McCain Says What? Iran-Al Queda Link

[AbeBeta]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?ref=politics

Iran is training Al Queda?

Said it SEVERAL times and finally was corrected by Joe Lieberman.

[iceberg]

so we can't trust him to find a clear way forward. so far, who can we trust?

bash w/o answers. gets old.

[AbeBeta]

so we can't trust him to find a clear way forward. so far, who can we trust?

bash w/o answers. gets old.

Just providing the facts as the righties would do whenever Obama or Clinton say something stupid.

Just my contribution to fair and balanced.

[ConcordCowboy]

Yeah I saw that earlier.

You can't beat McCain's foreign policy experience.

To bad a Former Democrat had to correct him though. :p:

[theogt]

No one who has ever mispoken should be elected president.

[Hostile]

No one who has ever mispoken should be elected president.That was damned funny right there.

[iceberg]

Just providing the facts as the righties would do whenever Obama or Clinton say something stupid.

Just my contribution to fair and balanced.

that's what keeps us busy in here. : )

[AbeBeta]

No one who has ever mispoken should be elected president.


Imagine Obama said this. We'd have 100 posts saying pointing to his lack of experience. The board would go bat crap crazy and make all kinds of attributions regarding what his words "really" mean.

McCain says this and folks here are happy to pass it off as misspeaking.

Everyone misspeaks. But how folks react to it says a ton about whether they really evaluate candidates by their words and actions or whether they just look for a reason to bash someone.

[Mavs Man]

Not surprising.

McCain: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

[zrinkill]

Imagine Obama said this. We'd have 100 posts saying pointing to his lack of experience. The board would go bat crap crazy and make all kinds of attributions regarding what his words "really" mean.

McCain says this and folks here are happy to pass it off as misspeaking.

Everyone misspeaks. But how folks react to it says a ton about whether they really evaluate candidates by their words and actions or whether they just look for a reason to bash someone.

Bull ...... Obama is defended on this board just as much as he is criticized.

Save your victim card ...... Obama is doing fine without it.

[Sasquatch]

“I’m sorry,” Mr. McCain said, “the Iranians are training extremists [really mean, threatening, bad, dangerous, extremists .... of some sort... and they're ugly too ... and they want to kill our women and kids ... and they're socialists!], not Al Qaeda.”

:)

[theogt]

Not surprising.

McCain: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."Sounds like a better plan than bombing Pakistan.

[Doomsday101]

True McCain did make that comment and while that was a mistake Iran training terrorist organization is not false. They are big supporters and give military training to groups like Hezbolla

[zrinkill]

“I’m sorry,” Mr. McCain said, “the Iranians are training extremists [really mean, threatening, bad, dangerous, extremists .... of some sort... and they're ugly too ... and they want to kill our women and kids ... and they're socialists!], not Al Qaeda.”

:)

Who is supplying the terrorist in Iraq?

[Heisenberg]

Sounds like a better plan than bombing Pakistan.

Which we did and killed a high-ranking Al-Qaeda official.

[iceberg]

Who is supplying the terrorist in Iraq?

the kid in the schoolyard. no one stopped him and his knife and lunchroom connection, so he expanded his services. :)

[AbeBeta]

Bull ...... Obama is defended on this board just as much as he is criticized.

Save your victim card ...... Obama is doing fine without it.

If you look at the posts on this board it is pretty clear that Obama has far more detractors than supporters.

[Sasquatch]

Who is supplying the terrorist in Iraq?

Just having a little fun, Zrinkill.

But, in response to your question, I thought we invaded Iraq because they were already there plotting with Saddam to strike the US with devastating WMD?

And haven't some fairly intelligent, but right-leaning, people on this board claimed that the WMD argument was just a clumsy pretext to prevent Iranian influence from spreading to Iraq after the demise of Saddam Hussein? And yet, according to the administration's most faithful apologists, Iran's fingerprints are all over Iraq which wasn't the case prior to us going in there.

Things that make you go, hmm.

[Heisenberg]

If you look at the posts on this board it is pretty clear that Obama has far more detractors than supporters.

It's a message board for a football team. Not just any football team, but a football team in Texas with most of its supporters in that state.

It's Republican central. :D

[ZeroClub]

Oh, he was just having a "senior moment."

[iceberg]

If you look at the posts on this board it is pretty clear that Obama has far more detractors than supporters.

actually we're equal opportunity bashers and supporters depending on the given topic or stance. so far i support him but it's getting interesting for his camp just the same.

but if he says something stupid, like many i'll point that out too. overall obama is treated more than fair near as i can tell.

[Heisenberg]

Oh, he was just having a "senior moment."

3 days in a row?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/mccain-repeats-iranal-qa_n_92349.html

Weird.

[AbeBeta]

actually we're equal opportunity bashers and supporters depending on the given topic or stance. so far i support him but it's getting interesting for his camp just the same.

but if he says something stupid, like many i'll point that out too. overall obama is treated more than fair near as i can tell.

I don't see it that way at all -- Obama misspeaks about "wasted" lives and several folks on the board characterize it as a "steady stream of crap" that indicates he hates America.

McCain misspeaks and the worst we get is "senior moment"

[iceberg]

I don't see it that way at all -- Obama misspeaks about "wasted" lives and several folks on the board characterize it as a "steady stream of crap" that indicates he hates America.

McCain misspeaks and the worst we get is "senior moment"

i don't hear much about mccain period right now. it's all obama and then hillary and occasionally mccain says something to make people go "wait, there's someone else here".

but so far obama has the most attention cause he's winning where he likely shouldn't be but is. he and hillary are the show right now and whatever they do will be blown up by either side and the ultimate way to redefine stupidity.

when obama or hillary finally wins, we'll hear it kick into another level i'm sure.

