NY, LA, Miami and 'Dirty Bomb' Threat

[Larkinn]

Wrong answer, but par for the course with you. Using your claim, then your insistance that Iraq is doomed if we stay is Fanatsy as well, since it has not happened.

Ok...first of all I never said that Iraq is doomed if we stay.

Second of all, this is possibly the shittiest argument you've ever made. Which considering your incompetence is impressive. I'm wrong about a prediction I made about the future...and your evidence that I'm wrong is because it hasn't happened yet? Its a prediction about the FUTURE...the FUTURE means that it hasn't happened yet...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok...first of all I never said that Iraq is doomed if we stay.

Second of all, this is possibly the shittiest argument you've ever made. Which considering your incompetence is impressive. I'm wrong about a prediction I made about the future...and your evidence that I'm wrong is because it hasn't happened yet? Its a prediction about the FUTURE...the FUTURE means that it hasn't happened yet...

Ahh so your ability to predict is not a fantasy BUT the ability of people trained and educatated in the subject matter on whether South Vietnam would have been stable, that is pure fantasy? Those predictions were made even before the fall of South Vietnam.

Your word games are gonna trip you up every time.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I couldn't find a post about this from the last few days, though CNN was making a big deal out of it yesterday.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3436274,00.html



From a more reliable site than Debka, along with concerns. Lots of links:

http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/08/pakistan_concern_ove.php

Hmmmm...Taliban and Al Qaeda making gains in Pakistan. Wonder what would have happened if the Bush Administration had actually FINISHED the job in Afghanistan rather than letting the Taliban and AL Qaeda slip away at Tora Bora it the rush to invade Iraq? You know that country that DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

But, we must also bear in mind that the Bush administration also has a penchant for releasing vague, non-specific threats of terrorist action when it wants to cloud the news cycle and distract from their actions. Of course, like the "boy who cried wolf", when a real threat comes to light, given the Administration's COMPLETE lack of credibility, the warning will be ignored. And, as is typical of Bush and his administration, they will point the finger of blame everywhere but at themselves in an attempt to evade responsibility. Bush will hide behind executive privilege and suffer no real consequences as we take it in the neck.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hmmmm...Taliban and Al Qaeda making gains in Pakistan. Wonder what would have happened if the Bush Administration had actually FINISHED the job in Afghanistan rather than letting the Taliban and AL Qaeda slip away at Tora Bora it the rush to invade Iraq? You know that country that DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

But, we must also bear in mind that the Bush administration also has a penchant for releasing vague, non-specific threats of terrorist action when it wants to cloud the news cycle and distract from their actions. Of course, like the "boy who cried wolf", when a real threat comes to light, given the Administration's COMPLETE lack of credibility, the warning will be ignored. And, as is typical of Bush and his administration, they will point the finger of blame everywhere but at themselves in an attempt to evade responsibility. Bush will hide behind executive privilege and suffer no real consequences as we take it in the neck.

You are of course aware that the US had no intention of sending more troops to Afghanistan? Iraq or no Iraq.

 

[jodylee]

world politics has always been and always will be an immoral, cut throut, back stabing, self interest driven world. just like a big game of Risk.
In the old days for example in the british empire days, military books would say things like 'the invaision of iran was essential for the wealth of oil resurves, important to the growth of the empire.' It was to the point and honest. They didn't need to hide what they were doing,and could thus concentrate on the job and do it properly, they had no protests back home no mass of public opinion to deal with.
the same stuff is happening, just now they have to pretend otherwise,like the war on terrorisum, which is a construct of the CIA.
It is extreamly hard to do what america is trying to do in the modern world, vietnam and koea are both good examples of the US pulling out early due to public pressure. When the british took a country they did it absolute, quikly as possable, with no compromises, the concentration camp was invented by the british. vietnam is a prime example as 50 or so years before, the british took cambodia with no problem, a very simular country.
How can you build an empire without admitting it. you can't

 

[maineman]

LOL are you expecting me to believe that you think American troops are having NO EFFECT AT ALL ?

I am expecting you to post a quote from me where I said that the presence of Americans was CAUSING Iraqis to kill one another. Or retract your statement. It really is that simple.

weasel.

 

[maineman]

so if we leave there will be peace in the world?....

this concerted effort on the part of conservatives to avoid admitting their president and their vision for Iraq was fatally flawed is getting tedious.

1. we were attacked on 9/11 by folks who had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

2. Iraq was run by a mean-ass dictator who was a total prick to his people and who had rattled his sabre in the region for a long time.... in the past we had been both his enemy and his friend... immediately prior to the attacks of 9/11, our own secretary of state proclaimed that Saddam was NOT a threat to us and not a threat to his neighbors...AND... he was as despised by the folks that attacked us almost as much as they despised us. Even if Saddam had had any WMD's, he sure as hell would never have given them to OBL.

3. Despite being a total prick, Saddam did three things very well: a. he kept sunnis and shiites from wholesale slaughter. b. he kept wahabbist islamic extremists (the guys who actually did attack us) from using his country as a base of operations ( which was one big reason why their base of operations was Afghanistan!) andc. he kept Iranian regional hegemony in check. Don't we wish today that we could do any of those things as well as Saddam had done them?

4. We removed the strongman dictator that was the ONLY thing keeping sunnis, shiites and kurds living together within the confines of post WWI, european constructed artificial state called Iraq.

5. Now that he is gone, we are beginning to realize that, no matter how much we wish and wish and wish that it might be so, Iraqi sunnis and shiites will never be able to live together in that artificially constructed state with any form of government that even approaches the multicultural jeffersonian democracy that the PNAC folks so strongly promoted.

6. The presence of our troops does not "cause" Iraqis to kill one another, but it does make it easier for them to do so in some areas and a little bit harder in others. We don't have enough american "cops on the beat", so to speak, to patrol every block of every neighborhood of every town in Iraq. And when we "surge" a bunch of additional cops into a neighborhood, their presence there causes the death rate to marginally decrease because the insurgents need to become more inventive in their slaughter mechanisms, and/or they merely hop in their cars and drive to another town or another neighborhood where the additional cops are NOT, and pick up where they left off.

7. Our presence DOES insure that one casualty statistic will continue to rise: the number of body bags headed back to the USA has not slowed a bit. In fact, in the last twelve months, the numbers of body bags headed home has been nearly 40% higher than the previous twelve months.

8. Democracy will not work in Iraq as it is presently constituted. Iraq needs to be partitioned into three states. The negotiations as to how to divide up the territory and assets will not be successfully begun, let alone concluded, by an occupying army from the west, but by Iraqis and the various supporting/interested/neighboring Islamic states in the region. What ends up will undoubtedly look a whole lot different than what Dubya and Karl and Shooter and Scooter and Wolfie and Perle and Rummy had in mind when they got us into this mess, and it will undoubtedly NOT be as conducive to our long or short term interests or strategic initiatives as it was before we knocked it off the shelf and broke it... But I firmly believe that whatever comes from this mess will come from Iraqis and muslims and arabs cleaning it up, and regardless of the fact that our bumbling started this thing unravelling, we are powerless to stop it from continuing on to its logical and inevitable conclusion.

All we do by staying is to make OURSELVES poorer, fewer, less safe, and more despised.

Now...if MY party had gotten America into that mess, I would probably want to remain in denial like you republicans are doing....but you really need to stop it. It is not helping Iraq and it is REALLY hurting America.

 

[Larkinn]

Ahh so your ability to predict is not a fantasy BUT the ability of people trained and educatated in the subject matter on whether South Vietnam would have been stable, that is pure fantasy? Those predictions were made even before the fall of South Vietnam.

I'm sorry, when did I claim I had an ability to predict? It is what I believe will happen. An opinion. Nothing more.

Your word games are gonna trip you up every time.

I'm sure it will trip me up when you lie about what I say. Its quite easy to find contradictions in someones speech if you don't feel the need to stick to what they actually said.

 

[maineman]

Ahh so your ability to predict is not a fantasy BUT the ability of people trained and educatated in the subject matter on whether South Vietnam would have been stable, that is pure fantasy? Those predictions were made even before the fall of South Vietnam.

Your word games are gonna trip you up every time.

nobody's "ability to predict" the future can be shown to be a fantasy or even shown to be, in any way, incorrect until the future arrives in the present. Suggesting that other people in other generations failed to precisely predict the future does not, in any way, make all future predictions by anyone else therefore suspect.

And regarding vietnam.... a stable country, who, 40 years down the road, was fully independent of communist china, a peaceful and active trading partner with the united states... wouldn't that have been what we would have said that "victory" would hopefully produce?

 

[dilloduck]

6. The presence of our troops does not "cause" Iraqis to kill one another, but it does make it easier for them to do so in some areas and a little bit harder in others.

oh now I get it--The presence of American troops doesn't CAUSE Iraqi killings--it just makes it easier (in some areas). If we leave will it make it harder for them to kill each other ? Will it make it harder for Al Qaeda stir up more sectarian violence? Will there be a massive power vacuum?

