100's of WMD's found in iraq
- 06-23-2006, 04:48 PM
i rly dont like to talk politics much but thoguth id chime my 2cents anyways
The only reason i like bush is....
I think hes doin what he thinks is best for the country, and doesnt listen to a single person tell him otherwise. Me personaly respect someone when it would be sooo easy to change positions, but stick to what he believes is right. No matter what or anyone tells him.
BTW usa is better off without saddam....
- 06-23-2006, 07:05 PM
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
As for the tapes, the question is, should we have waited till they nuked San Diego first?
With Bin Laden, Clinton's administration repeated dragged its feet and waited and waited and waited......
- 06-24-2006, 01:21 PM
Far left liberals are getting insane in this debate. It doesnt even pay to debate them on this because it is like talking to a wall. they are arguing over symantecs here. It's like when the debate was not too long ago with the last admin, is a BJ a sex act. It is what it is!!! A old WMD is just as important as a new WMD is that he was suppose to let UN Inspectors see these things. Instead he hid them.
Saddam had WMD's hidden with saran and mustard gas. Doesnt matter if they were 100 years old. They were suppose to give UN Inspectors unfettered, full access to the country to find these things. they prevented and stopped them from doing so. Thewanted to re-constitute the WMD programs. They were planning on concealing this.
The real shame in all this. That the Democratic party is being hijacked by these far left people.
They are distorting important tools the govt is using to find and stop terrorism. like the wire tapping program and the financial program. They are making sound as if the govt is listening to Americans phone conversations and digging into there finances. No, what they are doing is listening to terrorsit overseas, and who calls them or who they call is also who they are listening too. Not Johnnys call to his mom or girlfriend.
And they are not looking into the ordinary Americans finaces. they are following the $$$$$ trail. That is how to catch the bad guy, follow the $$$$$. And they have warrants for these.
But what stories did The Times bury during the week. The 2 American soliders slaughtered by terrorist, who werent too concerned with the Geneva Conference and the 7 Miami home grown terrorists who thought they were talking to the $$$$ men of Al Qauida asking for $$$$$ for weapons and explosives to blow up the Sears Tower, to make that day equal or worse to 9/11. Bank story page 1, 7 Miami terrorist page A 22. I wonder who The NY Times sees as the problem, the Bush admin or terrorism?
level headed Democrats wake up, this is where they are dragging your party to.
06-24-2006, 02:20 PM
That is jsut pure simple common sense.
The problem is, the Dem has turned into a party of hypocrites and traitors. They are willing to sell out America's vital national interests, and cater to terrorists and criminals. They have no statesmanship left anymore. The Blue Dog Democrates have been pushed aside and silenced, by extremists and crooked opportunistic political hacks.
I would love to see the Blue Dog Democrates become the dominant force of the Dem. I would not necessarily object to a Blue Dog Democrate presidency. They are centralist and they are patriots who put America's interests before partisanship. If a Democrate puts America's interests first above ideology, he can have my support.
Sadly, we don't see that in the Dem party. There are Blue Dog Dems there, but they are not in charge of the party.
06-24-2006, 02:49 PM
Originally Posted by DinoTrainer
Not symantecs, facts. Mortar shells are not missiles as you claimed in an earlier post. Random old shells found mixed in large ammo dumps are not stores of weapons ready to be (or even capable of being) used.
What we have here is a couple politicians facing tough re-elections. They make some hysterical claims to try and help their campaigns......claims so absurd on their face that the Pentagon and the CIA came out to immediately refute them.
This is the BUSH ADMINISTRATION saying that Santorum is wrong, not some "crazy left" democrats.
Facts are important things. Public policy should be based upon them, not emotion and half-understood arguments.
06-24-2006, 09:28 PM
I thought I read in another article somewhere that there were missels. I am sorry if I was wrong on that.Originally Posted by yeahright
But you are saying that a regime who agreed to account for ALL WMD's, whenever they were made, were to account for them and let UN Inspectors see where they were. Not hide them. he didnt agree to end the 1st Gulf War, if only he will only account for certain WMD's, where there is no degrading.