[zrinkill]

Just having a little fun, Zrinkill.

But, in response to your question, I thought we invaded Iraq because they were already there plotting with Saddam to strike the US with devastating WMD?

And haven't some fairly intelligent, but right-leaning, people on this board claimed that the WMD argument was just a clumsy pretext to prevent Iranian influence from spreading to Iraq after the demise of Saddam Hussein? And yet, according to the administration's most faithful apologists, Iran's fingerprints are all over Iraq which wasn't the case prior to us going in there.

Things that make you go, hmm.

Because the Iraq war is over.

We are now fighting against Iran supported terrorist in Iraq with the Iraq goverment as our allies.

As far as Saddam and his WMD's.

If a known murderer screams out that he has a gun in his pants and is going to use it ...... he should not be surprised if he gets arrested even if he does not really have that big of a gun.

The innuendo is completely accidental. ;)

[zrinkill]

I don't see it that way at all

What a surprise

[Heisenberg]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2UxCWmxdZg0

:lmao:

[iceberg]

ok, that's funny!

[Dallas]

“I’m sorry,” Mr. McCain said, “the Iranians are training extremists [really mean, threatening, bad, dangerous, extremists .... of some sort... and they're ugly too ... and they want to kill our women and kids ... and they're socialists!], not Al Qaeda.”

:)


So you libs and dems are pefectly ok w/ all of the terrorist training going on in Iran? Dont talk about thos guys. We dont want to talk about the real terrorists camping out in the sands there.

They may not be Al-Queda but they certainly are wack-job, I want to kill you American infidels... terrorists.

Really, what is the difference?

[iceberg]

So you libs and dems are pefectly ok w/ all of the terrorist training going on in Iran? Dont talk about thos guys. We dont want to talk about the real terrorists camping out in the sands there.

They may not be Al-Queda but they certainly are wack-job, I want to kill you American infidels... terrorists.

Really, what is the difference?

whatever they need it to be.

[AbeBeta]

So you libs and dems are pefectly ok w/ all of the terrorist training going on in Iran? Dont talk about thos guys. We dont want to talk about the real terrorists camping out in the sands there.

They may not be Al-Queda but they certainly are wack-job, I want to kill you American infidels... terrorists.

Really, what is the difference?

First of all, different terrorist groups have different motivations, different organizational structures, and very different relationships with nations such as Iran (et al). If you want to talk about DEALING with terrorists, then pretty much step ONE is to be able to identify who are you going after.

You can lump them all together if you want -- and certainly they do all share some of the same negative characteristics -- but if you fail to understand your enemy then you have very little chance of having any success against them.

[Dallas]

First of all, different terrorist groups have different motivations, different organizational structures, and very different relationships with nations such as Iran (et al). If you want to talk about DEALING with terrorists, then pretty much step ONE is to be able to identify who are you going after.

You can lump them all together if you want -- and certainly they do all share some of the same negative characteristics -- but if you fail to understand your enemy then you have very little chance of having any success against them.

You are saying that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists and I should know my enemy better? You are #$%Q#$R$ kidding me. What inside of you says it's ok to be a terrorist regardless the reasons why you choose to do so?

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. I could really care less why he is trying to bomb my family and innocent people. I just know that he is trying to do so.

Knowing your enemy better does increase ones chance of success. The fact is that you can't really reason fanaticism. You can't here in the US and you can't elsewhere in the world, so I don't see where that would defuse anything.

[zrinkill]

A bullet cannot tell the difference between them ..... and that is the only thing that is going to stop them.

[Maikeru-sama]

It's a message board for a football team. Not just any football team, but a football team in Texas with most of its supporters in that state.

It's Republican central. :D

:hammer:

[AbeBeta]

You are saying that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists and I should know my enemy better? You are #$%Q#$R$ kidding me. What inside of you says it's ok to be a terrorist regardless the reasons why you choose to do so?

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. I could really care less why he is trying to bomb my family and innocent people. I just know that he is trying to do so.

Knowing your enemy better does increase ones chance of success. The fact is that you can't really reason fanaticism. You can't here in the US and you can't elsewhere in the world, so I don't see where that would defuse anything.

Where did I say good and bad. Nowhere. Read the post. Don't read INTO the post.

I said that you need to know who you are dealing with and the complexities of their relationships with the nations in the region. As much as you'd like to put them all in one big pot, terrorist groups are different and it is vitally important to understand those differences.

[iceberg]

First of all, different terrorist groups have different motivations, different organizational structures, and very different relationships with nations such as Iran (et al). If you want to talk about DEALING with terrorists, then pretty much step ONE is to be able to identify who are you going after.

You can lump them all together if you want -- and certainly they do all share some of the same negative characteristics -- but if you fail to understand your enemy then you have very little chance of having any success against them.

is there a muslem terrorist group that *doesn't* want us dead? i understand they want me dead so as long as they share that trait, i think we understand them.

[AbeBeta]

is there a muslem terrorist group that *doesn't* want us dead? i understand they want me dead so as long as they share that trait, i think we understand them.

You know that is far too simplistic a view

[Dallas]

You know that is far too simplistic a view


Those negative characteristics you spoke about earlier that they all share is pretty much all I need to know.

It really is pretty simplistic when you look at it from my black and white perspective. :cool:

[iceberg]

You know that is far too simplistic a view

and sometimes you gotta make it simple so you don't think too much.

we know something must be done but all these "intellictuals" sit around and talk about what they'd do and never do anything. then some maverick comes along and does something and all the "intellctuals" say "oooo - you're gonna get it!" not remembering they said the same thing, just didn't committ by actions.

if this is far too simple, name me a muslem terrorist group that doesn't want me dead and we'll expand our views together from there.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I guess if you want to go after one of the top donators to terrorists, where many terrorists come from and where many terrorists trains...maybe we should bomb Saudi Arabia as well.

