Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
DEBKAfile Exclusive: US Marines are locked in battle with Syrian troops after crossing the border from Iraq into Syria at a point west of al Qaim
November 25, 2005, 12:27 AM (GMT+02:00)
Both sides have suffered casualties. US soldiers crossed over after Damascus was given an ultimatum Thursday, Nov. 24, to hand over a group of senior commanders belonging to Abu Musab al Zarqawis al Qaeda force. According to US intelligence, the group had fled to Syria to escape an American attack in Mosul. Syrian border guards opened fire on the American force.
Pravda is meanwhile corroboratively reporting that:
The Iraqi government on Thursday called on Syria to detain dangerous insurgents who fled across the border to escape a joint U.S.-Iraqi military operation in the area this month. Government spokesman Laith Kubba also said that insurgent attacks are expected to rise before the Dec. 15 general elections. He said attacks by Muslim extremists and Saddam (Husseins) criminals will be their last stand.
Bullypulpit said:Interesting...but not new.
<center><a href=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05292/590727.stm>Invade Syria? Insane</a></center>
Any incursion into Syrian territory without the express authiorization of Congress would be a violation of the 1973 War Powers Act, and an expansion of an already unjust and illegal war.
Of course, the Bush administration has been ramping up the pressure on Syria in recent months with increasingly bellicpse rhetoric, as well as pulling the US ambassador from Syria in February 2005 after the Harirri assasination in Lebanon.
I don't think Dubbyuh and his bloody-handed cabal will get much traction, or support for the invasion of Syria. With his popularity at historic lows, the loss of public support for the war in Iraq, and Congressional Republicans feeling free to thumb their collective noses at the White House on a number of issues, the presence of US troops in Syria will be a short-lived phenomena. Particularly with the '06 mid-term elections looming large in the consciousness of the RNC.
And there's another irony...Plans are afoot for US troops to begin drawing down starting in early 2006. Just in time for the '06 elections and regardless of whether the Iraqis are capable of taking up the burden.
Bullypulpit said:Interesting...but not new.
<center><a href=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05292/590727.stm>Invade Syria? Insane</a></center>
Any incursion into Syrian territory without the express authiorization of Congress would be a violation of the 1973 War Powers Act, and an expansion of an already unjust and illegal war.
Of course, the Bush administration has been ramping up the pressure on Syria in recent months with increasingly bellicpse rhetoric, as well as pulling the US ambassador from Syria in February 2005 after the Harirri assasination in Lebanon.
I don't think Dubbyuh and his bloody-handed cabal will get much traction, or support for the invasion of Syria. With his popularity at historic lows, the loss of public support for the war in Iraq, and Congressional Republicans feeling free to thumb their collective noses at the White House on a number of issues, the presence of US troops in Syria will be a short-lived phenomena. Particularly with the '06 mid-term elections looming large in the consciousness of the RNC.
And there's another irony...Plans are afoot for US troops to begin drawing down starting in early 2006. Just in time for the '06 elections and regardless of whether the Iraqis are capable of taking up the burden.
Avatar4321 said:Why is it despite your claims you cant provide why liberating Iraq is illegal or unjust? Congress authorized it. Hence according to the Constitution it's perfectly legal. And I dont know how eliminating a tyrant can be unjust. Can you explain that please?
As for the 73 War Powers act, there is debate whether the war powers act is even constitutional. However, thats not relevant to this discussion. Because the war powers act would allow the President to wage war with any nation for 60 days prior to getting Congress's approval. The whole basis to your post is shot right there.
Kathianne said:Drawdowns do not happen in a few months, you know that. That is what IS not NEW. The drawdown begins through rotations after the election on Dec. 15 in Iraq, you know, the third one that some said were never going to happen.
I included skepticism of debka, yet there have been major ops on that border for over a month now. A raid is not unthinkable, especially for high value targets.
Bullypulpit said:What's to prove? Invading Iraq was a war of choice...a war of aggression...instigated under questionable premises. Launching a war of aggression is inherently unjust, and a violation of many inter national treaties which the US us signatory to and whose terms the US is bound by and is thus illegal.