And you are that comfortable with this same regime to have 500 mortars of degrading chemical and/or biological weapons. Like they couldnt do any damage whatsoever. What instead of killing 5,000 people only 2,000 will get killed. That old bottle of 1-AD before the ban will degrade, so that person will just take some more to get the same effects.
But whatever the case, I am really not trying to change your mind or anyone elses on whether it was right or wrong to go to war.
But I didnt make my mind up that the war was and is right on half understood arguements and emotions.
I followed the news stories for well over 14 years. I remember when saddam agreed to UN Inspections and giving up WMD programs altogether and account for any WMD's. I remember when he agreed to a no fly zone over the Kurds becuase of what he did to them in the past.
I also saw how since then he played games with the UN Inspectors. He would shut them off and prevent them from going places. Prevent scientist from talking to the UN Inspectors. This was going on right up to before the war. How he kept violating the no fly zones and shot at our planes who were patroling these zones. How he tried to assanate President Bush I. President Clinton said saddam had WMD's and called for regime change there. Even sent a bomb there way.
These are all facts. Not half truths. Regime change policy was set by the Clinton admin. Did they do that because of half understood arguements and emotions?
Fine, you are aganist the war. I am not personally insulting you are aganist the war. I was insulting far left liberals and the democratic party for succombing to these left loonies. I didnt see you or accuse you, yeahright, of being part of the looney left. Obviously aganist the war, but I dont know you well enough to go further at this point. But then you say I am for this war because of emotions and half understood arguements?
Yeahright, which is it? Is Bush a liar about why we went to war? he did it out of greed? To control the world?? To make money for his Texas oil friends??? But then the Bush admin says Santorum is wrong and no WMD's. Whats up with that, in your view? What isnt Bush beating the horse and yelling there are WMD's in Iraq
06-24-2006, 09:32 PM
You should go read the documents. These are not weapons that were hidden, these are weapons that were scattered about in trash dumps, old ammo dumps, etc. These are essentially debris left scattered about the countryside left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Hell, all across Europe they still dig up artillery shells left over from World War I. War is a messy business, munitions get abandoned, lost, dumped in caches for later retrieval and then forgotten about. That's all they've found here and it's nothing new. These reports have been in the news for years now.Originally Posted by DinoTrainer
06-24-2006, 09:40 PM
It's called selective intellgience. It's a trap many people fall into. If you start with a belief, then you embrace the information that conforms with that belief and ignore the information that contradicts it.Originally Posted by DinoTrainer
We know from Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that the very first cabinet meeting Bush held in early 2001, they were talking about invading Iraq but that they needed an excuse.
Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq?, O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11 - CBS News
We know from Richard A. Clarke, the former head of counterterrorism in the White House under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, that after 9/11, the Bush administration wanted to use it as an excuse to invade Iraq, but that he and others convinced the Whitehouse to invade Afghanistan instead (where Al Quaeda was headquartered).
So they were hot to invade Iraq from the start of the Bush Presidency. They sought out information to support their ideas and discarded/ignored information which contradicted their ideas. You can read this article from today's Washington Post showing how they were repeatedly warned that the information they were relying upon was wrong, but they relied upon it anyway because it conformed to their beliefs.
Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 25, 2006; A01
In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.
Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.
A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."
The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise.
"We thought we had taken care of the problem," said the man who was the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, "but I turn on the television and there it was, again."
While the administration has repeatedly acknowledged intelligence failures over Iraqi weapons claims that led to war, new accounts by former insiders such as Drumheller shed light on one of the most spectacular failures of all: How U.S. intelligence agencies were eagerly drawn in by reports about a troubled defector's claims of secret germ factories in the Iraqi desert. The mobile labs were never found.