I am not saying let Iran off the hook but boy we sure do turn a blind eye towards Saudi Arabia while ripping another country that is about the same.

We just happen to have a better "business" relationship with one over the other.

[zrinkill]

I guess if you want to go after one of the top donators to terrorists, where many terrorists come from and where many terrorists trains...maybe we should bomb Saudi Arabia as well.

I am not saying let Iran off the hook but boy we sure do turn a blind eye towards Saudi Arabia while ripping another country that is about the same.

We just happen to have a better "business" relationship with one over the other.

The fact that the Saudi "nobility" has not been called on this is one of the most disappointing problems I have with the Bush administration.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The fact that the Saudi "nobility" has not been called on this is one of the most disappointing problems I have with the Bush administration.

Make no mistake. It is not just the Bush Administration. It is not just a Party thing either.

Both parties will not do much against them and many make BIG bucks from them. Bill Clinton has made a great deal of money dealing with Saudi interests.

There is one thing you find with both parties. They will argue points about abortion, immigration, wars, and a myriad of other topics. But you will find they almost always agree on Israel and Saudi Arabia.

[Sasquatch]

I guess if you want to go after one of the top donators to terrorists, where many terrorists come from and where many terrorists trains...maybe we should bomb Saudi Arabia as well.

I am not saying let Iran off the hook but boy we sure do turn a blind eye towards Saudi Arabia while ripping another country that is about the same.

We just happen to have a better "business" relationship with one over the other.

The administration's Iraq policy is not defensible on any rational grounds. Hence the shell game of justifications.

WMD: nope.
Al Qaeda: nope.
Democratic transformation of middle east: nope.
Decrease in terrorism: nope.
Containment of Iran: nope.

It's amazing that there are so many ardent defenders of such an enormously expensive project that has yielded so few tangible benefits to anyone except maybe Al Qaeda and Iran.

[Dallas]

It's not a defensible rational policy. It's a shell game.

WMD: nope.
Al Qaeda: nope.
Democratic transformation of middle east: nope.
Decrease in terrorism: nope.
Containment of Iran: nope.

It's amazing that there are so many ardent defenders of such an enormously expensive project that has yielded so few tangible benefits to anyone except maybe Al Qaeda and Iran.

How foolish are you really? Everyone is well aware the Saudi Kingdom has massive terror problems/cells/schools.

The Kingdom is on record as doing what it can to stifle the problem. We all know how delicate they are going about doing it. That really sucks.

But please, nobody w/ half a brain is turning some blind eye away from Saudis terror troubles.

I know they are one of the hottest spots in the world for terroristic activity.

At the SAME time tho the Saudi Government isn't calling for the death of Israel and America. Some of the people may be but certainly not the head of the Kingdom.

My problem w/ Iran is the freakin government calling for my death and a jihad against the US.

The wiping out of Isreal is another issue I have. Not that I want to defend the Israelies but I would feel the same for anyone calling for any countries total annihilation.

[theogt]

Al Qaeda: nope.
Democratic transformation of middle east: nope.
Decrease in terrorism: nope.
Containment of Iran: nope.I think you're a little early on this proclamations. So basically you're stuck with "zOMG therez no WMDz~!!!!!!!!11111111"

[Sasquatch]

I think you're a little early on this proclamations. So basically you're stuck with "zOMG therez no WMDz~!!!!!!!!11111111"

I suppose when you spend money like a drunken sailor in a brothel, high on cocaine and Viagra and armed with a credit card with no limit you would want to indefinitely postpone the final day of accounting.

Of course, the prudent and patient neocons would never prematurely proclaim "mission accomplished," tout the success of the invasion of Iraq after the first elections, or celebrate the triumph of their grand vision for the Middle East after the the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon.

Everything I said is true five years after the fact. The investment has exceeded original estimates and the returns have been non-existent. Only a sycophant would claim that the future holds some sort of promise based on the projections of an administration whose previous forecasts have been almost all wrong and whose record up to the present has been one of singular incompetence.

[vta]

The administration's Iraq policy is not defensible on any rational grounds. Hence the shell game of justifications.

WMD: nope.
Al Qaeda: nope.
Democratic transformation of middle east: nope.
Decrease in terrorism: nope.
Containment of Iran: nope.

It's amazing that there are so many ardent defenders of such an enormously expensive project that has yielded so few tangible benefits to anyone except maybe Al Qaeda and Iran.

How have Iran and Al Qeda benefitted?

[Dallas]

How have Iran and Al Qeda benefitted?

Love the word project. Excellent choice. :rolleyes:

War on Terror or Mrs. Echols Math Project


You decide.

[Sasquatch]

How have Iran and Al Qeda benefitted?

Iran has a presence in Iraq that it didn't have previously and a regime that was hostile to it has been replaced by one that seems intent on a closer ties, thereby extending its regional influence. I think the contrast between Ahmadinejad open and public visit and Bush's hurried, furtive soujourns in Iraq is very telling.

Al Qaeda has gained in recruitment, propaganda value, and training per reports assessing the impact of the war on global terrorism.

[iceberg]

Iran has a presence in Iraq that it didn't have previously and a regime that was hostile to it has been replaced by one that seems intent on a closer ties, thereby extending its regional influence. I think the contrast between Ahmadinejad open and public visit and Bush's hurried, furtive soujourns in Iraq is very telling.

Al Qaeda has gained in recruitment, propaganda value, and training per reports assessing the impact of the war on global terrorism.

you got any actual links to this or you just pull out your arse again and will deny it when busted?