That <a href=http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>the premises for war have mutated some 27 times</a> is an indication of just how questionable those premises were, and and raises the spectre of possible war-crimes indictments against American leaders in the Hague. And let's not forget the abandoning of the Geneva Conventions as "qaint and obsolete", thus putting our troops in danger, not only in this conflict, but in any future conflicts.
What's to prove?
Bullypulpit said:What's to prove? Invading Iraq was a war of choice...a war of aggression...instigated under questionable . Launching a war of aggression is inherently unjust, and a violation of many inter national treaties which the US us signatory to and whose terms the US is bound by and is thus illegal.
That <a href=http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>the premises for war have mutated some 27 times</a> is an indication of just how questionable those premises were, and and raises the spectre of possible war-crimes indictments against American leaders in the Hague. And let's not forget the abandoning of the Geneva Conventions as "qaint and obsolete", thus putting our troops in danger, not only in this conflict, but in any future conflicts.
What's to prove?
Iraq rebuffs the world
As one of its nine arguments for war, the Bush administration accused Saddam Hussein of flouting international efforts to block illicit weapons programs. The president also confronted an evidently cor
(sic)
November 25, 2005
What the White House said
In the summer of 2002, many influential voices--including, apparently, that of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell--urged President Bush to carry his brief against Iraq to the United Nations rather than unilaterally march his military into war.
That urging reflected widespread yearning for multilateral solutions to international disputes--a sense that when conflict arises that could lead to war, the community of nations should apply its imprimatur. That urging also reflected widespread faith that the UN was an honest broker.
The yearning was intense. The faith was misplaced.
Bush did agree to address the UN General Assembly in New York City. He spoke there on Sept. 12, 2002--one day after the first anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001. In his speech, which left many diplomats visibly squirming in their chairs, the president detailed tandem patterns of failure: Saddam Hussein had refused to obey UN Security Council orders that he disclose his weapons programs--and the UN had refused to enforce its demands of Hussein:
....
..."The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence?
"Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
Several weeks after Bush's speech, on Nov. 8, 2002, the Security Council--voting unanimously--adopted another resolution, No. 1441, ordering Iraq to disclose its weapons programs--and threatening "serious consequences" if Hussein didn't comply. That phrase was taken worldwide as diplospeak for use of military force...
...
...The UN then dispatched weapons inspectors to resume the search suspended in 1998. But rather than open itself to complete scrutiny--a necessary act even if it no longer possessed illicit arms--Iraq's regime feinted and dodged.
Colin Powell, during his Feb. 5, 2003, presentation to the Security Council, increased U.S. pressure on the UN to enforce its demands: "... This council placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm, and not on the inspectors to find that which Iraq has gone out of its way to conceal for so long. Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives. ...
"[T]he information and intelligence we have gathered point to an active and systematic effort on the part of the Iraqi regime to keep key materials and people from the inspectors, in direct violation of Resolution 1441. The pattern is not just one of reluctant cooperation, nor is it merely a lack of cooperation. What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work."...
...Iraq was to give inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to verify its compliance. The decree concluded with its admonition that the Security Council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
The resolution's 30-day window dragged into months of stalling and limited compliance by Hussein. By early March 2003, the U.S., Britain and Spain were lobbying the Security Council to set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with the Nov. 8, 2002, resolution.
On March 7, 2003, the inspectors paradoxically suggested to the Security Council that Iraq had displayed more cooperation, but the inspectors also said they still had 29 areas of unanswered questions about weapons issues. The Tribune reported that those issues included the whereabouts of thousands of chemical bombs and tons of anthrax, VX nerve gas and botulinum toxin uncovered during previous searches.
U.S. and British officials retorted that, at best, Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors was reluctant, evasive, incomplete--and clearly a rebuke to Resolution 1441.
France and Russia nevertheless threatened to veto the proposed ultimatum. In response, Washington, London and Madrid proposed setting a compliance deadline later than March 17. Again, Paris and Moscow threatened vetoes.
With two permanent members of the Security Council unwilling to support the November resolution for which they had voted, the U.S., Britain and Spain withdrew their proposal for an 18th resolution. They said they instead would rely on the earlier council ultimatums. With diplomacy in tatters, the UN instructed its inspectors and humanitarian workers to leave Iraq.
On March 17, 2003, Bush primarily cited Iraq's failure to obey UN orders as the reason for the impending launch of the war. He spoke of Iraq's weapons programs but pivoted his speech on Hussein's intransigence:
"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
"Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. ...
"The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours," Bush said.
"In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours.
"Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals--including journalists and inspectors--should leave Iraq immediately."
Early on March 20 in Iraq--the night of March 19 here--the first missiles struck Baghdad...
What we know today
Reasonable minds profoundly disagree on whether Saddam Hussein's flouting of UN resolutions and sanctions justified the launch of war. But there can be no credible assertion that either Iraq or the UN met its responsibility to the world. If anything, the Bush administration's citations of cunning chicanery--both in Baghdad and at UN headquarters on the East River--were gravely understated.
That chicanery is, however, not the only reason why Hussein felt he could dodge international mandates, or why the UN repeatedly permitted him to do so.
The Bush administration's strategy of confrontation bucked decades of policy in many countries--the U.S. included. Before Bush initiated what he called a war against global terrorism, many prosperous nations employed a triad defense of stoicism, appeasement and, from Washington and a few other world capitals, occasional bursts of retaliatory missiles or other limited military actions...
...Bush, having overthrown the Taliban government of Afghanistan, now wanted to eradicate another regime. And he wanted the UN to give him permission.
The better approach, many governments believed, was containment. They saw Hussein's grudging agreement to re-admit weapons inspectors, as Resolution 1441 demanded, as proof that the world could limit whatever threat he posed. But was Hussein a reformed man? Or did having the world's most powerful military poised at his border, ready to invade, prompt him to pay lip service to UN demands?
As 2003 arrived, the containment caucus had a problem. For years many governments had hoped that a combination of sticks and carrots--in the form of international oversight, threatened sanctions and economic incentives--would keep North Korea from pursuing nukes. The disclosure that Pyongyang had secretly connived for years to build nukes, and now was lengthening the reach of its delivery system, was a nightmare. Its implication: If containment someday failed and Hussein acquired nukes, he would be as invulnerable as the North Koreans who, by numerous accounts, already possessed bombs.
The reluctance of many governments to embrace Bush's aggressive agenda was understandable. But the reluctance of those governments to enforce Security Council resolutions for which they had voted arguably was not...
...In a series of reports, Volcker's team has chronicled the debasement and exploitation of the UN's oil-for-food program. For seven years before the war, that program let Hussein sell oil and ostensibly use the proceeds to buy humanitarian supplies for citizens suffering hardships caused by the sanctions.
Under lax UN oversight, Hussein used oil-for-food to wage extortion, bribery and other schemes: Volcker alleges that half of some 4,500 companies around the world that participated in oil-for-food paid $1.8 billion in illegal kickbacks to Iraq's regime. And, apart from oil-for-food, Hussein also scammed vast revenues by illegally smuggling oil out of Iraq...
...Charles Duelfer's October 2004 report on his search for Iraqi weapons succinctly framed Hussein's modus operandi. Duelfer also said Hussein's scheme to parlay oil-for-food into the end of UN sanctions almost had succeeded.
Duelfer wrote: "He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections--to gain support for lifting sanctions--with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD and with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. ... By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime ..." Once liberated from sanctions, Duelfer concluded, Hussein intended to recreate Iraq's illicit weapons capability...
...The opponents of military action could not seriously argue that Hussein had complied with the UN's repeated demands. Nor could they point to brighter days if only the U.S. and other nations held their fire. This particular argument for war, one of nine advanced by the White House, was not disputable. Iraq had rebuffed the world, and the UN had failed to respond.
EDITORIALS
The case, then and now
Before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials made nine arguments for toppling Saddam Husseins regime. Now, as Democrats accuse the White House of having lied to Americans, the president rebukes his critics for rewriting history. Beginning today, the Chicago Tribune Editorial Page attempts to set the record straight.
November 20, 2005
Did George W. Bush intentionally mislead this nation and its allies into war? Or is it his critics who have misled Americans, recasting history to discredit the president and his policies?
Today the Tribune begins an attempt to help readers resolve those questions. This re-examination of the administration's rationale for war offers doses of discomfort for the self-assuredthose who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, the ongoing war in Iraq.
We begin with the premise that the passage of three years has obscured much of what actually was said in 2002 and early 2003 as this nation debated whether to invade Iraq and oust its dictator. Also obscured by the passage of time, and by often vicious (and mutual) political partisanship: what subsequent investigations and other evidence suggest about the emptiness, or accuracy, of the administration's reasons for war.
This is, we acknowledge at the outset, an arbitrary exercisebeginning with our identification of the nine arguments the Bush administration advanced in making its case for war. Those nine arguments were distinct, although sometimes overlapping. They included, but went well beyond, Iraq's weapons programs.
We isolated these nine arguments for war from eight major speeches or presentations by administration officials as they advanced their case. To assess each of those nine arguments, the Tribune will present an occasional series of editorials that examine the arguments one by one.
We approach each argument by positing two questions: What did the administration say about this in making its case for war? And what do we know about those assertions today?
This is not breezy reading. It is, rather, an inquest about deadly serious affairs. We largely reconstruct the arguments for war, and the subsequent investigative findings about those arguments, in the words of those who spoke or wrote them. In numerous instances, those words have not been widely reported before; news coverage at the time tended to focus on the most illuminating or provocative statements, rather than on the broader contexts in which they were made.
That is particularly true of one major argument advanced by the administration: that Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. The administration's argument concerning Hussein's nuclear ambitions included themes separate from its assertions about his biological and chemical programs.
Those nuclear ambitions make fleeting appearances in this installment, and will be discussed more thoroughly in the third.
What the administration said:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...v20,1,3397604.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
November 20, 2005
In 1998, the year Saddam Hussein squeezed weapons inspectors out of Iraq, then-President Bill Clinton famously defined the risk of leaving Hussein unchallenged: "He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Several months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration began pressing much the same argument, asserting that Hussein had accomplished the rebuilding Clinton feared. Vice President Dick Cheney broadly argued the case in an Aug. 26, 2002, address to a convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville:
" ... After his defeat in the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam agreed under UN Security Council Resolution 687 to cease all development of weapons of mass destruction. He agreed to end his nuclear weapons program. He agreed to destroy his chemical and his biological weapons. He further agreed to admit UN inspection teams into his country to ensure that he was in fact complying with these terms.
"In the past decade, Saddam has systematically broken each of these agreements. The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents. And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago. These are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq; these are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses, in his own region or beyond.
"On the nuclear question, many of you will recall that Saddam's nuclear ambitions suffered a severe setback in 1981 when the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor. They suffered another major blow in Desert Storm and its aftermath. But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectorsincluding Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.
"Just how soon, we cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances. This is especially the case when you are dealing with a totalitarian regime that has made a science out of deceiving the international community. ...
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighborsconfrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."
Less than three weeks later, Bush made parallel but comparatively specific assertions about illicit weapons in his Sept. 12, 2002, address to the UN General Assembly:
" ... From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft spray tanks. UN inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
"United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons."
During a speech in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, Bush said Iraq possessed "ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of milesfar enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nationsin a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."
The president expanded on another accusationa point he'd mentioned previouslyduring his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address: " ... From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."
Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered the administration's most detailed charges when he addressed the UN Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. Three sentences in particular have become enduring embarrassments for Powell: " ... My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
Powell played audio intercepts and displayed photographs to bulwark his assertions that Iraqi officials were going to great lengths to disguise their weapons programs. His litany of non-nuclear weaponry allegedly in Iraq's possession again included "mobile production facilities used to make biological agents." He said Hussein's regime "has also developed ways to disperse lethal biological agents widely, indiscriminately, into the water supply, into the air. ... "
"Iraq's procurement efforts include equipment that can filter and separate micro-organisms and toxins involved in biological weapons; equipment that can be used to concentrate the agent; growth media that can be used to continue producing anthrax and botulinum toxin; sterilization equipment for laboratories; glass-lined reactors and specialty pumps that can handle corrosive chemical weapons agents and precursors; large amounts of thionyl chloride, a precursor for nerve and blister agents; and other chemicals, such as sodium sulfide, an important mustard agent precursor.
"Now of course Iraq will argue that these items can also be used for legitimate purposes. But if that is true, why did we have to learn about them by intercepting communications and risking the lives of human agents? With Iraq's well-documented history on biological and chemical weapons, why should any of us give Iraq the benefit of the doubt?"
