded enough to cause casualties when used as IED's as per my face-to-face with someone who was actually there and saw it. I'm sure it's not like milk.
Then there's the (true, not hard evidence) shifting of them to Syria as all hell was about to break loose.
I base my opinions on the official CIA WMD report. From what I have read Iraq had the capability to produce chemical munitions within 3-6 months however an active production capability was not in place. If you could show me official reports stating a different conclusion that would certainly be helpful. A single IED made from an old chemical shell in a country littered with ordnance from wars with Iran and the West does not equate to an organized Iraqi government sanctioned chemical weapon program. The fact that Uday Hussein attempted to acquire chemical weapons after the invasion began is evidence that such weapons did not exist in military stockpiles at the time of the invasion.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included
the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense.
However, ISG has no information that the plan ever included a trigger for CW use.
• Despite reported high-level discussions about the use of chemical weapons in the defense of Iraq, informa-
tion acquired after OIF does not confirm the inclusion of CW in Iraq’s tactical planning for OIF. We believe
these were mostly theoretical discussions and do not imply the existence of undiscovered CW munitions.
3
Chemical
• Uday—head of the Fedayeen Saddam—attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according
to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons
A single IED made from an old chemical shell in a country littered with ordnance from wars with Iran and the West does not equate to an organized Iraqi government sanctioned chemical weapon program.
I guess what my point was is that "degraded" is a very subjective term. If it was still "valid" (right word?) enough to cause casualties---even when not activated properly by it's artillery firing mechanism---then it obviously still had potential.
Again, although I'll admit there's no photographed smoking gun (unless it's under wraps for some reason by the spooks), there are many reports of said chemicals being shifted to their fellow Baathists in Syria.
FWIW, as a side note, I have a very good friend who is a retired SgtMaj (not the same guy I mentioned above) from 5th Group who was in Desert Storm. He has said that Saddam did use the shit then as their chem-alarms went off more than once during artillery barrages, one of which blew back over the Iraqi's position. A number of guys from his Group have died of different cancers, not unlike many other Gulf War vets. Oh, and for the OPSEC-conscious out there these allegations have surfaced before; if it was hush-hush it would only have been so to prevent Bush the Elder from backing up his threat to use nukes if Saddam used chemical weapons. It's no secret there is something about Gulf War Syndrome.....kinda like how long it took to admit Agent Orange was a f**k-up. Yeah, I know this wasn't OIF but I thought I'd throw it out there.
"Reports", is a very subjective term.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war
How is it possible that AQ is even operating anymore? Didn't the POTUS say that AQ was weakened and "on its way to defeat"?:rolleyes:
scoutfsu99
01-04-14, 15:04
How is it possible that AQ is even operating anymore? Didn't the POTUS say that AQ was weakened and "on its way to defeat"?:rolleyes:
Because as a whole, this country doesn't have the backbone, stamina, nor the attention span to fully engage and destroy the enemy. If its not affecting their McDonalds or Duck Dynasty, most people have the attention span of squirrels.
How is it possible that AQ is even operating anymore? Didn't the POTUS say that AQ was weakened and "on its way to defeat"?:rolleyes:
Nonsense, it's only because we weren't told that if we wanted to defeat AQ we could keep that plan...
Sent from my DROID X2
"Reports", is a very subjective term.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war
I do believe I put a caveat before that did I not?
Oh, BTW....if you give credence to the guy in that link what about the ex-Iraqi Air Force general who said the WMD's were moved to Syria? You can't pick and choose who to believe at your convenience. Either they're both right, both wrong, or both questionable. Pick one.
Honestly, I don't see how this comes as a surprise to anyone.
Good to know my childhood friend died there for no reason. We should have took that country over and made it a state or a ****ing parking lot.
Is anyone surprised by this news? We shouldn't have been there in the first place. Our soldiers gave their lives and the national debt increased and for what? To supposedly "Free" a people who didn't even want us there and were content with the way things were? I suppose our corrupt govt gained something out of the so called war.
Oh, BTW....if you give credence to the guy in that link what about the ex-Iraqi Air Force general who said the WMD's were moved to Syria? You can't pick and choose who to believe at your convenience. Either they're both right, both wrong, or both questionable. Pick one.
I go only so far as the evidence takes me. And I would not trust an ex_Iraqi anything as far as I could throw him. But it is rather obvious that in fact you yourself are 'picking whom to believe at your convenience'. If you don't recommend doing it, then lead by example.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.