Drumheller, who is writing book about his experiences, described in extensive interviews repeated attempts to alert top CIA officials to problems with the defector, code-named Curveball, in the days before the Powell speech. Other warnings came prior to President Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003. In the same speech that contained the now famous "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium, Bush spoke in far greater detail about mobile labs "designed to produce germ warfare agents."
The warnings triggered debates within the CIA but ultimately made no visible impact at the top, current and former intelligence officials said. In briefing Powell before his U.N. speech, George Tenet, then the CIA director, personally vouched for the accuracy of the mobile-lab claim, according to participants in the briefing. Tenet now says he did not learn of the problems with Curveball until much later and that he received no warnings from Drumheller or anyone else.
"No one mentioned Drumheller, or Curveball," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff at the time, said in an interview. "I didn't know the name Curveball until months afterward."
Curveball's role in shaping U.S. declarations about Iraqi bioweapons capabilities was first described in a series of reports in the Los Angeles Times, and later in a March 2005 report by a presidential commission on U.S. intelligence failures regarding allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But Drumheller's first-hand accounts add new detail about the CIA's embrace of a source whose credibility was already unraveling.
More than a year after Powell's speech, after an investigation that extended to three continents, the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels.
But in the fall of 2002, Curveball was living the life of an important spy. A Baghdad native whose real name has never been released, he was residing in a safe house in Germany, where he had requested asylum three years earlier. In return for immigration permits for himself and his family, the Iraqi supplied Germany's foreign intelligence service with what appeared to be a rare insider's account of one of President Saddam Hussein's long-rumored WMD programs.
Curveball described himself as a chemical engineer who had worked inside an unusual kind of laboratory, one that was built on a trailer bed and produced weapons for germ warfare. He furnished detailed, technically complex descriptions of mobile labs and even described an industrial accident that he said killed a dozen people.
The German intelligence agency BND faithfully passed Curveball's stories to the Americans. Over time, the informant generated more than 100 intelligence reports on secret Iraqi weapons programs -- the only such reports from an informant claiming to have visited and worked in mobile labs. Other informants, also later discredited, had claimed indirect knowledge of mobile labs.
In late 2002, the Bush administration began scouring intelligence files for reports of Iraqi weapons threats. Drumheller was asked to press a counterpart from a European intelligence agency for direct access to Curveball. Other officials confirmed that it was the German intelligence service.
The German official declined but then offered a startlingly candid assessment, Drumheller recalled. "He said, 'I think the guy is a fabricator,' " Drumheller said, recounting the conservation with the official, whom he declined to name. "He said, 'We also think he has psychological problems. We could never validate his reports.' "
When Drumheller relayed the warning to his superiors in October 2002, it sparked what he described as "a series of the most contentious meetings I've ever seen" in three decades of government work.
Although no American had ever interviewed Curveball, analysts with the CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control believed the informant's technical descriptions were too detailed to be fabrications.
"People were cursing. These guys were absolutely, violently committed to it," Drumheller said. "They would say to us, 'You're not scientists, you don't understand.' "
In January 2003, Drumheller received a new request from CIA headquarters to contact the German intelligence service about Curveball. This time, Drumheller recalled, the U.S. spy agency had three questions:
Could a U.S. official refer to Curveball's mobile lab accounts in an upcoming political speech?
Could the Germans guarantee that Curveball would stand by his account?
Could German intelligence verify Curveball's claims?
The reply from Berlin, as Drumheller recalls it, was less than encouraging: There are no guarantees.
"They said: 'We have never been able to verify his claims,' " Drumheller recalled. "And that was all sent up to Tenet's office."
When Drumheller listened to Bush's speech several days later, he was astonished to hear the mobile labs described in detail.
"Boom, there it was," he said.
A few days later, Drumheller was handed a draft of another key speech on Iraq: Powell's remarks to the U.N. Security Council accusing Hussein of reconstituting his WMD programs. This time, the speech included an obvious reference to Curveball -- an unnamed "chemical engineer" who worked in one of the labs -- as well as detailed drawings of mobile labs inspired by Curveball's descriptions.