Powell referred the diplomats to a 1999 UN report on Iraq's chemical weapons capability. He told them that "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. ...
"Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons," Powell said. "Saddam Hussein has used such weapons. And Saddam Hussein has no compunction about using them againagainst his neighbors and against his own people. And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them. He wouldn't be passing out the orders if he didn't have the weapons or the intent to use them."
Confident said:Dear!!
Try to get out of the mud u r in..........
Iraq is the mud and u thought it was a short picnic and the result:
American Deaths Since war began more than 2100
American Wounded Estimated total more than 22000
can u try it again with Syria??
THE ANSWER IS NO CAUSE THE LESSON WAS AND STILL IS VERY DIFFICULT
Syria accuses US of launching lethal raids over its borders
By Harry de Quetteville in Baghouz
(Filed: 29/10/2005)
Syria has accused the United States of launching lethal military raids into its territory from Iraq, escalating the diplomatic crisis between the two countries as the Bush administration seeks to step up pressure on President Bashar Assad's regime.
Syria - Iraq border
Concern: A Syrian soldier looks across at Iraqi border
Major General Amid Suleiman, a Syrian officer, said that American cross-border attacks into Syria had killed at least two border guards, wounded several more and prompted an official complaint to the American embassy in Damascus.
He made the allegations during an official press tour of Syrian security forces on the Iraqi border, which the US claims is a barely guarded passage into Iraq for hardcore foreign jihadis.
While showing off what he said were beefed-up Syrian border measures designed to blunt those criticisms, including new police stations and checkpoints, Maj Gen Suleiman alleged that his own border forces had come under repeated American attack.
"Incidents have taken place with casualties on my surveillance troops," he said, near the Euphrates river border crossing between Syria and Iraq. "Many US projectiles have landed here. In this area alone, two soldiers and two civilians have been killed by the American attacks."
The charge follows leaks in Washington that the US has already engaged in military raids into Syria and is contemplating launching special forces operations on Syrian soil to eliminate insurgent networks before they reach Iraq....
Confident said:Dear!!
Try to get out of the mud u r in..........
Iraq is the mud and u thought it was a short picnic and the result:
American Deaths Since war began more than 2100
American Wounded Estimated total more than 22000
can u try it again with Syria??
THE ANSWER IS NO CAUSE THE LESSON WAS AND STILL IS VERY DIFFICULT
Any incursion into Syrian territory without the express authiorization of Congress would be a violation of the 1973 War Powers Act, and an expansion of an already unjust and illegal war.
Of course, the Bush administration has been ramping up the pressure on Syria in recent months with increasingly bellicpse rhetoric, as well as pulling the US ambassador from Syria in February 2005 after the Harirri assasination in Lebanon.
I don't think Dubbyuh and his bloody-handed cabal will get much traction, or support for the invasion of Syria. With his popularity at historic lows, the loss of public support for the war in Iraq, and Congressional Republicans feeling free to thumb their collective noses at the White House on a number of issues, the presence of US troops in Syria will be a short-lived phenomena. Particularly with the '06 mid-term elections looming large in the consciousness of the RNC.
And there's another irony...Plans are afoot for US troops to begin drawing down starting in early 2006. Just in time for the '06 elections and regardless of whether the Iraqis are capable of taking up the burden.
Bullypulpit said:<center><a href=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05292/590727.stm>Invade Syria? Insane</a></center>
This Moron!!! Has his head up his ass. Just more of the Anti/bash-Bush crowed. The projected annual rate by non- government groups will not even reach 5%.an economy plagued by inflation --1.2 percent in September, a 14.4 percent annual rate if it continues
Confident said:Dear!!
Try to get out of the mud u r in..........
Iraq is the mud and u thought it was a short picnic and the result:
American Deaths Since war began more than 2100
American Wounded Estimated total more than 22000
can u try it again with Syria??
THE ANSWER IS NO CAUSE THE LESSON WAS AND STILL IS VERY DIFFICULT
ProudVet said:More left handed crap shoveled by the people with an IQ the same as their shoe size. Another military and foreign affairs expert from the masses has spoken.
:duh3:
