"Palestinian" PM Making It Crystal Clear

[maineman]

Actually it is an Arabian Proverb: http://www.quotationsbook.com/quotes/16235/view Your analogy with wildlife is silly.

Actually I'm a Conservative, and more conservatives were elected to congress last time than whiny libs like yourself.

my analogy is far from silly... and I understand the proverb...I am telling you, from my personal experience in the middle east, which you do not have, that the proverb breaks down when the enemy of your enemy also happens to be your enemy at the same time.

 

[glockmail]

radical arab nationalist terrorists who happen to be muslim are not all radical islamic terrorists who seek to do harm to the United States.

bin Laden was NOT supported by Saddam and you have no facts to back up that ridiculous assertions, only opinions, whereas I have several bi-partisan and non-partisan sources to back up my assertions to the contrary. Deal with it. Ansar al Islam was NOT a bin Laden organization.... you really are in over you head here sweetheart. Go back to the cooking section and upload some brownie recipes

Posts 40 and 42.

So what is your problem with women? Perhaps you are lacking between the legs as well as in IQ?

 

[glockmail]

my analogy is far from silly... and I understand the proverb...I am telling you, from my personal experience in the middle east, which you do not have, that the proverb breaks down when the enemy of your enemy also happens to be your enemy at the same time.

Then perhaps you can explain why Saddam flew his fighter jets to Iran at the start of GW1.

 

[maineman]

Posts 40 and 42.

So what is your problem with women? Perhaps you are lacking between the legs as well as in IQ?

from the link in post 40:

"Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence analyst on Iraq, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region for more than 20 years. Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States."

post 42 deals with Ansar al Islam which I have previously explained to you was NOT an Osama bin Laden organization and was, in fact, enemies with the kurds in power in the north of Iraq that were being protected by US CAP.

 

[maineman]

Then perhaps you can explain why Saddam flew his fighter jets to Iran at the start of GW1.

old enemies are not the same as current enemies.

the Iran-Iraq war had been over for three years and Saddam had recognized Iranian rights over the eastern half of the Shatt al-Arab which was a return to the status quo that existed before the war.

any more stupid questions?

 

[glockmail]

"…... These assessments are incorrect in my personal view …" ….

Who’s using an obvious opinion piece now, boy?

 

[90K]

you are right about the "odd theory" part. But I do not dismiss it out of hand.

Like I said, Saddam was a bad guy, but from a realpolitik perspective, he was an ally in the war against radical wahabbism. That is a fact. And DC politics hasn't prevented the military from doing their job... the fact is, that the "job" was not possible and beyond the scope of what the military is supposed to do. If you sit me down next to Lake Michigan and tell me to empty it and you give me a teacup, you can come back in a week and complain that I haven't done what you asked, but it really is not my fault, but YOURS in defining a mission that was beyond my ability and giving me insufficient tools to even realistically attempt it. Wet nursing multicultural Jeffersonian democracy is not a realistic mission for the US military... and I don't care HOW many troops you surge into Iraq, it still is not realistic.

And regarding the spirited debate in DC and on places like this, the following quote from today's Washington Post is germane:

"A top Pentagon leader weighed in yesterday on the war debate and appeared to undercut the argument advanced by the White House and many GOP lawmakers that a congressional debate challenging the Bush plan would hurt troop morale.

"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee. He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they "don't have a clue how democracy works."

To start from the end of your post: It will hurt troop moral because the free media in this country is piped around the world and we look like a bunch of asshole, everyone of us----you and me included. When I was in the service it was a very bad thing to hear our citizens bash our responsibilities to protect the American way and that was when I served under Reagan, Bush, Clinton. So yes it would hurt them, the message has been plastered across the globe befor e it could even work.
Actually at this point it wouldn't matter if the whole world got nuked the damage is done and no one can fix this mess. We've been allowed to believe both from liberals and conservatives alike a pack of lies. We as a nation didn't need to know all the plans going on throughout the world. Fact and that is why things are confidental, secret and top secret for those reasons need to know. Now you are one of only a few who support border security and about focusing on problems at home. But it is much more than that as I think we all know.
I was going to vote for John Kerry and then all this stuff came out about him I'd seen the Dick Cavet show prior to hearing all his plans and I chocked it up to being young and that was that. But the more I watched him the more he started yapping out the side of his mouth.

