To what do you refer here?Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
- Join Date
- Dec 2001
- Posts
- 201
To what do you refer here?
To what do you refer here?
I asked if you had any evidence, and you respond by saying that because you see no evidence of what Bush is doing then he must not take this threat "very seriously"?I see little evidence that the Bush administration considers the terrorist nuke threat as much more than a convenient talking point to justifiy their Iraq policy.Advocate for the Devil wonders if the poster has any credible evidence to back up this horrific charge?
This tells me a lot. You're much more concerned with covering your side's ass than you are with national security.
Typical liberal Democrat.
I asked if you had any evidence, and you respond by saying that because you see no evidence of what Bush is doing then he must not take this threat "very seriously"?I see little evidence that the Bush administration considers the terrorist nuke threat as much more than a convenient talking point to justifiy their Iraq policy.Advocate for the Devil wonders if the poster has any credible evidence to back up this horrific charge?
This tells me a lot. You're much more concerned with covering your side's ass than you are with national security.
Typical liberal Democrat.
To what do you refer here?
To what do you refer here?
You are the one who told me that I didn't "understand the times" of the 1940s, dude. It is clear you don't "understand" these "times." Ribbitt.
You are the one who told me that I didn't "understand the times" of the 1940s, dude. It is clear you don't "understand" these "times." Ribbitt.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, you snivelling beast! Join the twenty-first century and discover that your antique war methods no longer apply. Show me something that actually works. Of course, we can always nukemgood. But even that will be a losing effort.You are the one who told me that I didn't "understand the times" of the 1940s, dude. It is clear you don't "understand" these "times." Ribbitt.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, you snivelling beast! Join the twenty-first century and discover that your antique war methods no longer apply. Show me something that actually works. Of course, we can always nukemgood. But even that will be a losing effort.You are the one who told me that I didn't "understand the times" of the 1940s, dude. It is clear you don't "understand" these "times." Ribbitt.
Still drawing a blank here...
Still drawing a blank here...
Antique war methods are not being used, at least, not by the U.S.
The fighting we are engaged in against the uprising of Muqtada Al-Sadr is one that is extremely sensitive and risks catastrophe. Had we entered this previously, it would not have been possible for us to win. Over the months, we have been involved in preparations and much planning. Thus, today we are scoring amazing successes against this would-be tyrant.
I ask that the American people be brave. Don't fall for the spin by the weak and timid amongst you that are portraying this battle as a disaster. Such people are always looking for our failure to justify and rescue their constant pessimism. They are raising false flags of defeat in the press and media. It just isn't true.
Last year in April while the main war was still going on to defeat Saddam Hussein's military, I myself gave a class to my company of the 16th Engineers about the threat posed by Sadr and the prospects for conflict with his militias. Though my fellow soldiers didn't appreciate having to attend a class at 8am on one of our last days before deploying to Baghdad, they can tell you that what is happening now is no surprise. I used open and general information that my superiors were already aware of.
The basis of our evaluation over a year ago was that Sadr presented a formidable and possibly impossible threat. Last summer, as my unit covered Sadr City -- the sprawling part of Baghdad that Sadr controlled then -- his militias challenged us by making a show of force in defiance of the effort to open up Iraq society to the new freedoms. Sadr clearly demonstrated that he would deny Iraqis democracy and freedom in his quest for power. By the fall, he had most of Iraq's Shia leaders and the community at large intimidated and kowtowing to his bully tactics. In January through March, his arrogance and thuggery led him to pursue two further attacks upon the hopes for Iraqi freedom.
He vigorously pursued courting and forming alliances with Iranian hard-liners. Upon returning to Iraq, he then welcomed many foreign fighters to train and assist his militia in terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare.
In fact, we almost went into full conflict with him back then, months ago!
So our leaders, Paul Bremmer, Gen. Abizaid, and countless other US and Coalition leaders all over the land, acted w/ caution and care to secure for the US ever stronger cards against Sadr while simultaneously working to achieve four main goals.
Now we today are in a climactic battle against him and his militia. When the remnants of Saddam's regime were in full uprising in Fallujah, Sadr thought his time had come to make his bid for total power and to oust the US from Baghdad. He was very wrong.
It has been subtle and very well done by our leaders. You should be proud. It would have seemed impossible to have achieved our four main goals against Sadr even just a few months ago. Now today, despite the message of the pessimists who are misleading you into despair, we are have scored all the victories needed to bring this battle to a close. First goal was to isolate Sadr. Second was to exile him from his power-base in Baghdad. Third was to contain his uprising from spreading beyond his militias. And the last goal was to get both his hard-line supporters to abandon him, and to do encourage moderates to break from him. This has been done brilliantly, and now we are on the march in a way that just months ago seemed impossible to do. Sadr is losing everything.