 

[maineman]

oh now I get it--The presence of American troops doesn't CAUSE Iraqi killings--it just makes it easier (in some areas). If we leave will it make it harder for them to kill each other ? Will it make it harder for Al Qaeda stir up more sectarian violence? Will there be a massive power vacuum?

clearly, you don't get it. why do you keep saying that you do?

and when will you just admit that you misspoke and called "baseless" a claim that I never made in the first place? weasel.

When we leave, they will continue to kill each other until they and their supporting neighboring states can figure out a way to settle their territorial and asset distribution differences. There might very well be some period of uncertainty but it is in the best interests of all the middle eastern states that the warring factions of Islam in Iraq not be allowed to ignite a regional sectarian war.

As I said above, I have little idea what the final product will look like... whether there will even be an Iraq, as we know it. I do know that we can play no real constructive role in the process, and all we achieve by remaining there - besides a higher American body count - is delaying the eventual regional resolution to this issue.

 

[maineman]

oh now I get it--The presence of American troops doesn't CAUSE Iraqi killings

somewhat like the hole in the roof does not CAUSE the occupants to get wet, the rain does.

cause is not the same thing as effect.

american presence in Iraq does not cause Iraqis to kill one another.

is any of this sinking in?

 

[dilloduck]

clearly, you don't get it. why do you keep saying that you do?

and when will you just admit that you misspoke and called "baseless" a claim that I never made in the first place? weasel.

When we leave, they will continue to kill each other until they and their supporting neighboring states can figure out a way to settle their territorial and asset distribution differences. There might very well be some period of uncertainty but it is in the best interests of all the middle eastern states that the warring factions of Islam in Iraq not be allowed to ignite a regional sectarian war.

As I said above, I have little idea what the final product will look like... whether there will even be an Iraq, as we know it. I do know that we can play no real constructive role in the process, and all we achieve by remaining there - besides a higher American body count - is delaying the eventual regional resolution to this issue.

Is American presence in the region preventing neighborhood states and warring militias from settling "thier territorial and asset distribution differences" ? If so--how ?

 

[dilloduck]

somewhat like the hole in the roof does not CAUSE the occupants to get wet, the rain does.

cause is not the same thing as effect.

american presence in Iraq does not cause Iraqis to kill one another.

is any of this sinking in?

oh I get it now---Americans only caused a big hole in the roof. Whatever happened afterwards is someone elses fault.

 

[maineman]

Is American presence in the region preventing neighborhood states and warring militias from settling "thier territorial and asset distribution differences" ? If so--how ?

"Honey, I'd love to work on marriage counselling, but this motorcycle gang camped out in the living room is making it kinda difficult"

do you honestly think that arab and muslims nation states in the region are going to seriously address the long term solution to Iraq, which will clearly NOT include a multicultural jeffersonian democracy, when 150K american troops occupy the country, continue to prop up the maliki government and act as if that multicultural jeffersonian democracy is just around the corner?

 

[maineman]

oh I get it now---Americans only caused a big hole in the roof. Whatever happened afterwards is someone elses fault.

no... clearly you don't "get it".... you are being an argumentative, and cowardly prick who spews inaccurate bullshit and then never shows the grace to admit it.

America caused the hole in the roof. America is powerless to fix the hole in the roof. Having said that, America, nonetheless, does not make it rain.

 

[maineman]

clearly, you don't get it. why do you keep saying that you do?

and when will you just admit that you misspoke and called "baseless" a claim that I never made in the first place? weasel.

any fucking day now....

 

[dilloduck]

no... clearly you don't "get it".... you are being an argumentative, and cowardly prick who spews inaccurate bullshit and then never shows the grace to admit it.

America caused the hole in the roof. America is powerless to fix the hole in the roof. Having said that, America, nonetheless, does not make it rain.

They surely knew it was going to "rain"----it had been "raining" there for hundreds of years. Why did they think a "hole" was going to help anything?

 

[maineman]

They surely knew it was going to "rain"----it had been "raining" there for hundreds of years. Why did they think a "hole" was going to help anything?

actually, for quite some time, a series of totalitarian rulers had prevented it from "raining", but nonetheless, yours is a question you need to ask of Dubya, Shooter, Scooter, Rummy, Perle, and Wolfie....not me.

I have said since before we invaded, that an operation in Iraq would be a grievous error and a complete disaster.

I was right. the neocons - and their pompom waving apologists - were wrong.

 

[maineman]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.prostitution/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101654.html

we just spread the joys of jeffersonian democracy wherever we go, don't we?

but hey...you Bush apologists,...keep convincing yourself that your boy is doing "a heck of a job".