View Full Version : ISIS brags it can get a nuke or dirty bomb into US
Doc Safari
06-03-15, 15:48
....through Mexico.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/03/dabiq-isis-could-transport-nuke-from-nigeria-into-u-s-through-mexico/
The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), in the latest edition of its propaganda magazine, indicated that it could purchase a nuclear weapon in Pakistan, take it to Nigeria, and then smuggle it into the U.S. through Mexico by using existing trafficking networks in Latin America.
In March, Gen. John Kelly, then-commander of U.S. Southern Command (Southcom), warned that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS could exploit the capabilities and knowledge of Latin American smuggling networks to infiltrate the U.S. through Mexico and possibly bring in weapons of mass destruction.
“Let me throw a hypothetical operation onto the table,” Cantlie wrote in the article entitled “The Perfect Storm.” “The Islamic State has billions of dollars in the bank, so they call on their wilāyah [province] in Pakistan to purchase a nuclear device through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials in the region.” He addded:
The weapon is then transported over land until it makes it to Libya, where the mujāhidīn [fighters] move it south to Nigeria. Drug shipments from Columbia bound for Europe pass through West Africa, so moving other types of contraband from East to West is just as possible.The nuke and accompanying mujāhidīn arrive on the shorelines of South America and are transported through the porous borders of Central America before arriving in Mexico and up to the border with the United States.
If not a nuke, ISIS could easily smuggle in “a few thousand tons of ammonium nitrate explosive” that is easy to manufacture, said the article.
Discounting the fact that this is also a lot of posturing like the Islamists are famous for, our southern border certainly isn't secure and their threat is credible. You can't leave the front door open without some flies getting into the house.
When are our government officials going to wake up?
I get it...I get it...both sides want illegals as future voters, union members, cheap labor, future parishioners, and whatnot, but none of that will matter if some radical group actually starts setting off WMD's in major cities.
I actually pity the politicians when that happens. The American people will want their heads along with the heads of the enemy.
brickboy240
06-03-15, 16:03
If poor, uneducated, unfit women and children can get into the US border states...why do we think ISIS cannot do the same thing?
SilverBullet432
06-03-15, 16:37
The Mexico-Guatemalan border is heavily patrolled. Just as gringos don't want illegal mexicans here, Mexicans don't want illegal Guatemalan's either. They'd have to bribe someone big time to smuggle a nuke through there. Im not saying it cant be done, happens everyday.
They'd have to bribe someone big time to smuggle a nuke through there. Im not saying it cant be done, happens everyday.
Bribe someone in Mexico? Yeah, like that would be hard to do.
....through Mexico.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/03/dabiq-isis-could-transport-nuke-from-nigeria-into-u-s-through-mexico/
Discounting the fact that this is also a lot of posturing like the Islamists are famous for, our southern border certainly isn't secure and their threat is credible. You can't leave the front door open without some flies getting into the house..
I fully expect this will happen before we are past the ISIS threat. May be just a dirty bomb, but something like this will occur.
I believe it would be easier (now) for them to logistically pull off than the original 9/11 attacks.
I 'almost' wish something like that would happen so the gov and liberals could get the slap in their face they need and finally secure the borders.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-03-15, 17:14
A dirty bomb on them would include Baco's bits....
Sounds like they could get it on an airplane pretty easy...
I 'almost' wish something like that would happen so the gov and liberals could get the slap in their face they need and finally secure the borders.
If such a horrific event were to transpire, let it be in Detroit or Dearborn as the landscape won't change much before or after.
Doc Safari
06-03-15, 17:18
I seriously DO NOT want to see ISIS succeed in setting off a WMD in this country. Are you guys nuts?
What I DO hope for is that a credible plot will be interrupted and the perps dealt with....that should be enough to get the American public awake and demanding their "representatives" take action.
I think they could probably do it, but I also think it would be the last thing they would want to do. Obviously the douchebags have forgotten what happened after Pearl Harbor - coming soon to the middle-east near you, 8 million pissed off American soldiers.
Doc Safari
06-03-15, 17:21
I think they could probably do it, but I also think it would be the last thing they would want to do. Obviously the douchebags have forgotten what happened after Pearl Harbor - coming soon to the middle-east near you, 8 million pissed off American soldiers.
Seriously? Pearl Harbor? Any Muslim punk wannabe combatant that's even heard of Pearl Harbor probably thinks she's a decadent infidel entertainer!
How about the fact that the entire Jihadist world believes we lost in Afghanistan and Iraq? Not to mention the fact that Barry is considered at the least a weak president and at the most a Muslim sympathizer.
If I were some goat-smelling camel jockey over there right now I'd be seeing the US as a paper tiger.
I think they could probably do it, but I also think it would be the last thing they would want to do. Obviously the douchebags have forgotten what happened after Pearl Harbor - coming soon to the middle-east near you, 8 million pissed off American soldiers.
If 9-11 wasn't enough to get the job done...
If 9-11 wasn't enough to get the job done...
I got to be honest, it wasn't for me. It certainly wasn't worth the curtailing of rights and inconveinence which resulted. What has been the net gain? Absolutely no disrespect intended for the families of the persons who perished, or for the many thousands who were impacted by that heinous act. We should have just very quietly and efficiently went about killing off the folks we could identify as being involved without any fanfare, continuing the process as we identified more through intelligence efforts.
yes because most have forgotten about 9/11 ! (as mentioned by steyr)
OH never mind Bush did that
I think they could probably do it, but I also think it would be the last thing they would want to do. Obviously the douchebags have forgotten what happened after Pearl Harbor - coming soon to the middle-east near you, 8 million pissed off American soldiers.
The question isn't whether ISIS can smuggle a nuke into the U.S. but whether ISIS can actually get a nuke. Supposedly nukes have trace elements that can help identify where they came from. I have doubts that any of the current nuke players want to risk being identified as supplying one to the ISIS shitheads. Of course with the current Shitstain-in-Chief they might just get a stern talking to......:rolleyes:
The question isn't whether ISIS can smuggle a nuke into the U.S. but whether ISIS can actually get a nuke. Supposedly nukes have trace elements that can help identify where they came from. I have doubts that any of the current nuke players want to risk being identified as supplying one to the ISIS shitheads. Of course with the current Shitstain-in-Chief they might just get a stern talking to......:rolleyes:
Maybe we'll just accidentally ship them some of our own like anthrax.
I don't actually wish it would happen of course, I was insinuating that it would take an event like this for the politicians and others to realize how vulnerable we really are. I apologize if it came across that way.
If such a horrific event were to transpire, let it be in Detroit or Dearborn as the landscape won't change much before or after.
I seriously DO NOT want to see ISIS succeed in setting off a WMD in this country. Are you guys nuts?
What I DO hope for is that a credible plot will be interrupted and the perps dealt with....that should be enough to get the American public awake and demanding their "representatives" take action.
The question isn't whether ISIS can smuggle a nuke into the U.S. but whether ISIS can actually get a nuke.
This.
Can someone smuggle something into the US? Duh, of course. Not like all these drugs are made in the US.
Will someone give these. psychos a bomb? Well clearly nobody HAS, or this wouldn't be a discussion about hypotheticals.
-john
SilverBullet432
06-03-15, 21:12
This.
Can someone smuggle something into the US? Duh, of course. Not like all these drugs are made in the US.
Will someone give these. psychos a bomb? Well clearly nobody HAS, or this wouldn't be a discussion about hypotheticals.
-john
Don't forget many of these groups are funded by war-mongering millionaires.
sevenhelmet
06-03-15, 21:32
Remember: they are terrorists. They deal in creating fear. Threatening a weak point in our security is their bread and butter, regardless of their ability to carry out such a threat. That said, dirty bombs are not as hard to gather materials for or construct as one might think. I would bet solidly that they are trying to make one. As for an actual nuke, I have serious doubts they could get one. Even a rogue nation would be loth to part with a strategic asset, even if it did trash their most hated enemy.
I seriously DO NOT want to see ISIS succeed in setting off a WMD in this country. Are you guys nuts?
What I DO hope for is that a credible plot will be interrupted and the perps dealt with....that should be enough to get the American public awake and demanding their "representatives" take action.
No it won't. The people in our gov't are so stupid, so corrupt, and they are more worried about getting reelected, and raising money that nothing short of a mushroom cloud over Manhattan will wake them up, and by then it will be too late. And, the people who vote these worthless jack-off's in, are also just as stupid, The majority of people in this country are not capable of thinking critically,(Obumbo getting elected twice is more than enough proof) And the gravity of a situation like a nuke getting snuck in and getting lit off, is way beyond their limited understanding of what's going on in the world, or for that matter caring.. just keep the EBT cards charged up.
I got to be honest, it wasn't for me. It certainly wasn't worth the curtailing of rights and inconveinence which resulted. What has been the net gain? Absolutely no disrespect intended for the families of the persons who perished, or for the many thousands who were impacted by that heinous act. We should have just very quietly and efficiently went about killing off the folks we could identify as being involved without any fanfare, continuing the process as we identified more through intelligence efforts.
Not that I disagree with any of that, but my point was if 9-11 wasn't enough to galvanize the country and decisively destroy the threat of Islamic terrorism then nothing is. Quite honestly within a few years your average dipshit was buying into conspiracy nonsense like Bush or Israel was actually behind the attack and within a few more years we were more concerned about collateral damage than the safety and security of those we sent into harms way.
We stopped waging an effective war on terrorism long before Osama was killed and that event was all the excuse we needed to phase everything out as if we realistically changed anything but the actual players. We destroyed the Iraqi military and as a result had to become a babysitter so that Iran wouldn't inherit their oil fields. And by tipping the power balance from Sunni to Shia (as if there is any real difference when it comes to hating America) we will end up handing everything over to Iran anyway as their Shiai militias are the only ones actively fighting ISIS. The Shiai majority Iraqi government either isn't capable of defending itself or it is simply taking a dive so that Iran can come in and rescue them.
I don't think a dirty bomb or nuke detonated in this country will do anything except cause the population to blame Republicans because they couldn't agree on a comprehensive immigration bill which would wishfully include border security.
The question isn't whether ISIS can smuggle a nuke into the U.S. but whether ISIS can actually get a nuke. Supposedly nukes have trace elements that can help identify where they came from. I have doubts that any of the current nuke players want to risk being identified as supplying one to the ISIS shitheads. Of course with the current Shitstain-in-Chief they might just get a stern talking to......:rolleyes:
Do you really think we can identify North Korean nuclear material that was funded by Iran and provided to a radical terrorist group? What sample are we going to compare that with.
I got to be honest, it wasn't for me.
Is this how you felt at the time? Or is it hindsight speaking?
If 9-11 wasn't enough to get the job done...
Exactly. The fact that 9-11 occurred and our border remains so porous is outrageous. That should have been one of the first orders of business.
Mauser KAR98K
06-04-15, 08:11
I seriously DO NOT want to see ISIS succeed in setting off a WMD in this country. Are you guys nuts?
What I DO hope for is that a credible plot will be interrupted and the perps dealt with....that should be enough to get the American public awake and demanding their "representatives" take action.
Nope. It would just get some air time because it didnt bleed. Back to Jenner's drama.
Smuggling nukes in by road is hard because most of the ports have radiation detectors.
Anything is possible, but I would bet that a chemical or biological threat is more plausible.
Even many tactical nukes aren't really man portable.
Isis is just talking shit. Question is if something did happen, would this admin have the balls to do something about it.
I'd like a better border also, but there are too many forces that oppose that, on both sides of the isle for various reasons.
Is this how you felt at the time? Or is it hindsight speaking?
Depends on your definition of hindsight. At the time I was outraged and mourned the loss of life, feelings that are still with me. In the weeks and months that passed as we learned about the ineptness of the people and agencies we had trusted our security to, outrage turned to frustration and disgust.
I've always felt we should just STFU and let our entirely competent special ops guys go about their merry way beheading the terrorist organizations as intel developed leads.
I never equated 9-11 to anything but terrorists, so in that respect, at least for me, I didn't liken the attack to Pearl Harbor. I was not for the war in Iraq, I never believed stories of direct linkage or WMD's were credible. When it became apparent that our 'war on the cheap' was resulting in essentially back to back deployments for those serving I thought we should reinstate the draft - if you are in it, you need to win it.
Obviously, the political costs for the Chickenhawks were too much for them to do the right thing. And the steady erosion of our freedoms and the compromising of American principles has further disgusted me.
ISIS is rapidly approaching Nation State status. If they dirty bombed or nuked us, we would be able to find definitive geographic locales to transition to wastelands. I would be all for that.
I hope that kind of explains.
I never believed stories of direct linkage or WMD's were credible.
Just so I'm getting you.
You don't believe Saddam had chemical weapons which he used on the Kurds?
You don't believe Saddam maintained a capacity to develop more chemical weapons?
You don't believe Saddam played a shell game and was evasive when the UN tried to establish the existence of stockpiles of chemical weapons or a capacity to produce more?
You don't believe Saddam was openly hostile to the US after Kuwait and would be willing to provide chemical weapons to terrorist groups who would gladly employ them against the US?
I wasn't crazy about the Iraq war, that really isn't where the 9-11 threat was coming from. But following 9-11 we needed to confirm the capacity of Iraqs chemical weapons ability and account for any inventory. I was all for taking Saddam out of power after he repeatedly threatened the US and then backed down when we ramped up for direct action.
My objection is that we completely disabled the Iraqi government and as a direct consequence the Iraqi military. It would have been far better to remove Saddam and the top tier supporters of Saddam and then tell them "don't make us come back." Done correctly we might have even developed some kind of actual alliance along the lines of the one Reagan created with Iraq.
Just so I'm getting you.
You don't believe Saddam had chemical weapons which he used on the Kurds? - He did and he moved a lot of them to Syria via train, where they are now being used.
You don't believe Saddam maintained a capacity to develop more chemical weapons? - He did
You don't believe Saddam played a shell game and was evasive when the UN tried to establish the existence of stockpiles of chemical weapons or a capacity to produce more? -He did
You don't believe Saddam was openly hostile to the US after Kuwait and would be willing to provide chemical weapons to terrorist groups who would gladly employ them against the US? - He was
I wasn't crazy about the Iraq war, that really isn't where the 9-11 threat was coming from. But following 9-11 we needed to confirm the capacity of Iraqs chemical weapons ability and account for any inventory. I was all for taking Saddam out of power after he repeatedly threatened the US and then backed down when we ramped up for direct action. - Yep
My objection is that we completely disabled the Iraqi government and as a direct consequence the Iraqi military. It would have been far better to remove Saddam and the top tier supporters of Saddam and then tell them "don't make us come back." Done correctly we might have even developed some kind of actual alliance along the lines of the one Reagan created with Iraq. - Instead we screwed it up Royally and left in a hurry because of the campaign promise of a fool.
My comments above in Red.
Outlander Systems
06-04-15, 18:58
Makes you wonder if Jeff Wise's "Spoof Theory" might have some validity.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/jeff-wise-mh370-theory.html
http://jeffwise.net/the-spoof-part-1-why-a-speculative-scenario/
Whether the plane went to Baikonur or elsewhere in Kazakhstan, my suspicion fell on Russia. With technically advanced satellite, avionics, and aircraft-manufacturing industries, Russia was a paranoid fantasist’s dream.24 (The Russians, or at least Russian-backed militia, were also suspected in the downing of Malaysia Flight 17 in July.) Why, exactly, would Putin want to steal a Malaysian passenger plane? I had no idea. Maybe he wanted to demonstrate to the United States, which had imposed the first punitive sanctions on Russia the day before, that he could hurt the West and its allies anywhere in the world. Maybe what he was really after were the secrets of one of the plane’s passengers.25 Maybe there was something strategically crucial in the hold. Or maybe he wanted the plane to show up unexpectedly somewhere someday, packed with explosives. There’s no way to know. That’s the thing about MH370 theory-making: It’s hard to come up with a plausible motive for an act that has no apparent beneficiaries.
http://youtu.be/JNPsHQcE2OQ
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/missing-libyan-jetliners-raise-fears-of-suicide-airliner-attacks-on-911/
Counterterrorism expert Sebastian Gorka said that if the theft is confirmed, the stolen aircraft could be used in at least two ways.
“The first would be how commercial airliners were used on Sept. 11, 2001, literally turning an innocent mode of mass transit into a super-high precision guided missile of immense potency,” said Gorka, who holds the Maj. Gen. Charles Horner chair at Marine Corps University in Quantico, Va.
“The second tactic could be to use the airframe with its civilian markings as a tool of deception to insert a full payload of armed terrorists into a locale that otherwise is always open to commercial carriers,” he said.
- See more at: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/missing-libyan-jetliners-raise-fears-of-suicide-airliner-attacks-on-911/#sthash.gA2C6rqn.dpuf
Loosie Goosie:
http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/loose-nukes/p9549
In which countries are loose nukes a problem?
Mainly in Russia. Before its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union had more than 27,000 nuclear weapons and enough weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to triple that number. Since, severe economic distress, rampant crime, and widespread corruption in Russia and other former Soviet countries have fed concerns in the West about loose nukes, underpaid nuclear scientists, and the smuggling of nuclear materials. Security at Russia’s nuclear storage sites remains worrisome
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132173
"I don't really believe this is true," Putin said. "These are just legends. One can probably assume that somebody tried to sell some nuclear secrets. But there is no documentary confirmation of those developments."
More on the Putin Interview
But Weldon says he got a much different answer four years ago when he went to talk to with one of Russia's top generals.
The general, formerly Russia's leading defense adviser, said 86 of 132 suitcase bombs were unaccounted for.
Where were the missing nukes?
"I have no idea," Weldon recalled the general saying.
http://cns.miis.edu/reports/lebedlg.htm
Former Russian Security Council Secretary Aleksandr Lebed has stirred controversy in both Russia and the United States with his allegations that the Russian government is currently unable to account for some eighty small atomic demolition munitions (ADMs) which were manufactured in the USSR during the Cold War. Lebed originally made the allegations in a closed meeting with a US congressional delegation in May 1997. His charges generated public controversy three months later when he repeated them in an interview with the CBS newsmagazine 60 Minutes, which was broadcast on 7 September 1997.[1] Russian officials initially dismissed Lebed's charges, saying all of the country's nuclear weapons were accounted for and under strict control. Top-ranking Russian defense officials later went further and denied that any such weapons had ever been built by the USSR, claiming that they would be too expensive to maintain and too heavy for practical use. Lebed has stood by his statement, however, and his charges have been backed by a former advisor to President Yeltsin, Aleksey Yablokov, who told a US Congressional subcommittee on 2 October 1997 that he was "absolutely sure" that such ADMs had been ordered in the 1970s by the KGB.
Which brings us full circle to:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/27/iran-already-has-nuclear-weapons/?page=all
In the early 1990s, the CIA asked me to find an Iranian scientist who would testify that Iran had the bomb. The CIA had learned that Iranian intelligence agents were visiting nuclear installations throughout the former Soviet Union, with particular interest in Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan, which had a significant portion of the Soviet arsenal and is predominately Muslim, was courted by Muslim Iran with offers of hundreds of millions of dollars for the bomb. Reports soon surfaced that three nuclear warheads were missing. This was corroborated by Russian Gen. Victor Samoilov, who handled the disarmament issues for the general staff. He admitted that the three were missing from Kazakhstan.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/27/iran-already-has-nuclear-weapons/#ixzz3c8xHuewy
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Do you really think we can identify North Korean nuclear material that was funded by Iran and provided to a radical terrorist group? What sample are we going to compare that with.
Just saying what I've heard a number of years back (don't recall the source). It may have been referring to nukes sold by Russia or other "big players" and not the current crop of rogue nuke programs.
Think about it: via spying or airborne surveillance we likely at one time could've identified elements of Soviet, Chinese, Pakistani, etc. testing.
***I'm no nuclear expert so please correct me if I'm in error.
Outlander Systems
06-04-15, 19:44
Just saying what I've heard a number of years back (don't recall the source). It may have been referring to nukes sold by Russia or other "big players" and not the current crop of rogue nuke programs.
Think about it: via spying or airborne surveillance we likely at one time could've identified elements of Soviet, Chinese, Pakistani, etc. testing.
84 of 132 Suitcase nukes are currently "unaccounted for".
There were a lot of whispers about these back in the 90's.
http://youtu.be/kR2IarjjmxE
***I'm no nuclear expert so please correct me if I'm in error.[/QUOTE]
Instead we screwed it up Royally and left in a hurry because of the campaign promise of a fool.
Actually I think the first screw up was trying to "fix" Iraq, but that was another fool.
Sometimes ISIS just doesn't think things through:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11652942/Moron-militants-selfie-leads-to-US-air-raid-on-Isil-unit.html
Actually I think the first screw up was trying to "fix" Iraq, but that was another fool.
That is what I meant. The idiot two step. Fixing it broke it and then leaving broke it worse.
MountainRaven
06-04-15, 20:57
1- The Russians are not stupid enough to give Islamists nukes. If they gave ISIS a nuke and a plane, the plane would plow into a building in America and the nuke would go off in Moscow (or maybe Tel Aviv).
2- As soon as any Islamist nuke goes off in the US, shred and burn the Constitution: People will be ecstatic to give up their Constitutionally-protected rights in exchange for the illusion of increased safety. We will get Patriot Act 2.0, which will just be the first one turned up to 11. The only reason we're seeing things roll back now is because Americans are not afraid of an Islamist attack like 9/11 occurring again in the near future - and a handful of vociferous civil libertarians. If Americans thought that another 9/11 was imminent, they would hand the keys to their lives over to the government to prevent it and the vociferous few would be drowned out.
If you're not happy with the direction this country is headed in, a nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack by ISIS would kick it into a flat spin: It might be over sooner, but the chances of recovery before then would be effectively zero.
That is what I meant. The idiot two step. Fixing it broke it and then leaving broke it worse.
As much as I'm NOT a fan of Obama, if we weren't going to do what was necessary to effectively correct things, then the best course of action is to come home. Sure it meant everything was mostly for nothing and that we would fail all of those who were killed, wounded or served...but at least we wouldn't continue to run that number up.
It never ceases to amaze me when our country, given what we are capable of actually doing, decides instead to horribly screw up everything and get good men killed in the process. We have Presidents who take the time to give Civil War, WWI and WWII veterans the Medal of Honor long after the fact to recognize their efforts (and of course to be the President who cared enough...etc.) and reward them but at the same time think nothing of the current members of the military which they send into harms way on some half ass, poorly defined mission with half of what they need and dangerously restrictive rules of engagement.
I'm sure if you could ask those long dead veterans what they would prefer, they would "to a man" wish to be forgotten and remain unrecognized if it meant those who fight today actually get the support and consideration they deserve.
Just so I'm getting you.
the statement was 'I never believed' that would be past tense, as in at the time. However:
You don't believe Saddam had chemical weapons which he used on the Kurds? Yes, common knowledge.
You don't believe Saddam maintained a capacity to develop more chemical weapons? Probably, most chemical weapons can be made pretty easily.
You don't believe Saddam played a shell game and was evasive when the UN tried to establish the existence of stockpiles of chemical weapons or a capacity to produce more? Did the U.N. ever establish said stockpiles?
You don't believe Saddam was openly hostile to the US after Kuwait and would be willing to provide chemical weapons to terrorist groups who would gladly employ them against the US? Well, hell yes, but the question was did he have a credible inventory of WMD's, not is he my BFF. I did not think he did. Sure he disarmed unwillingly, sure he was caught fibbing, but at different times before the invasion both Ritter and Blix said there wasn't any proof he had any usable WMD's.
Bush himself said - I felt all along the decision was his to make. He said -- the world said, disclose, disarm. In the meantime, I want you to remember, he was deceiving inspectors. It's a logical question to ask: Why would somebody want to deceive inspectors? I also told you earlier that when America speaks, we got to mean what we said. I meant what we said when we embraced that resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. Words mean something in this world if you're trying to protect the American people.
I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as disappointed as everybody else is. But what wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country. He had used weapons of mass destruction. He had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. He was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country. (Applause.) http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/04.06.06.html
I wasn't crazy about the Iraq war, that really isn't where the 9-11 threat was coming from. But following 9-11 we needed to confirm the capacity of Iraqs chemical weapons ability and account for any inventory. I was all for taking Saddam out of power after he repeatedly threatened the US and then backed down when we ramped up for direct action.
No, what we should have done was starting shooting Saddam Husseins until we ran through all the body doubles and for sure got him, then started on his cabinet until we got to someone who wanted to grow Iraq in a generally acceptable manner. We should have totally focused on Afghanistan.
My objection is that we completely disabled the Iraqi government and as a direct consequence the Iraqi military. It would have been far better to remove Saddam and the top tier supporters of Saddam and then tell them "don't make us come back." Done correctly we might have even developed some kind of actual alliance along the lines of the one Reagan created with Iraq.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Sounds like we are more or less on the same page. That's what I kinds suspected so I asked.
Too bad the UN doesn't serve a meaningful purpose, might have saved a lot of time, trouble, effort and lives. I don't think anything more clearly demonstrates the uselessness of the UN than Iraq (except maybe Syria today).
They are a glorified League of Nations and nothing more. If a country has a standard a living that is below a second world nation, UN sanctions don't mean anything. Probably not a more expensive paper tiger anywhere on the planet.
Outlander Systems
06-05-15, 03:59
1- The Russians are not stupid enough to give Islamists nukes. If they gave ISIS a nuke and a plane, the plane would plow into a building in America and the nuke would go off in Moscow (or maybe Tel Aviv).
2- As soon as any Islamist nuke goes off in the US, shred and burn the Constitution: People will be ecstatic to give up their Constitutionally-protected rights in exchange for the illusion of increased safety. We will get Patriot Act 2.0, which will just be the first one turned up to 11. The only reason we're seeing things roll back now is because Americans are not afraid of an Islamist attack like 9/11 occurring again in the near future - and a handful of vociferous civil libertarians. If Americans thought that another 9/11 was imminent, they would hand the keys to their lives over to the government to prevent it and the vociferous few would be drowned out.
If you're not happy with the direction this country is headed in, a nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack by ISIS would kick it into a flat spin: It might be over sooner, but the chances of recovery before then would be effectively zero.
Nailed it. Our rights would vaporize.
Nailed it. Our rights would vaporize.
Or they would try to make them disappear at any rate. Succeeding at doing so is a whole other story.
Or they would try to make them disappear at any rate. Succeeding at doing so is a whole other story.
Idk, they've done a pretty good job chipping away thus far.
Idk, they've done a pretty good job chipping away thus far.
Only difference is that it's been the slowly-boiling frog up to now. That scenario would likely entail throwing the frog into the already-boiling water, to which he would leap out. Just sayin'......
As much as I'm NOT a fan of Obama, if we weren't going to do what was necessary to effectively correct things, then the best course of action is to come home. Sure it meant everything was mostly for nothing and that we would fail all of those who were killed, wounded or served...but at least we wouldn't continue to run that number up.
It never ceases to amaze me when our country, given what we are capable of actually doing, decides instead to horribly screw up everything and get good men killed in the process. We have Presidents who take the time to give Civil War, WWI and WWII veterans the Medal of Honor long after the fact to recognize their efforts (and of course to be the President who cared enough...etc.) and reward them but at the same time think nothing of the current members of the military which they send into harms way on some half ass, poorly defined mission with half of what they need and dangerously restrictive rules of engagement.
I'm sure if you could ask those long dead veterans what they would prefer, they would "to a man" wish to be forgotten and remain unrecognized if it meant those who fight today actually get the support and consideration they deserve.
Yes, agree 100% but just watch, we're not through shedding blood in that region.
Yes, agree 100% but just watch, we're not through shedding blood in that region.
We're also not done making horrible mistakes. Hard as it might be to imagine, Hillary will be worse than Obama, she understands things better and can more effectively get her way believing her policies will actually work.
I fear Obama won't be the worst President in US history for very long.
Outlander Systems
06-05-15, 19:56
We're also not done making horrible mistakes. Hard as it might be to imagine, Hillary will be worse than Obama, she understands things better and can more effectively get her way believing her policies will actually work.
I fear Obama won't be the worst President in US history for very long.
Hillary will be the Cristina Kirchner of America...
We're also not done making horrible mistakes. Hard as it might be to imagine, Hillary will be worse than Obama, she understands things better and can more effectively get her way believing her policies will actually work.
I fear Obama won't be the worst President in US history for very long.
I happen to be of the opinion she is not electable.
I happen to be of the opinion she is not electable.
For years people would have laughed if you suggested McCain would win the GOP nomination. People said Obama didn't have a chance and even when elected many felt there was "no way" he'd get re elected based upon his first term.
Don't kid yourself, the only thing preventing Hillary from becoming the next President of the United States is the Republicans running a stellar candidate who is all about restoring the economy and strong on national security. And the Republicans haven't run that guy in a long, long time.
MountainRaven
06-05-15, 23:50
Only difference is that it's been the slowly-boiling frog up to now. That scenario would likely entail throwing the frog into the already-boiling water, to which he would leap out. Just sayin'......
No. The frog isn't going into boiling water. It's going into the microwave.
Mauser KAR98K
06-05-15, 23:52
I have it from good word a nuke is already here. They're saying it's in Hillary, but where on her, they don't know.
I have it from good word a nuke is already here. They're saying it's in Hillary, but where on her, they don't know.
SNUKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steyr,
I was looking around yesterday and the thing I was talking about with being able to identify where a nuke came from is called nuclear forensics. The is a l-o-n-g PDF on it, just Google the term. I gave it a quick glance and it is something that would take time, i.e. the desire to immediately respond in kind would need to be ignored and wait for the "investigation" to come to fruition. PDF said it could take months.
Moose-Knuckle
06-06-15, 09:32
Well it would make for an epic false flag . . .
Averageman
06-06-15, 10:15
I really don't think you would have to "smuggle" anything in to the US.
A true "Dirty Bomb" could be made of radiated medical and industrial waste and put together in places where it could do the most harm and gain the most press exposure. Think of an unmarked dumpster and just how many places you could install one and secure the lid for a couple of weeks before it would be discovered and moved?
I think they may have the capability, just getting all of the players in the right place who would be able to assemble and risk the exposure while doing so may be the only issue slowing it down from happening.
Steyr,
I was looking around yesterday and the thing I was talking about with being able to identify where a nuke came from is called nuclear forensics. The is a l-o-n-g PDF on it, just Google the term. I gave it a quick glance and it is something that would take time, i.e. the desire to immediately respond in kind would need to be ignored and wait for the "investigation" to come to fruition. PDF said it could take months.
I knew what you were talking about, but if my understanding is correct one still needs a known sample to match against. If you had a unknown reactor producing the materials I don't think you could determine the source of the nuclear material.
As much as I'm NOT a fan of Obama, if we weren't going to do what was necessary to effectively correct things, then the best course of action is to come home. Sure it meant everything was mostly for nothing and that we would fail all of those who were killed, wounded or served...but at least we wouldn't continue to run that number up.
It never ceases to amaze me when our country, given what we are capable of actually doing, decides instead to horribly screw up everything and get good men killed in the process. We have Presidents who take the time to give Civil War, WWI and WWII veterans the Medal of Honor long after the fact to recognize their efforts (and of course to be the President who cared enough...etc.) and reward them but at the same time think nothing of the current members of the military which they send into harms way on some half ass, poorly defined mission with half of what they need and dangerously restrictive rules of engagement.
I'm sure if you could ask those long dead veterans what they would prefer, they would "to a man" wish to be forgotten and remain unrecognized if it meant those who fight today actually get the support and consideration they deserve.
Your posts in this thread, while well written, are becoming almost painful to read. I applaud your conviction to your opinion and don't want you to believe this to be an attack on your character. However, as goes the old saying, "you don't know what you don't know".
I must have missed the memo where we were losing. The long term failure in Iraq wasn't a failure of tactics on our part. It was a failure of the newborn Iraqi government to swallow their pride and let us continue the mission and the failure of the current administration to have any testicular fortitude to tell the highly secular PM to go fvck himself.
WE lacked the conviction so WE didn't do it right from the start and WE should have known better and WE shouldn't have used effective UW tactics because WE failed? That's based on nothing but YOUR opinion shaped by YOUR understanding of information presented to you by those who share YOUR interests. Yet YOU were not part of this "we", you never saw any of the first hand effects of the tactics or long term thinking in the nation building school of thought. You frequently condemn the tactics used in what was going to be a very long war. You condemn the ROE as somehow getting good troops killed based on some second hand account of unknown validity. Well I must not have been a good troop then because I never had a hard time making someone dead if I even remotely connected their actions or behavior to hostility that put my Marines or myself in danger. Maybe YOUR understanding comes from what you heard from mil members who confused the actual ROE with the shit orders they were given by weak leadership and careerists.
That's all good either way, our opinions can differ and that's good. It would be boring if we all thought alike. I am certain there are mil guys here who disagree with me, though I stand by my thoughts as they are formed from an objective review of information and experience.
What I do take offense to is your thinking that you can speak for any veterans, long dead or otherwise, about what they "to a man" would want changed. Especially when your notion that there is a lack of "support and consideration" is generally wrong.
Seriously? Pearl Harbor? Any Muslim punk wannabe combatant that's even heard of Pearl Harbor probably thinks she's a decadent infidel entertainer!
How about the fact that the entire Jihadist world believes we lost in Afghanistan and Iraq? Not to mention the fact that Barry is considered at the least a weak president and at the most a Muslim sympathizer.
If I were some goat-smelling camel jockey over there right now I'd be seeing the US as a paper tiger.
What? I need to get out more I guess, I didn't know there was a High Council of the Jihadist World that has a spokesman issuing statements on behalf of the entire Jihadist population. If anything it would be embarrassing that they somehow created the first representative governing body that represented EVERY SINGLE MEMBER. Where are these statements that we lost? Let me guess...they were made by the brave Muj who waited until we were gone to get feisty and talk shit.
If the groups like ISIS actually viewed us as a paper tiger, you would have a lot of evidence to support that theory because we would be under constant attack from everyone who wanted to be someone in the Muj world. The simple fact that we still have yet to be attacked by any of these groups suggests that their experience in their own back yard with the American might was not something they're hot to get involved with again. They continue to attack weak targets and say "you're next". And that's about all they'll do until they either have a rogue element with a death wish or they actually reach the strength they claim to have. The latter being almost laughable, the former being the only real threat and a "wild card" more than an eventuality.
They don't need to have a good education of American history of the last hundred years to remember getting their monkey ass stomped in every decisive military engagement in either theater. What they think of the POTUS is irrelevant, should they incur the wrath of an attacked American people, it will not go well for them and that much they know.
Threats from terrorist groups are exactly that, threats. Words used to cause fear and uncertainty rather than using actions to deliver a message. Wonder why that is? The truth is a nuke or WMD wouldn't be impossible. Nothing is impossible if there is a committed organization dedicated to getting that particular end result. ISIS has about as much of the required logistics to drive a glowing UHaul across our allegedly empty and deserted BCPs as they have the logistics to support a training camp with their cartel vatos locos within eyesight of a large Texas population center.
That is to say...they don't.
Your posts in this thread, while well written, are becoming almost painful to read. I applaud your conviction to your opinion and don't want you to believe this to be an attack on your character. However, as goes the old saying, "you don't know what you don't know".
I must have missed the memo where we were losing. The long term failure in Iraq wasn't a failure of tactics on our part. It was a failure of the newborn Iraqi government to swallow their pride and let us continue the mission and the failure of the current administration to have any testicular fortitude to tell the highly secular PM to go fvck himself.
WE lacked the conviction so WE didn't do it right from the start and WE should have known better and WE shouldn't have used effective UW tactics because WE failed? That's based on nothing but YOUR opinion shaped by YOUR understanding of information presented to you by those who share YOUR interests. Yet YOU were not part of this "we", you never saw any of the first hand effects of the tactics or long term thinking in the nation building school of thought. You frequently condemn the tactics used in what was going to be a very long war. You condemn the ROE as somehow getting good troops killed based on some second hand account of unknown validity. Well I must not have been a good troop then because I never had a hard time making someone dead if I even remotely connected their actions or behavior to hostility that put my Marines or myself in danger. Maybe YOUR understanding comes from what you heard from mil members who confused the actual ROE with the shit orders they were given by weak leadership and careerists.
That's all good either way, our opinions can differ and that's good. It would be boring if we all thought alike. I am certain there are mil guys here who disagree with me, though I stand by my thoughts as they are formed from an objective review of information and experience.
What I do take offense to is your thinking that you can speak for any veterans, long dead or otherwise, about what they "to a man" would want changed. Especially when your notion that there is a lack of "support and consideration" is generally wrong.
You have taken many things in a way never intended.
First "we" didn't lose anything. The guys who did the fighting kicked ass even if they could have IMO used a bit more support. But the Iraqi government and military is losing their ass. How many men died to take Ramadi to have it fall to ISIS? This is the kind of thing that bothers me.
Second, when I say "we" didn't do this or "we" didn't do that, I mean the US government and the support of the population as well. The nation as a whole. I'm hoping you understand that distinction. Instead of letting "boots on the ground" do their job, "we" fret about if guys at Gitmo are naked or humiliated.
Concerning ROE, we've had this discussion. The media reported that troops could not fire on suspected enemy positions until fired upon. "To me" that is walking bait and I don't think anyone should have to do it, just my opinion. I will be thrilled if that wasn't the common experience. It certainly isn't anything I would have wanted for you or anyone else.
As for speaking for "long dead" veterans. If I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times. From WWII vets, to Korean War vets, to Vietnam vets and it was first hand. They all said the same damn thing and it was along the lines of "I know we didn't have this and we didn't have that, so we made the best of it. But for christ sakes let it be the last time and make sure the next poor sunofabitch has everything he needs to fight."
Having listened to that for decades I feel some right to express what was ultimately "their opinion."
Hope this clears up a few things, many of the things I write can "unintentionally" be taken many ways. And if there is anything else in doubt, just call it out and I'll do my best to clarify.
I knew what you were talking about, but if my understanding is correct one still needs a known sample to match against. If you had a unknown reactor producing the materials I don't think you could determine the source of the nuclear material.
That may be true. However, we have some black-side guys who do things we never hear of and I'll wager samples from shitheads (i.e. NK or Iran) is probably a priority, if they don't have something already.
What? I need to get out more I guess, I didn't know there was a High Council of the Jihadist World that has a spokesman issuing statements on behalf of the entire Jihadist population. If anything it would be embarrassing that they somehow created the first representative governing body that represented EVERY SINGLE MEMBER. Where are these statements that we lost? Let me guess...they were made by the brave Muj who waited until we were gone to get feisty and talk shit.
If the groups like ISIS actually viewed us as a paper tiger, you would have a lot of evidence to support that theory because we would be under constant attack from everyone who wanted to be someone in the Muj world. The simple fact that we still have yet to be attacked by any of these groups suggests that their experience in their own back yard with the American might was not something they're hot to get involved with again. They continue to attack weak targets and say "you're next". And that's about all they'll do until they either have a rogue element with a death wish or they actually reach the strength they claim to have. The latter being almost laughable, the former being the only real threat and a "wild card" more than an eventuality.
They don't need to have a good education of American history of the last hundred years to remember getting their monkey ass stomped in every decisive military engagement in either theater. What they think of the POTUS is irrelevant, should they incur the wrath of an attacked American people, it will not go well for them and that much they know.
Threats from terrorist groups are exactly that, threats. Words used to cause fear and uncertainty rather than using actions to deliver a message. Wonder why that is? The truth is a nuke or WMD wouldn't be impossible. Nothing is impossible if there is a committed organization dedicated to getting that particular end result. ISIS has about as much of the required logistics to drive a glowing UHaul across our allegedly empty and deserted BCPs as they have the logistics to support a training camp with their cartel vatos locos within eyesight of a large Texas population center.
That is to say...they don't.
SOW, you wrote this (and the other reply) late on a Friday night....maybe a little bourbon or a bad week? That's uncharacteristically "Oorahh" or aggressive for you. I kinda like it!
All kidding aside, it's apparent you [deservedly] have a certain amount of pride in what you and your bros accomplished. Not necessarily everything that occurred, but the overall mission accomplishment. And you guys DID succeed. The failure came, as you said, after it was handed over to the Iraqis. Exactly how I feel about Vietnam: they couldn't win while we were there, it took the South Vietnamese two years to blow it after we left. So I personally don't see either Iraq or Vietnam as "defeats".....the defeat happened after we were gone. Neither enemy could win while we were there.
Outlander Systems
06-07-15, 08:14
You have taken many things in a way never intended.
First "we" didn't lose anything. The guys who did the fighting kicked ass even if they could have IMO used a bit more support. But the Iraqi government and military is losing their ass. How many men died to take Ramadi to have it fall to ISIS? This is the kind of thing that bothers me.
Second, when I say "we" didn't do this or "we" didn't do that, I mean the US government and the support of the population as well. The nation as a whole. I'm hoping you understand that distinction. Instead of letting "boots on the ground" do their job, "we" fret about if guys at Gitmo are naked or humiliated.
Concerning ROE, we've had this discussion. The media reported that troops could not fire on suspected enemy positions until fired upon. "To me" that is walking bait and I don't think anyone should have to do it, just my opinion. I will be thrilled if that wasn't the common experience. It certainly isn't anything I would have wanted for you or anyone else.
As for speaking for "long dead" veterans. If I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times. From WWII vets, to Korean War vets, to Vietnam vets and it was first hand. They all said the same damn thing and it was along the lines of "I know we didn't have this and we didn't have that, so we made the best of it. But for christ sakes let it be the last time and make sure the next poor sunofabitch has everything he needs to fight."
Having listened to that for decades I feel some right to express what was ultimately "their opinion."
Hope this clears up a few things, many of the things I write can "unintentionally" be taken many ways. And if there is anything else in doubt, just call it out and I'll do my best to clarify.
My comments on the ROE starts and ends, with the words, "Presence Patrol."
SOW, you wrote this (and the other reply) late on a Friday night....maybe a little bourbon or a bad week? That's uncharacteristically "Oorahh" or aggressive for you. I kinda like it!
All kidding aside, it's apparent you [deservedly] have a certain amount of pride in what you and your bros accomplished. Not necessarily everything that occurred, but the overall mission accomplishment. And you guys DID succeed. The failure came, as you said, after it was handed over to the Iraqis. Exactly how I feel about Vietnam: they couldn't win while we were there, it took the South Vietnamese two years to blow it after we left. So I personally don't see either Iraq or Vietnam as "defeats".....the defeat happened after we were gone. Neither enemy could win while we were there.
Steyr, my apologies for the misunderstanding. I know that you weren't actually inferring or attempting to allude that you were there on the ground. I think I spend far too much time biting my tongue and nodding while I hear some incredibly stupid shit from the experts who learn everything from Fox News at 5. So when I see something that resembles what I hear other, ignorant and uneducated folks (not you) spewing from their idiot mouths, I sort of explode. It means I have to apologize for harsh words often, but also means I have to pay for very few teeth knocked out of people's mouths along the way. No harm intended Steyr, please accept my apologies.
ABNAK I agree with your post. Haha and I'm glad you enjoy the side of me my therapist and girlfriend are working tirelessly to kill. Joke is on them, all they're doing is teaching me how to hide it. But when I start hanging out with my old friend Jameson, all bets are off!
I fully admit that overall our efforts in Iraq will go down in history as a failure. Its a hard pill to swallow, and the VA has me swallowing a LOT of pills these days. But history isn't taught in a way that remembers the success or failures of the fighting on the ground save for a few decisive battles. Fallujah will be the Tet Offensive and Hue City in thirty years. Our government and the different administrations that took control of the efforts in Iraq will be the focus of the history lesson of the future, and history will likely be far too forgiving of their blunders.
My comments on the ROE starts and ends, with the words, "Presence Patrol."
You could have wrote "Banana Chowder" as your comments on the ROE and it would have made just as much sense. If you can't understand the vital importance of a presence patrol in pretty much any armed conflict, you are going to struggle to see the light.
KalashniKEV
06-07-15, 14:28
I 'almost' wish something like that would happen...
Slap the living shit out of yourself right now.
Obviously the douchebags have forgotten what happened after Pearl Harbor - coming soon to the middle-east near you, 8 million pissed off American soldiers.
1) Pearl Harbor killed 2403 service members and 68 civilians, 9/11 killed 2977 total Americans (not sure of the split).
2) If you conscripted a force that large from the available pool of military aged males in the US, it would look ridiculous. Coming soon to the middle-east near you, ACUs in size XXXL.
Smuggling nukes in by road is hard because most of the ports have radiation detectors.
Smuggling Nukes in by offroad is incredibly easy.
You don't believe Saddam was openly hostile to the US after Kuwait and would be willing to provide chemical weapons to terrorist groups who would gladly employ them against the US?
Are you old enough to remember Desert Storm?
Did you understand what it was about?
We should have thrown in behind Saddam and steamrolled the monarchies. If we did, the whole Arabian peninsula would be wearing Adidas three stripe warmups, drinking beers and watching soccer and there never would have been an al Qaeda, ISIS, 9/11, Arab Spring, etc...
If you had a unknown reactor producing the materials I don't think you could determine the source of the nuclear material.
Which is exactly what they would need to say, "OMG, Iran has a secret nuclear reactor!"
Israel and Saudi Arabia would high five each other after that shit.
Your posts in this thread, while well written, are becoming almost painful to read. I applaud your conviction to your opinion and don't want you to believe this to be an attack on your character. However, as goes the old saying, "you don't know what you don't know".
I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling this way...
The long term failure in Iraq wasn't a failure of tactics on our part. It was a failure of the newborn Iraqi government to swallow their pride and let us continue the mission and the failure of the current administration to have any testicular fortitude to tell the highly secular PM to go fvck himself.
Half disagree. (...and I follow you 100%, but you misused the word "secular" you meant to say "sectarian")
We were ****ing up bigtime in terms of strategy. Starting with CPA#1 and #2 and all the way to the false "Peace" following the period of sectarian strife that was only winding the spring.
There are even people who I served with who actually believe that Baghdad Security Plan (BSP)/ Operation FARDH AL QANOON was a successful strategy. Obviously if you have the all-Shia National Police throwing hand grenades in Sunni windows during curfew hours and then responding to the scene to "investigate" the area will become pacified- once 95% of the Sunnis living in Baghdad are dead or fled.
Even the successful elements were partial fixes to problems we created. It's like burning your neighbors house down with his kids inside and then rescuing his house plants. What, no "Thank You?"
----SNIP----
Is there ANYTHING the United States has done that you agree with? Like any-f*****g-thing?
Kev -
2) If you conscripted a force that large from the available pool of military aged males in the US, it would look ridiculous. Coming soon to the middle-east near you, ACUs in size XXXL.
LOL, apparently you weren't in the Marines, those XXXL's turn into XL's pretty quick with proper motivation. Myself, I'm for drafting those folks aged 40 - 60, generally they are craftier and they've already reproduced. (not totally tongue in check)
Steyr, my apologies for the misunderstanding. I know that you weren't actually inferring or attempting to allude that you were there on the ground. I think I spend far too much time biting my tongue and nodding while I hear some incredibly stupid shit from the experts who learn everything from Fox News at 5. So when I see something that resembles what I hear other, ignorant and uneducated folks (not you) spewing from their idiot mouths, I sort of explode. It means I have to apologize for harsh words often, but also means I have to pay for very few teeth knocked out of people's mouths along the way. No harm intended Steyr, please accept my apologies.
Misunderstandings are misunderstandings.
There has problem been a time or two or twelve where I didn't take the time to fully read and understand something you have written in the past and I questioned you about being a jihadist apologist so the account is probably fairly even.
No worries. No apology required. Ooops noted and accepted.
Are you old enough to remember Desert Storm?
Did you understand what it was about?
We should have thrown in behind Saddam and steamrolled the monarchies. If we did, the whole Arabian peninsula would be wearing Adidas three stripe warmups, drinking beers and watching soccer and there never would have been an al Qaeda, ISIS, 9/11, Arab Spring, etc...
Yes, and I'm even very aware of the US adviser who told Saddam that we had "no interest in arab / arab affairs" and all but green lighted him to invade Kuwait in his mind. I'm even aware of the fact that Kuwait was lateral drilling across the border.
I was just noting the post 9-11 nature of things including the fact that Saddam was now very hostile to the US and it wasn't beyond reason that me might provide chemical weapons to a terrorist group. The guy didn't do betrayal very well.
KalashniKEV
06-08-15, 12:42
Is there ANYTHING the United States has done that you agree with? Like any-f*****g-thing?
Sure, lots.
LOL, apparently you weren't in the Marines, those XXXL's turn into XL's pretty quick with proper motivation. Myself, I'm for drafting those folks aged 40 - 60, generally they are craftier and they've already reproduced. (not totally tongue in check)
I was in the Army. They turn right back into fat bodies again when there isn't someone standing over them making them PT.
Being overweight is the outward display of an inner character flaw. Their bodies control their minds, and not the other way around. It's a weakness. I do believe it's possible to "get motivated" and change the person they are, but it's a very rare and unique occurrence.
Yes, and I'm even very aware of the US adviser who told Saddam that we had "no interest in arab / arab affairs" and all but green lighted him to invade Kuwait in his mind. I'm even aware of the fact that Kuwait was lateral drilling across the border.
Next aware yourself of the fact that all the other monarchies forgave Saddam of the enormous debt he incurred fighting back the horde of wild eyed, bearded Persians back in the 80s... Kuwait sent their terms for repayment. He should have let his front collapse in the south and watched them all die, but then he'd only have to win it back fighting another warrior culture instead of a bunch of soft handed Kuwaitis in dresses.
Bush I reversed our support for Saddam (against the national interest) because he was beholden to the Saudi Royal family. In fact, it was so far out of what should-have-happened that The House of Saud wanted to leave money on the dresser for everyone who deployed in Desert Storm as a "gratuity."
Iraq's southern border was created by giving away it's 19th province to the al Sabah family and denying them a deep water port to export their oil.
(Iraq's northern border was created by drawing a line to divide the warrior tribes who helped T.E. Lawrence kill back the Ottoman Empire during the Arab Revolt- those men are the grandfathers of ISIS)
I was just noting the post 9-11 nature of things including the fact that Saddam was now very hostile to the US and it wasn't beyond reason that me might provide chemical weapons to a terrorist group. The guy didn't do betrayal very well.
It's never too late to start doing things right.
If I were in charge, I would have made sure Saddam had chemical weapons to "provide" to the Saudi-backed transnational Jihadis- by killing them off in gas chambers.
http://sachtimes.com/en/images/1419922394article_img.jpg
Don't forget that 90% of the 19 hijackers came from the monarchies.
(Not sure if you knew in the first place...)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.