Goal one: His so-called Mahdi Army militia is fighting alone. We are out defeating them day and night, and all the time we find them exposed and vulnerable. The people of Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf are not supporting him. His forces are isolated.
Goal two: His one-time powerbase, Sadr City in Baghdad, has been lost. Sadr has been exiled from there, and we have him on the run. He is trying to cloak his presence and activities in Najaf and Kut as planned, but that is damage control on his part....
Antique war methods are not being used, at least, not by the U.S.
The fighting we are engaged in against the uprising of Muqtada Al-Sadr is one that is extremely sensitive and risks catastrophe. Had we entered this previously, it would not have been possible for us to win. Over the months, we have been involved in preparations and much planning. Thus, today we are scoring amazing successes against this would-be tyrant.
I ask that the American people be brave. Don't fall for the spin by the weak and timid amongst you that are portraying this battle as a disaster. Such people are always looking for our failure to justify and rescue their constant pessimism. They are raising false flags of defeat in the press and media. It just isn't true.
Last year in April while the main war was still going on to defeat Saddam Hussein's military, I myself gave a class to my company of the 16th Engineers about the threat posed by Sadr and the prospects for conflict with his militias. Though my fellow soldiers didn't appreciate having to attend a class at 8am on one of our last days before deploying to Baghdad, they can tell you that what is happening now is no surprise. I used open and general information that my superiors were already aware of.
The basis of our evaluation over a year ago was that Sadr presented a formidable and possibly impossible threat. Last summer, as my unit covered Sadr City -- the sprawling part of Baghdad that Sadr controlled then -- his militias challenged us by making a show of force in defiance of the effort to open up Iraq society to the new freedoms. Sadr clearly demonstrated that he would deny Iraqis democracy and freedom in his quest for power. By the fall, he had most of Iraq's Shia leaders and the community at large intimidated and kowtowing to his bully tactics. In January through March, his arrogance and thuggery led him to pursue two further attacks upon the hopes for Iraqi freedom.
He vigorously pursued courting and forming alliances with Iranian hard-liners. Upon returning to Iraq, he then welcomed many foreign fighters to train and assist his militia in terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare.
In fact, we almost went into full conflict with him back then, months ago!
So our leaders, Paul Bremmer, Gen. Abizaid, and countless other US and Coalition leaders all over the land, acted w/ caution and care to secure for the US ever stronger cards against Sadr while simultaneously working to achieve four main goals.
Now we today are in a climactic battle against him and his militia. When the remnants of Saddam's regime were in full uprising in Fallujah, Sadr thought his time had come to make his bid for total power and to oust the US from Baghdad. He was very wrong.
It has been subtle and very well done by our leaders. You should be proud. It would have seemed impossible to have achieved our four main goals against Sadr even just a few months ago. Now today, despite the message of the pessimists who are misleading you into despair, we are have scored all the victories needed to bring this battle to a close. First goal was to isolate Sadr. Second was to exile him from his power-base in Baghdad. Third was to contain his uprising from spreading beyond his militias. And the last goal was to get both his hard-line supporters to abandon him, and to do encourage moderates to break from him. This has been done brilliantly, and now we are on the march in a way that just months ago seemed impossible to do. Sadr is losing everything.
Goal one: His so-called Mahdi Army militia is fighting alone. We are out defeating them day and night, and all the time we find them exposed and vulnerable. The people of Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf are not supporting him. His forces are isolated.
Goal two: His one-time powerbase, Sadr City in Baghdad, has been lost. Sadr has been exiled from there, and we have him on the run. He is trying to cloak his presence and activities in Najaf and Kut as planned, but that is damage control on his part....
We all read your question, four times.Still drawing a blank here...
Have you considered the possibility that Mike might need to be away from his computer for a while?
We all read your question, four times.Still drawing a blank here...
Have you considered the possibility that Mike might need to be away from his computer for a while?
Turns out Nick Berg was Jewish.
Just like Daniel Pearl...
Yet another fact that the media didn't feel was appropriate to report somehow...
Mustn't remind the public about that peculiar quirk of the terrorists...
Turns out Nick Berg was Jewish.
Just like Daniel Pearl...
Yet another fact that the media didn't feel was appropriate to report somehow...
Mustn't remind the public about that peculiar quirk of the terrorists...
According to Clarke, after the Khobar Towers bombing, for which the Iranians were responsible, the US retaliated with an unspecified action and a warning. What that response was is apparently classified. Nevertheless, Clarke reports that since then the Iranians haven't messed with us. Others, yes, but not us.To what do you refer here?
It is possible that the US has responded against al Qaeda in a classified manner and that's why we haven't been hit since. But I don't think so.
I'm not sure how one would do that against a stateless organization. States are easy. It's like Rumsfeld says, they are "target rich".
According to Clarke, after the Khobar Towers bombing, for which the Iranians were responsible, the US retaliated with an unspecified action and a warning. What that response was is apparently classified. Nevertheless, Clarke reports that since then the Iranians haven't messed with us. Others, yes, but not us.To what do you refer here?
It is possible that the US has responded against al Qaeda in a classified manner and that's why we haven't been hit since. But I don't think so.
I'm not sure how one would do that against a stateless organization. States are easy. It's like Rumsfeld says, they are "target rich".
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Great, Justin. So now you are arguing that Iraq DID shop around for yellowcake, which was precisely what British Intelligence said.Most likely because merely "having uranium" (...ore (...underground)) and having useable uranium in sufficient quantities to run a reactor (which, IIRC, is what FAS indicated the yellowcake facilities were established for back before the Israelis bombed Osirak) are separated by an enormous gulf of time and capital expenditure. If, for example, China has yellowcake already mined, or the United States has some already process -- or even already refined -- one would be amiss to insist on "buying Iraqi".
Glad to have you on board!!
You crack me up!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
In your post, you state that something is undisputed, and ask me to explain it. I decline to dispute it, having done so countless times past already only to have your Meece-strength force shields deflect over and over. I do, however, offer a plausible explanation for the hypothetical situation you are describing.
And you take this hypothetical explanation to be agreement with the validity of your premises?!?
What's more, the premise you listed initially, that Iraq had "gone to other countries for uranium" is not the same thing as the bogus British claim that Iraq had "gone to Nigeria for uranium". You see, the British offered evidence of their specific claim -- said evidence turning out to be a load of crap, but that's secondary here.
You blow me away, man.
(Vince, Brian, Name That Fallacy!)
_______________________
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." -- George Orwell
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Great, Justin. So now you are arguing that Iraq DID shop around for yellowcake, which was precisely what British Intelligence said.Most likely because merely "having uranium" (...ore (...underground)) and having useable uranium in sufficient quantities to run a reactor (which, IIRC, is what FAS indicated the yellowcake facilities were established for back before the Israelis bombed Osirak) are separated by an enormous gulf of time and capital expenditure. If, for example, China has yellowcake already mined, or the United States has some already process -- or even already refined -- one would be amiss to insist on "buying Iraqi".
Glad to have you on board!!
You crack me up!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
In your post, you state that something is undisputed, and ask me to explain it. I decline to dispute it, having done so countless times past already only to have your Meece-strength force shields deflect over and over. I do, however, offer a plausible explanation for the hypothetical situation you are describing.
And you take this hypothetical explanation to be agreement with the validity of your premises?!?
What's more, the premise you listed initially, that Iraq had "gone to other countries for uranium" is not the same thing as the bogus British claim that Iraq had "gone to Nigeria for uranium". You see, the British offered evidence of their specific claim -- said evidence turning out to be a load of crap, but that's secondary here.
You blow me away, man.
(Vince, Brian, Name That Fallacy!)
_______________________
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." -- George Orwell
Ordinarily, I wouldn't question a statement like this, but given msm's track record...
Citation?
After all, Berg is a pretty common German name, too.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't question a statement like this, but given msm's track record...
Citation?
After all, Berg is a pretty common German name, too.
Hmm... "according to Clarke..." "unspecified action..." If I were to offer an argument like that, Brain Rush would be all over it like ants on a popsicle.
Even if I accept this, you're definition of "rolled-up" seems peculiar in this case. Iran is developing nukes, and is actively opposing us in Iraq. Al Sadr is an Iranian agent. And you admit that Iran is continuing to utilize terrorism against others. (Remember, this is supposed to be a WOT.)
By I'll grant that it's feasible that Iran is avoiding directly attacking the U.S. at this point, and the Clinton administration might have done something to make it so.
As for Iran being responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing, I'll merely stipulate that for now...
Yeah, so Al Qaeda's harder to "roll-up". We are all in agreement there. My favorite comment from the very day of 9/11 was when it was noted that "When the Japanese attacked us, they used their own damn planes!"
Given that, it's apples and oranges, don't you think?
Plus, there are some other Clinton failures that you didn't factor into your grades:
