Free Dating Site    

Please explain why there are over 160,000 troops in iraq, and only a little over 30,000 in afghanistan?

Go to hell. While you are certainly more knowledgeable than I when it comes to what day to day life in Iraq is really like

No, Iraq is part of the war on terror.

And saying 'we went to war in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, that's why there are more troops' is completely nonsensical.

But of course now that US troops are in the country it attracts them like a moth to the flame.

I still have friends in the Military and guess what................... they do NOT have the same opinion as the OP.

I am just as blunt as the OP and don't give a flying damn if anyone believes me or not. I am simply relaying info and it is info I, personally, know to be a fact... and, that is what is important to me.. that I know it's fact.

1. In every major conflict in our history, War time = great time for our economy. anyone wonder why that isnt the case right now? Because of one major reason. KBR. Some of your know this to be hallaburtion.

2. Among the popular confusion, in iraq, it is not a "WAR ON TERRIORISM". that is Afganistan. However, popular marketing skills by the administration by naming iraq "Iraqi Freedom" and afganistan "Enduring Freedom" makes it sound like the same thing. It is not. Afganistan is for Al-Quida, Iraq was for Saddam.

3. This place will never change. I dont give a **** how long we are here. might as well, hit dodge right now.

Bush and team said there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda prior to the war.

right, you just tried to attack me, while giving credit that im over here and have actually seen the country and talked to the people.

but again, if your status as a taxpayer isnt the reason you have the right to an opinion, then what is the reason?

Please, show me real proof, not some republican news article, but REAL PROOF that Iraq is a war on terror.

Yes, people attack US (not you, your at home)

but let me ask you something. When britian came and attacked us, and when we retaliated, i guess you would have to call us terriorist too. So we were founded by a bunch of terriorist, with your logic.

No one wants to be invaded. And im from the south. Another country comes into america, we would be shooting them up to.

WOW. I believe i stated the opinion of ONE INTERPRETER.

I could honestly care less who is married to who.

Bush and team said there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda prior to the war.


No they didn't.

I guess when it was pointed out that they actually attack us because we are over there (as the leader of the CIA sired Al Qaeda announced to the world) and the actors knew that the script said it was because we allow women to vote (in rigged elections) and that we are rich with fiat money/debt and free from being in chains, they had to laugh at Ron Paul.

Don't even start with that attitude that we cause jihad.

They blow each others mosques up, they throw acid in the faces of children, they honor kill their daughters. We are not to blame for this and we should take it as a sign of doing something right that people like this consider us their enemy.

Surely you've got to be able to clarify that question. Asking me to prove that Iraq is a war on terror is like asking me to prove my favorite color.

I could honestly care less who is married to who.


Doesn't that really just say it all?

but let me ask you something. When britian came and attacked us, and when we retaliated, i guess you would have to call us terriorist too. So we were founded by a bunch of terriorist, with your logic.


That kind of moral relativism is one of the worst things I have ever encountered.

Are these people beheading children so they can form a federalist democracy? Do they blow up each others mosques in an effort to install a government based around human rights?

No, these people are religious psychopaths who want to kill or convert everybody on the planet and they believe god gives them special permission to use any disgusting methods necessary. Don't you dare tell me that isn't an enemy worth fighting.

No one wants to be invaded. And im from the south. Another country comes into america, we would be shooting them up to.


We aren't fighting Iraqi citizens. When we first invaded it was paramilitary groups like the Fedayeen Saddam that put up resistance, and now it's obviously jihadists from all corners of the globe entering Iraq.

Bush and team said there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda prior to the war.


No they didn't.

President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001 , terrorist attacks.

Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq . "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.

The new study, entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a "painful" declassification review.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080310/wl_mcclatchy/2875005

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

= President George Bush


Bush, in a brief appearance before reporters, was asked why the administration insists that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had a relationship "when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11, and now the September 11 commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all?"

The president answered:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Bush reiterated that the administration never said that "the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," he said.

He referred to meetings in Sudan between Iraqi intelligence agents and al Qaeda and said Saddam had connections with organizations considered by the United States to be terror groups -- including Abu Nidal. That group is a spinoff from the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Bush had made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. In a October 2002 speech, he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/index.html

Thanks Montreal. Now lets see if Crash tells you what he told me for even stating such a thing he does not believe could have happened because the Sept. 11 commission said it didn't..............