My opinion is yes D.C. politics have been a henderance to Military action in Iraq and Afganistan because we'd still be bombing Tora Bora and Al sadr would be dead and a host of other known terror subjects in the Middle East.
What would be an awesome pipe dream is that all sides of politics stop, regroup and come together because we have such a divided political atomshere in D.C. right now that it won't change no matter who becomes the President, these people are grown up and should be smarter than they are acting and we as a nation should demand our elected leaders do their jobs effectily.

And about the military do its job those would be semantics because they have the correct tools do be great they need unrestricted access to complete it correctly

 

[glockmail]

old enemies are not the same as current enemies.

the Iran-Iraq war had been over for three years and Saddam had recognized Iranian rights over the eastern half of the Shatt al-Arab which was a return to the status quo that existed before the war.

any more stupid questions?

So Saddam just decided to play kissy face and give Iran his best jets. Is that your opinion?

 

[Gurdari]

It makes sense that as a troop, you could be bothered by criticism of the war from home, unfortunately troops are fighting the country's name, everybody's name. So people have a right to question, debate, and even voice opposition to the actions of a 'collective military'. If you were soime mercenary, you could disregard - but a representative of the will of people is the troop's ultimate leader, and people's will is invisible when their voice isn't loud.

 

[Gurdari]

'...fighting IN the country's name, IN everybody's name...'

 

[90K]

'...fighting IN the country's name, IN everybody's name...'

And there comes the part about so called supporting the troops. Yes I have concerns about troop issues, my best friend is going back to Iraq for another tour he is a E-9 so he is battle ready and I've known him close to 30 years since we grew up together. So he has real opinions but me being a civilian again I try and be supportive and let him know we are pulling for there safe returns.
The media has made this situation worse than it needed to be.

 

[Gurdari]

If both sides were portrayed as patriots with different ideas, it would sound better than one side portrayed as being 'against you' somehow (as a troop, I mean). I feel for those people who've lost a child or anyone else and get branded as unpatriotic, or treasonous for wanting the war over.

 

[maineman]

And about the military do its job those would be semantics because they have the correct tools do be great they need unrestricted access to complete it correctly

when the military is asked to be the wetnurse for the multicultural Jeffersonian democracy that Bush envisions blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates, you are dead wrong. They do not have the tools for such a mission...they never have and they never will.

 

[maineman]

And there comes the part about so called supporting the troops. Yes I have concerns about troop issues, my best friend is going back to Iraq for another tour he is a E-9 so he is battle ready and I've known him close to 30 years since we grew up together. So he has real opinions but me being a civilian again I try and be supportive and let him know we are pulling for there safe returns.
The media has made this situation worse than it needed to be.

As a former military man, I can tell you that, for me, at least, I was always able to make the distinction between criticism of the military's MISSION and criticism of the military itself.

 

[glockmail]

If both sides were portrayed as patriots with different ideas, it would sound better than one side portrayed as being 'against you' somehow (as a troop, I mean). I feel for those people who've lost a child or anyone else and get branded as unpatriotic, or treasonous for wanting the war over.

I'd like to know just who from the Bush Administration is calling these folks unpatriotic and such. It sounds just like more victim creation from the looney left.

 

[glockmail]

As a former military man, ....

So did you get your balls blown off? Is that why you've become a weeny who denegrates women?

 

[maineman]

So did you get your balls blown off? Is that why you've become a weeny who denegrates women?

and you wonder why people denegrate you?

lol

 

[maineman]

So did you get your balls blown off? Is that why you've become a weeny who denegrates women?

really...you need to quit yer bitchin'

if you can't take it, sweetheart, don't play with the big boys.

 

[Annie]

and you wonder why people denegrate you?

lol

It was noted., knock it off now.

 

[glockmail]

really...you need to quit yer bitchin'

if you can't take it, sweetheart, don't play with the big boys.

It looks like I hit a nerve. Must be true then.