[vta]

Iran has a presence in Iraq that it didn't have previously and a regime that was hostile to it has been replaced by one that seems intent on a closer ties, thereby extending its regional influence. I think the contrast between Ahmadinejad open and public visit and Bush's hurried, furtive soujourns in Iraq is very telling.

Iran has a presence in Iraq? Are you acknowledging their hand in supporting insurgents?

Big deal, Ahmadinejad has also visited Saudi Arabia. What deeper meaning is gleaned from that?

In the end, the United States will have an influential presence in Iraq and the best Iran can do to save a little face in it's acquiescence of these facts is to continue these visits and maintain good relations with Iraq. While they are adept at maintaining a proxy militia like Hezbollah, the U.S. will maintain a proxy diplomacy through Iraq.

The Iranian people are discontent and the stress of the U.S. Military outside it's borders is having the intended effect. They're not happy with their president, nor their countries economic status. Don't let Little Caesar's smile fool you, my friend; he's as capable of lying with the likes of any U.S. politician.

Allowing a biligerant Little Caesar to strut around and talk big isn't a show of weakness; it's the ultimate show of power.

Al Qaeda has gained in recruitment, propaganda value, and training per reports assessing the impact of the war on global terrorism.

So much so that they've been forced to dip into the mentally ill community and using women. Even killing two birds with one stone, by using mentally ill women. Right.

"The U.S. military is made to fight large scale armies and can't fight against geurilla tactics."

"They're providing training for terrorists"

So go the cries...

I can assure you it's been an invaluable learning experience for our boys too; they've adapted and decimated an enemy in all theaters of war in Iraq and have expanded their abilities as a military force.

The U.S. has a military presence in numerous Mid East countries, where are the efforts to face them in these area's? The U.S. is in the horn of Africa, where are all of these recruits that have been brought on to fight them?

The rush to fight the infidel has dwindled in the face of it's show of great patience and unwillingness to back down and be 'the paper tiger' the dead fool once said they were.

The propoganda was for sale and you've bought it willingly. Like the non-existent civil war that outsiders tried to foment, the great recruitment is another farce that never came to fruition. It just sounded good as a tool of political dissent.

[Dallas]

Iran has a presence in Iraq? Are you acknowledging their hand in supporting insurgents?

Big deal, Ahmadinejad has also visited Saudi Arabia. What deeper meaning is gleaned from that?

In the end, the United States will have an influential presence in Iraq and the best Iran can do to save a little face in it's acquiescence of these facts is to continue these visits and maintain good relations with Iraq. While they are adept at maintaining a proxy militia like Hezbollah, the U.S. will maintain a proxy diplomacy through Iraq.

The Iranian people are discontent and the stress of the U.S. Military outside it's borders is having the intended effect. They're not happy with their president, nor their countries economic status. Don't let Little Caesar's smile fool you, my friend; he's as capable of lying with the likes of any U.S. politician.

Allowing a biligerant Little Caesar to strut around and talk big isn't a show of weakness; it's the ultimate show of power.



So much so that they've been forced to dip into the mentally ill community and using women. Even killing two birds with one stone, by using mentally ill women. Right.

"The U.S. military is made to fight large scale armies and can't fight against geurilla tactics."

"They're providing training for terrorists"

So go the cries...

I can assure you it's been an invaluable learning experience for our boys too; they've adapted and decimated an enemy in all theaters of war in Iraq and have expanded their abilities as a military force.

The U.S. has a military presence in numerous Mid East countries, where are the efforts to face them in these area's? The U.S. is in the horn of Africa, where are all of these recruits that have been brought on to fight them?

The rush to fight the infidel has dwindled in the face of it's show of great patience and unwillingness to back down and be 'the paper tiger' the dead fool once said they were.

The propoganda was for sale and you've bought it willingly. Like the non-existent civil war that outsiders tried to foment, the great recruitment is another farce that never came to fruition. It just sounded good as a tool of political dissent.

Ummm yeah......:bow: Very well said vta..as always.

[Sasquatch]

What deeper meaning is gleaned from that?

Oh, I don't know, maybe that the Iraqi's are more favorably disposed towards him than our own president whose visits consist of scurrying from place to place because he isn't safe to go out in public? No practical or symbolic significance to that whatsoever.

In the end, the United States will have an influential presence in Iraq and the best Iran can do to save a little face in it's acquiescence of these facts is to continue these visits and maintain good relations with Iraq. While they are adept at maintaining a proxy militia like Hezbollah, the U.S. will maintain a proxy diplomacy through Iraq.

Always this fictional day of reckoning where the truth shall become apparent to all. Funny how as the years pass it seems to recede further and further into the future. That's okay, just put it on the credit card.

We've spent a lot of money, spilled our blood, paid a high political price, and yet Iran is as much a player in Iraq as we are. That Little Caesar of yours has outmaneuvered us at a fraction of the cost and exercises as much influence in Iraq as we do.

Was that one of the administration's war aims five years ago, to give Iran a strong foothold in Iraq by removing its bitterest enemy from power? Brilliant.

[Jon88]

Oh, I don't know, maybe that the Iraqi's are more favorably disposed towards him than our own president whose visits consist of scurrying from place to place because he isn't safe to go out in public? No practical or symbolic significance to that whatsoever.



Always this fictional day of reckoning where the truth shall become apparent to all. Funny how as the years pass it seems to recede further and further into the future. That's okay, just put it on the credit card.

We've spent a lot of money, spilled our blood, paid a high political price, and yet Iran is as much a player in Iraq as we are. That Little Caesar of yours has outmaneuvered us at a fraction of the cost and exercises as much influence in Iraq as we do.

Was that one of the administration's war aims five years ago, to give Iran a strong foothold in Iraq by removing its bitterest enemy from power? Brilliant.


His own country doesn't like him. He can send over insurgents and some roadside bombs, but he doesn't exercise as much influence as we do.