's exhaustive study of suicide terrorism found that "al-Qaeda's transnational suicide terrorists have come overwhelmingly from America's closest allies in the Muslim world and not at all from the Muslim regimes that the U.S. State Department considers 'state sponsors of terrorism'." Pape notes that no al-Qaeda suicide attackers came from Iraq. Daniel Byman's study of state sponsorship of terrorism similarly did not list Iraq as a significant state sponsor, and called the al-Qaeda connection "a rationale that before the war was strained and after it seems an ever-weaker reed."[41] The conclusion of counterterrorism experts Rohan Gunaratna, Bruce Hoffman, and Daniel Benjamin, as well as journalists Peter Bergen and Jason Burke (who have both written extensively on al-Qaeda), has been that there is no evidence that suggests any collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. That was similar to the conclusion of specific investigations by the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 9/11 Commission, among others. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reviewed the CIA's investigation and concluded that the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational collaboration was justified.

While Saddam was not involved in the September 11 attacks, members of his government did have contacts with al-Qaeda over the years; many of the links, as will be seen below, are not considered by experts and analysts as convincing evidence of a collaborative operational relationship. Former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke writes, "[t]he simple fact is that lots of people, particularly in the Middle East, pass along many rumors and they end up being recorded and filed by U.S. intelligence agencies in raw reports. That does not make them 'intelligence'. Intelligence involves analysis of raw reports, not merely their enumeration or weighing them by the pound. Analysis, in turn, involves finding independent means of corroborating the reports. Did al-Qaeda agents ever talk to Iraqi agents? I would be startled if they had not. I would also be startled if American, Israeli, Iranian, British, or Jordanian agents had somehow failed to talk to al-Qaeda or Iraqi agents. Talking to each other is what intelligence agents do, often under assumed identities or 'false flags,' looking for information or possible defectors."[42] Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, told Voice of America that "[...] Saddam Hussein had his agenda and al-Qaida had its agenda, and those two agendas were incompatible. And so if there was any contact between them, it was a contact that was rebuffed rather than a contact that led to meaningful relationships between them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

ps, what is my last name?

and I was wondering about that last name thing too.... I couldn't find one....

I'm saying Harvey Lemmings, put up or shut up

I dont think it can be clarified at all. How is Iraq a part of the War on terror. Show indisputable evidence that we had reasons to be here other then then fact of saddam's treatment of his people

No, it doesnt really say anything at all. This is basically showing that you arehaveing to resort to te minor details of my post to try to dispute my point. Talking about their marriages is about the same as trying to put gay rights into an economy discussion.

Once again, you didnt answer the question. Because we are Americans, we view that time in our history as a turning point. however, where is your logic that what we viewed then, and what they viewed now and who is neccessarily right?

Oh yeah, one piece of useful information here, when an iraqi citizen joins al-quida, does it remove their citizenship. Why do we have detention facilities here which hold THOUSANDS of Iraqi Citizens who have been caught making bombs, storing munitions, etc, etc. but i guess they lost their citizenship, eh?

The simple truth is you havent watched enough political talk on the radio to argue with me here.

Ignorant people like you that have too much pride in their internet and talk-shows are the reason our country is in a spiral downwards. You cant accept any other viewpoints other then the ones you hold. America is about democracy, about hearing multiple ways of doing an idea and making compromises. I suppose you would just want to take all the people that make below a certain income and kick them to the curb somewhere.

Show me proof, or get the hell of this thread.

Really ?

It's not my job to do research for you but here are some things you may want to look into: the Fedayeen Saddam, the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal.

Abu Abbas was a throwback to an earlier generation of Palestinian fighters, who carried out spectacular acts of hijacking around the world to draw attention to their cause.

Even Israel allowed him in and out of Gaza a few years ago as it accepted that he had given up violence and was supporting the Oslo peace process. Israel could not prosecute him under the terms of the Oslo accords anyway

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2952879.stm

On August 19, 2002, al-Ayyam, the official newspaper of the Palestinian Authority, reported that Abu Nidal had died three days earlier of multiple gunshot wounds in his home in the wealthy al-Masbah neighborhood of al-Jadriyah, Baghdad, where the villa he lived in was owned by the Mukhabarat, or Iraqi secret service. [17]

Iraq's chief of intelligence, Taher Jalil Habbush, held a press conference on August 21, 2002, at which he handed out photographs of Abu Nidal's bloodied body, along with a medical report purportedly showing he had died after a single bullet had entered his mouth and exited his skull. Habbush said that Iraq's internal security force had arrived at Abu Nidal's house to arrest him on suspicion of conspiring with the Kuwaiti and Saudi governments to bring down Saddam Hussein. Saying he needed a change of clothes, Abu Nidal went into his bedroom and shot himself in the mouth, Habbush said. He died eight hours later in intensive care. He is known to have been suffering from leukemia.

Other sources disagree about the cause of death. Palestinian sources told journalists that Abu Nidal had in fact died of multiple gunshot wounds. Marie Colvin and Sonya Murad, writing in The Sunday Times, say that he was assassinated by a hit squad of 30 men from Office 8, the Iraqi Mukhabarat assassination unit. Jane's reported that Iraqi intelligence had been following him for several months and had found classified documents in his home about a U.S. attack on Iraq. When they arrived to raid his house on August 14 (not August 16, according to Jane's), fighting broke out between Abu Nidal's men and Iraqi intelligence. In the midst of this, Abu Nidal rushed into his bedroom and was killed, though Jane's writes it remains unclear whether he killed himself or was killed by someone else. Jane's sources insist that his body bore several gunshot wounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal

With Yasin reportedly being held as a prisoner in Hussein's Iraq, Leslie Stahl of CBS interviewed him there for a segment on 60 Minutes on May 23, 2002 . Yasin appeared in prison pajamas and handcuffs. It was claimed that Iraq had held Yasin prisoner on the outskirts of Baghdad since 1994. Stahl also interviewed US Attorneys who acknowledged they had agreed to release Yasin to Iraq.

Yasin is believed to still be in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Yasin

Yasin was picked up by the FBI a few days after the bombing in an apartment in Jersey City, N.J., that he was sharing with his mother. He was so helpful and cooperative, giving the FBI names and addresses, that they released him.

Yasin says he was even driven back home in an FBI car.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

Zarqawi's group continued to received funding from Osama bin Laden and pursued "a largely distinct, if occasionally overlapping agenda," according to The Washington Post.[57] Counterterrorism experts told the Washington Post that while Zarqawi accepted al-Qaeda's financial help to set up a training camp in Afghanistan he ran it independently and while bin Laden was planning September 11, Zarqawi was busy developing a plot to topple the Jordanian monarchy and attack Israel.

Nixon Center terrorism experts Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke explained that Zarqawi never meant to join al Qaeda. Militants have explained that Tawhid was especially for Jordanians who did not want to join al Qaeda. Even a confessed Tawhid member told his interrogators that Zarqawi was against al Qaeda. Zarqawi's men "refused to march under the banner of another individual or group" recalls Nu'man bin-Uthman, a Libyan Islamist leader now living in London who was in contact with Zarqawi at the time. Shortly after 9/11, a fleeing Ramzi bin al-Shibh, one of the main plotters of the attacks, appealed to Tawhid operatives for a forged visa. He could not come up with ready cash. Told that he did not belong to Tawhid, he was sent packing and eventually into the arms of the Americans.

At least five times, in 2000 and 2001, bin Laden called al-Zarqawi to come to Kandahar and pay bayat — take an oath of allegiance—to him. Each time, al-Zarqawi refused. Under no circumstances did he want to become involved in the battle between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. He also did not believe that either bin Laden or the Taliban was serious enough about jihad. When the United States launched its air war inside Afghanistan, on October 7, 2001, al-Zarqawi joined forces with al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the first time. He and his Jund al-Sham fought in and around Herat and Kandahar. When Zarqawi finally did take the oath in October 2004, after eight months of negotiations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

2003 invasion of Iraq

The Fedayeen Saddam did not rise to major international attention, however, until the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S.-led coalition forces. Whereas the Iraqi forces and the Republican Guard quickly collapsed, Fedayeen forces put up stiff and determined resistance to the coalition invasion. U.S. strategy was to bypass other cities and head straight to Baghdad. In response, Fedayeen fighters entrenched themselves in the cities and launched guerilla-style strikes on rear supply convoys attempting to sustain the rapid advance. The Fedayeen also used intimidation to strengthen the resolve of the Iraqi army and keep civilians from rebelling. The multinational coalition was forced to turn its attention to the slow task of rooting out irregular forces from the southern cities, delaying the advance by two weeks.

During the invasion, Fedayeen fighters wielded AK-47 assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades, machine guns, and truck-mounted artillery and mortars. They made extensive use of subterfuge in an attempt to blunt the overwhelming technological advantage enjoyed by the invading forces. The irregular fighters often wore civilian clothes to confuse coalition forces, and falsely surrendered as a pretext for ambushing advancing multinational soldiers, among other incidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedayeen_Saddam