[vta]

Oh, I don't know, maybe that the Iraqi's are more favorably disposed towards him than our own president whose visits consist of scurrying from place to place because he isn't safe to go out in public? No practical or symbolic significance to that whatsoever.

Or maybe he's just much less important, and killing him would have no impact on the outcome of the war...

Always this fictional day of reckoning where the truth shall become apparent to all. Funny how as the years pass it seems to recede further and further into the future. That's okay, just put it on the credit card. We've spent a lot of money, spilled our blood, paid a high political price,...

Does it really? It's been apparent from day one, for those of us who've had our heads out of the sand. And yes, all things worth having come with a price; we can't microwave security for our interests. It actually costs something and has to be fought for...

...and yet Iran is as much a player in Iraq as we are. That Little Caesar of yours has outmaneuvered us at a fraction of the cost and exercises as much influence in Iraq as we do.

I guess you are fooled by his smile... Ummm, the work of pure genius to have your hated enemy ringing your borders with it's powerful military and taking up residence right next door for the long haul.

The people of Iran know better than you; he's outmaneuvered nobody, except for the people who believe what he tells the microphone.

[Sasquatch]

Or maybe he's just much less important, and killing him would have no impact on the outcome of the war...



Does it really? It's been apparent from day one, for those of us who've had our heads out of the sand. And yes, all things worth having come with a price; we can't microwave security for our interests. It actually costs something and has to be fought for...



I guess you are fooled by his smile... Ummm, the work of pure genius to have your hated enemy ringing your borders with it's powerful military and taking up residence right next door for the long haul.

The people of Iran know better than you; he's outmaneuvered nobody, except for the people who believe what he tells the microphone.

Your always entertaining words aside, the reality is that both Iran and Al Qaeda, who had a negligible to no presence in Iraq prior to our invasion are firmly entrenched there now after five years while the perpetrators of 9/11 remain at large.

Not a particularly cost-effective foreign policy, in my opinion, given the finite nature of our resources, the incredible and mounting costs of the war, and its poor outcomes.

I repeat:

WMD: nope.
Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to invasion: nope.
Al Qaeda in Iraq after invasion: yep.
Reduction of terrorism: nope.
Transformation/democratization of Middle East: nope.
Containment of Iran: nope.
Bringing OBL to justice: nope.
Destruction of Taliban: nope.
Dismantling of global Al Qaeda network: nope.
Stability to the region: nope.
Reduction of global terrorism: nope.

You're going to convince me that all that's worth the lives of 4,000 Americans, a few hundred thousand Iraqis, millions of refugees, and a quarter of a trillion dollars?

If that's not the most egregious example of government inefficiency (incompetence) and wasteful spending, I don't know what is.

[vta]

Your always entertaining words aside, the reality is that both Iran and Al Qaeda, who had a negligible to no presence in Iraq prior to our invasion...

I know, I state this all the time...

are firmly entrenched there now after five years

For the most part were, given the numbers killed.

while the perpetrators of 9/11 remain at large.

bin Laden is dead and his second, Zawarhiri is living off the legend of a ghost. It'll be apparent soon enough, as it has for the those that died for nothing in Iraq, while the U.S. maintains it's influential position, that his tired proclaimations and empty threats are nothing more than empty talk.

Not a particularly cost-effective foreign policy, in my opinion, given the finite nature of our resources, the incredible and mounting costs of the war, and its poor outcomes.

It's not predicated on cost efficiency. Though I do seem to remember you and very many others decrying this as a 'war on the cheap'. Well which is it? is it a war on the cheap or is it costly? Or is it simply what sounds better for political dissent at the moment?

I repeat:

WMD: nope. Why bother, knowing my position on that?
Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to invasion: Why bother, knowing my position on that?
Al Qaeda in Iraq after invasion: yep. And dying in great numbers.
Reduction of terrorism: nope. Based on... ?
Transformation/democratization of Middle East: nope. Up for questioning.
Containment of Iran: nope. Yep.
Bringing OBL to justice: nope. Dead and gone
Destruction of Taliban: nope. True
Dismantling of global Al Qaeda network: nope. Highly damaged and bereft of resources, element of surprise and ability to carry out major attacks.
Stability to the region: nope. There's a war going on...
Reduction of global terrorism: nope. Based on what? Are we or aren't we the world police? More importantly, how many terrorist attacks have been carried out against the U.S in the last 5 years? Compared to the numbers of the '90's, which were at a rate of every 2-3, I'd say we're doing quite well in that repsect.)

You're going to convince me that all that's worth the lives of 4,000 Americans, a few hundred thousand Iraqis, millions of refugees, and a quarter of a trillion dollars?

Probably not, as you seem content to cling to any form of criticism, without any real proof to back it up. Answer previous questions, by all means; where are all of these recruits? Where are all of these terrorist attacks against United States interests? Where is that civil war?

If that's not the most egregious example of government inefficiency (incompetence) and wasteful spending, I don't know what is.

Of course you don't because you're still reluctant to understand it.

[Sasquatch]

Of course you don't because you're still reluctant to understand it.

The fact that we're still debating this after how many years tells you all you need to know.

What you refer to as a refusal to understand is in fact a refusal to accept chimerical projections of the future as a basis for defending a policy that has cost billions in dollars, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and has displaced millions.

I can point to five years of inaccurate estimates, miscalculations, wrong intelligence, and gross incompetence to make my point that such a sanguine outcome is highly unlikely. You've got an eloquently stated theory of how things will turn out if we just stay the course a little longer.

[vta]

The fact that we're still debating this after how many years tells you all you need to know.

Indeed it does, but of course not for the reasons you'd imply with that statement.

What you refer to as a refusal to understand is in fact a refusal to accept chimerical projections of the future as a basis for defending a policy that has cost billions in dollars, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and has displaced millions.

What I refer to as a refusal is based primarily on facts. You and I have been discussing this for years, since the Renegade Radio boards. I've watched the discussion through it's progressions; from the failures of DHS, to the failed intelligence, the lies, the civil war, the recruitment of terrorists and the expansion of global terror.

On and on the excuses went. None of these things have come to pass, as I have said many times over the years.

I can point to five years of inaccurate estimates, miscalculations, wrong intelligence, and gross incompetence to make my point that such a sanguine outcome is highly unlikely. You've got an eloquently stated theory of how things will turn out if we just stay the course a little longer.

Are you sure? The story seems to change from thread to thread. Miscalculations and wrong estimates or lies? Which is it? I've staunchly proclaimed my stance on it: the administration lied.

Things have turned out just the way I've been saying they will for years.

I've been saying since the Renegade days that this is not about WMD, or bin Laden. This is about a broader strategy of influence and securing our interests.

The facts bear this out. If it were about WMD, it wouldn't have been necessary to invade, number one; number two, after finding that they didn't exist, the United States not only did not make plans to leave, as some geniuses labeled 'an exit strategy', but in fact has made plans to stay for a very long time.

Does it seem likely the idea was, 'well since we're here, why the hell not stay'? Nope. It was planned all along. How else do you influence a region, but to firmly entrench yourself in it?

A healthy does of physical fear and subversion has Iran passing peach pits. Yes, Ahmadinejad does put on a good face, all the while threatening Israel, like they all end up doing when faced with the possibility of an American attack, and running around trying to secure allies, but what would you expect from a politician who doesn't want his own population behaving exactly in the manner we want them to behave?

The Iranians are not happy with him or his theological leaders. The United States will not have to lift a finger to get what it wants from Iran, unless they, out of desperation force our hand. This is not a position any country would want to be in.

The numbers don't lie, no terrorist attacks agains the U.S., versus every 2-3 years in the '90's. Acts of war in the created war zone don't count.

I've based nothing on hope and all on what I've seen and know about the conflict, since before it invaded Prime Time, after 9/11.

[Sasquatch]

The numbers don't lie, no terrorist attacks agains the U.S., versus every 2-3 years in the '90's. Acts of war in the created war zone don't count.

You want to prove that that has anything to do with the invasion Iraq? Good luck. It's a bogus argument and link that cannot be sustained or established with any sort of certainty.

Again, all you present is a grand theory that will reveal itself in due time, denial of hitherto accumulated facts and published reports on the existence of Iraqi WMD, Al Qaeda ties, international terrorist activity, and the undeniable influence of Iran in Iraq which was not the case prior to our invasion.

I guess I'm just not as casual about depleting our limited financial resources and destroying other people's lives in pursuit of policies whose outcomes have hitherto been negligible.

[vta]

You want to prove that that has anything to do with the invasion Iraq? Good luck. It's a bogus argument and link that cannot be sustained or established with any sort of certainty.

Hey that's real funny; you bring up, out of thin air of course, that terrorism hasn't been diminished, I refute that with a truth and this is your answer? If a link can not be established for it's positive effects, how exactly can you use it as evidence of failure? You're reaching my friend.

Terrorism has been diminshed by the broader efforts of U.S. foreign policy and not simply by being in Iraq.

Again, all you present is a grand theory that will reveal itself in due time, denial of hitherto accumulated facts and published reports on the existence of Iraqi WMD, Al Qaeda ties, international terrorist activity, and the undeniable influence of Iran in Iraq which was not the case prior to our invasion.

That's one convoluted sentence, right there.
Which reports of WMD, Al Qeada ties and international terrorist activities are you referring to? What facts have I been denying? In respect to them I've never changed my stance; WMD were never there, nor were al Qeada.

Are you now asserting that I'm wrong in that regard and they were there before? What have I denied in ragard to those facets of the discussion?

I guess I'm just not as casual about depleting our limited financial resources and destroying other people's lives in pursuit of policies whose outcomes have hitherto been negligible.

How could you be when you're so far off the mark of understanding what this war is about?

[Sasquatch]

Hey that's real funny; you bring up, out of thin air of course, that terrorism hasn't been diminished, I refute that with a truth and this is your answer? If a link can not be established for it's positive effects, how exactly can you use it as evidence of failure? You're reaching my friend.

Terrorism has been diminshed by the broader efforts of U.S. foreign policy and not simply by being in Iraq.



That's one convoluted sentence, right there.
Which reports of WMD, Al Qeada ties and international terrorist activities are you referring to? What facts have I been denying? In respect to them I've never changed my stance; WMD were never there, nor were al Qeada.

Are you now asserting that I'm wrong in that regard and they were there before? What have I denied in ragard to those facets of the discussion?



How could you be when you're so far off the mark of understanding what this war is about?

Come on, VTA. We've had this go around so many times. Don't pretend that it's only a matter of providing links and statistics. It's all been done before: the 9/11 commission, annual global terrorism reports, recent military report debunking prewar claims that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, etc., etc. The question isn't whether or not the reports exist, it's whether or not you give them any credence.

Why expend the effort and go through the charade all over again when we know we'll just end up back at the beginning?

My position is that the hitherto unrealized benefits of this war do not justify the enormous expense. And given the way the affair has been mismanaged from the beginning there's no compelling reason to believe that in due time the policy goals will be realized.

You want facts? Here are a few that are relevant to this debate:

Al Qaeda did not have a presence in Iraq but now it does.

Al Qaeda remains intact, operational, and an international threat.

Iran has greater influence in Iraq than it had prior to the invasion.

Global terrorism has increased since the war. You may want to qualify those numbers by arguing that many incidents have occurred in a war zone but I doubt that's comforting to the mostly civilian victims of these attacks.

Osama Bin Laden is still at large and until he's proven dead, as you claim without substantiation, that's the only conclusion we can draw.

The Taliban has regrouped in Afghanistan and is as strong as it has been since the invasion.

The war has cost 500 billion dollars (and counting), 4,000 US lives, the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and a few million displaced Iraqis who are now refugees.

The war has aggravated political divisions in our country with a population that is bitterly divided on this issue as our ongoing exchanges attests.

[vta]

Come on, VTA. We've had this go around so many times. Don't pretend that it's only a matter of providing links and statistics. It's all been done before: the 9/11 commission, annual global terrorism reports, recent military report debunking prewar claims that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, etc., etc. The question isn't whether or not the reports exist, it's whether or not you give them any credence.

Look at this paragraph and understand why you are confused. It makes no sense to say these things to me, because they are irrelevant to my position on the war. How am I not giving these reports credence, when basically, I agree with them?

I have said, plenty of times: Iraq was not linked to 9/11; the admin lied and there were no WMD in Iraq; Al Qeada had no presence in Iraq, before the invasion. I've said these things countless times. How is it you are so confused?

I don't care for links, I don't provide links; what I assert is mainly common knowledge based on what's reported daily. Not Op-Ed opinions by angry writers and political dissenters, but the truth that's reported each and every day. Every step that is reported tells the story of why we're there, where we are at and what we can expect in the future.

I've been as clear as a bell in where I stand. You on the other hand have not. You offer up confusion and anecdotal criticisms. You pick a side that dissents, even if it contradicts one you'd chosen at another time.

Your idea of facts is based solely on the dissenting voices of the authors you've posted and echoed, all of which do not do much more than claim to care about our soldiers, claim to care about Iraqi's, claim to care about or in some cases pretend terrorism doesn't even exist; it's simply a construct of the evil empire; and yet offer up nothing tangible as to what they (you) think this war is about. Unless it's some of the more out there loons that say, it's just the Empire conquering.

Very simply answer: What is this war about?
Is it premised on False intelligence (lies) or bad intelligence?

No links, your answers. Let's here what Sasquatch believes.
Not why you don't like it, the deaths, the money, but what you truly believe it to be.

What is this war about?

[Sasquatch]

What is this war about?

In my mental universe, my dear VTA, there is only one legitimate reason to go to war: in response to an attack on you or your allies. But, you've already said that this had nothing to do with Saddam, so don't try construing his support of terrorism as an attack against us or our allies. :)

What I'm arguing here is that the war has not met its putative aims nor has it advanced any hidden goals that might justify its tremendous costs. You retort with "facts" but I'm still not sure what they are except that there is some political disaffection in Iran that may or may not advance our ultimate objectives in the region.

In admitting that our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq, you're essentially espousing a Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that would serve to justify any action so long as it advanced a desired end (not that that is currently happening). The German violation of Belgian neutrality in WWI and II, universally condemned in the history books, would be justified and legitimate had they simply won the war. I don't think that particular ideology is the best vehicle for promoting law and order in the world.

Therefore, I reject your argument on both ideological and practical grounds. :p:

http://www.webdesign-guru.co.uk/icon/wp-content/uploads/rejected.gif

[Sasquatch]

Very simply answer: What is this war about?
Is it premised on False intelligence (lies) or bad intelligence?

Lies, bad intelligence, and poor management.

The confusion you ascribe to me is the result of the shell-game played by certain proponents of the war who skip from rationale to rationale none of which really holds up to rational scrutiny. Obviously, I don't include you in this crowd since you've been quite consistent in your position that this isn't about publicly stated aims at all.

But I will say that your insistence that the aims of our strategy will become apparent and be realized in due time is somewhat Moulderesque in the faith that it puts in the secret machinations of our government.

http://www.finbom.se/images/I_want_to_belive.jpg

[zrinkill]

Wow .....VTA responds with clear answers ..... and you resort to your usual tactics.

[iceberg]

Wow .....VTA responds with clear answers ..... and you resort to your usual tactics.

keep pushing for common sense and you'll be ignored.

[Dallas]

keep pushing for common sense and you'll be ignored.


LOL you are so on Sassies ignore list iceberg.

How did you do it? We want to know!

[iceberg]

LOL you are so on Sassies ignore list iceberg.

How did you do it? We want to know!

stay on him to prove what he says and make stay consistant. he hates that. he just likes to throw out $3 words and talk a good fixin.

[vta]

In my mental universe, my dear VTA, there is only one legitimate reason to go to war: in response to an attack on you or your allies. But, you've already said that this had nothing to do with Saddam, so don't try construing his support of terrorism as an attack against us or our allies. :)

What I'm arguing here is that the war has not met its putative aims nor has it advanced any hidden goals that might justify its tremendous costs. You retort with "facts" but I'm still not sure what they are except that there is some political disaffection in Iran that may or may not advance our ultimate objectives in the region.

In admitting that our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq, you're essentially espousing a Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that would serve to justify any action so long as it advanced a desired end (not that that is currently happening). The German violation of Belgian neutrality in WWI and II, universally condemned in the history books, would be justified and legitimate had they simply won the war. I don't think that particular ideology is the best vehicle for promoting law and order in the world.

Therefore, I reject your argument on both ideological and practical grounds. :p:

_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Lies, bad intelligence, and poor management.

The confusion you ascribe to me is the result of the shell-game played by certain proponents of the war who skip from rationale to rationale none of which really holds up to rational scrutiny. Obviously, I don't include you in this crowd since you've been quite consistent in your position that this isn't about publicly stated aims at all.

But I will say that your insistence that the aims of our strategy will become apparent and be realized in due time is somewhat Moulderesque in the faith that it puts in the secret machinations of our government.


That rejected stamp made me laugh. That was good; but, you did not answer one of the questions. You state what you believe should be the impetus for war. You talked about the habits of others who, if I get this correctly, confuse you with their shell game?

Well, I've stated many times you can't impose conditions on my end of the discussion. They are not bound by what others believe, but are formed by what I see and can perceive. Forget what anyone else uses to prop up their end of the discussion.

It's fair enough, you feel it's poor intelligence and lies, and bad management, but it seems to be without an understanding, the dissent is all the product of following the opinions of respected, well spoken (written) authors.

War is costly, both in blood and currency, but decrying the effects of war is not reason enough to be against the war. You must understand it's aims and goals and state firmly why you are for or against them.

Do you?

It is relevant to note that throughout the 90's, into the early 00's that attacks against the U.S. were an average thing of 2-3 years. They are not now.

You flalty reject all the evidence of those attacks as acts of war, for some odd reason - perhaps your mentioned notion of what legitimizes war has hindered you from understanding this truth. There are no casual acts of murder and assault on sleeping soldiers, government workers and civilians. There are acts of war and should be met with the understanding of such.

This is no pre-emptive strike, this is a retaliation and a plainly obvious one.

I don't insist the aims of our strategy will be clear overtime, I've stated that they are very clear, to all who want to follow the historical trail of events. I've stated them and their reasoning, from long before 9/11 to the present.

I say that if you're going to scrutinize the strategy itself, that's legitimate, but you'll have to wait until it's finished to know if it really works. Soldiers dying and money being spent isn't an effect of losing, it's an effect of waging war period.

For all the fear mongering this administration gets accused of, the otherside is no better with it's proclaimations of failure and doom and constant criticism. For all the criticism this administration gets for taking a 'do anything' approach to fight this war, the other side is no better, with it's 'accept anything' approach to unfounded and often contradictory criticism. The 'sectarian strife' of the civil war that never materialized, the bloody consequences of the recruitment, all trumpeted and all shown to be false.

The inept handling of the war, yet the masterful manipulations of an administration run by the same people being called inept and clumsy.

The list goes on and so does the war.
I'm firmly behind it and confident that the United States will prevail.

[Jon88]

That rejected stamp made me laugh. That was good; but, you did not answer one of the questions. You state what you believe should be the impetus for war. You talked about the habits of others who, if I get this correctly, confuse you with their shell game?

Well, I've stated many times you can't impose conditions on my end of the discussion. They are not bound by what others believe, but are formed by what I see and can perceive. Forget what anyone else uses to prop up their end of the discussion.

It's fair enough, you feel it's poor intelligence and lies, and bad management, but it seems to be without an understanding, the dissent is all the product of following the opinions of respected, well spoken (written) authors.

War is costly, both in blood and currency, but decrying the effects of war is not reason enough to be against the war. You must understand it's aims and goals and state firmly why you are for or against them.

Do you?

It is relevant to note that throughout the 90's, into the early 00's that attacks against the U.S. were an average thing of 2-3 years. They are not now.

You flalty reject all the evidence of those attacks as acts of war, for some odd reason - perhaps your mentioned notion of what legitimizes war has hindered you from understanding this truth. There are no casual acts of murder and assault on sleeping soldiers, government workers and civilians. There are acts of war and should be met with the understanding of such.

This is no pre-emptive strike, this is a retaliation and a plainly obvious one.

I don't insist the aims of our strategy will be clear overtime, I've stated that they are very clear, to all who want to follow the historical trail of events. I've stated them and their reasoning, from long before 9/11 to the present.

I say that if you're going to scrutinize the strategy itself, that's legitimate, but you'll have to wait until it's finished to know if it really works. Soldiers dying and money being spent isn't an effect of losing, it's an effect of waging war period.

For all the fear mongering this administration gets accused of, the otherside is no better with it's proclaimations of failure and doom and constant criticism. For all the criticism this administration gets for taking a 'do anything' approach to fight this war, the other side is no better, with it's 'accept anything' approach to unfounded and often contradictory criticism. The 'sectarian strife' of the civil war that never materialized, the bloody consequences of the recruitment, all trumpeted and all shown to be false.

The inept handling of the war, yet the masterful manipulations of an administration run by the same people being called inept and clumsy.

The list goes on and so does the war.
I'm firmly behind it and confident that the United States will prevail.

I wouldn't waste any more of my valuable time on him. He's not trying to grasp anything you say. He just likes to argue and throw out big words. He's probably some burned out professor.

[vta]

I wouldn't waste any more of my valuable time on him. He's not trying to grasp anything you say. He just likes to argue and throw out big words. He's probably some burned out professor.

:laugh2:

That is funny...
We have been doing this for years and I think he's younger than me, (which isn't as hard to say as it used to be). :)

[ThreeSportStar80]

Imagine Obama said this. We'd have 100 posts saying pointing to his lack of experience. The board would go bat crap crazy and make all kinds of attributions regarding what his words "really" mean.

McCain says this and folks here are happy to pass it off as misspeaking.

Everyone misspeaks. But how folks react to it says a ton about whether they really evaluate candidates by their words and actions or whether they just look for a reason to bash someone.

Man I couldn't have said it better...

[Dallas]

Man I couldn't have said it better...


Oh I am certain you could have. Thing is - you don't bother to try. :(


Try?

[junk]

So you libs and dems are pefectly ok w/ all of the terrorist training going on in Iran? Dont talk about thos guys. We dont want to talk about the real terrorists camping out in the sands there.

They may not be Al-Queda but they certainly are wack-job, I want to kill you American infidels... terrorists.

Really, what is the difference?
What about Pakistan?

[Dallas]

What about Pakistan?


I agree. Let's clean that place up as well.