Drumheller said he called the office of John E. McLaughlin, then the CIA deputy director, and was told to come there immediately. Drumheller said he sat across from McLaughlin and an aide in a small conference room and spelled out his concerns.
McLaughlin responded with alarm and said Curveball was "the only tangible source" for the mobile lab story, Drumheller recalled, adding that the deputy director promised to quickly investigate.
Portions of Drumheller's account of his meetings with McLaughlin and Tenet appear in the final report of the Silberman-Robb commission, which was appointed by Bush to investigate prewar U.S. intelligence failures on Iraq's weapons programs. The report cites e-mails and interviews with other CIA officials who were aware of the meetings.
In responding to questions about Drumheller, McLaughlin provided The Post with a copy of the statement he gave in response to the commission's report. The statement said he had no memories of the meeting with Drumheller and had no written documentation that the meeting took place.
"If someone had made these doubts clear to me, I would not have permitted the reporting to be used in Secretary Powell's speech," McLaughlin said in the statement.
In their briefings to Powell on Feb. 4, one day before the secretary's U.N. speech, Tenet and McLaughlin expressed nothing but confidence in the mobile-lab story, according to Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, who was present during the briefings.
"Powell and I were both suspicious because there were no pictures of the mobile labs," Wilkerson said. The drawings were constructed from Curveball's accounts.
But the CIA officials were persuasive. Wilkerson said the two men described the evidence on the mobile labs as exceptionally strong, based on multiple sources whose stories were independently corroborated.
"They said, 'This is it, Mr. Secretary. You can't doubt this one,' " Wilkerson said.
On the eve of the U.N. speech, Drumheller received a late-night phone call from Tenet, who said he was checking final details of the speech. Drumheller said he brought up the mobile labs.
"I said, 'Hey, boss, you're not going to use that stuff in the speech . . . ? There are real problems with that,' " Drumheller said, recalling the conversation.
Drumheller recalled that Tenet seemed distracted and tired and told him not to worry.
The following day, Tenet was seated directly behind Powell at the U.N. Security Council as the secretary of state presented a detailed lecture and slide show about an Iraqi mobile biological weapons program.
Tenet, responding to questions about Drumheller's accounts, provided to The Post a statement he had given in response to the Silberman-Robb Commission report in which he said he didn't learn of the problems with Curveball until much later. He did not recall talking to Drumheller about Curveball, and said it was "simply wrong" for anyone to imply that he knew about the problems with Curveball's credibility.
"Nobody came forward to say there is a serious problem with Curveball or that we have been told by the foreign representative of the service handling him that there are worries that he is a 'fabricator,' " Tenet said in his statement.
In late summer 2003, seven months after the U.N. speech, Tenet called Powell to say that the Curveball story had fallen apart, Wilkerson said. The call amounted to an admission that all of the CIA's claims Powell used in his speech about Iraqi weapons were wrong.
"They had hung on for a long time, but finally Tenet called Powell to say, 'We don't have that one, either,' " Wilkerson recalled. "The mobile labs were the last thing to go."
Staff researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.
06-24-2006, 09:42 PM
I will read the documents. You are right. I should read the documents for myself. If you have a link, please supply it for me.Originally Posted by yeahright
But, yeahright, I am dubious in believeing that Saddam was throwing these weapons out in the trash dumpsters all over Iraq, to get rid of them, but did it this way so the garbage men wouldn't give him a hard time.
I would think these dumpsites, are hidden storage sites. Kinda like all those storage sites the terrorist are using as weapons aganist our guys.
But, you are right I should read the documents.
06-24-2006, 09:56 PM
It's not that Sadaam was dumping these in the trash. Imagine this scenario:Originally Posted by DinoTrainer
You're part of an Iraqi artillery batallion, you're about to be over-run by Iranian infantry and don't have time to withdraw. So, you make some half-hearted effort to destroy your equipment to keep the enemy from capturing it before you retreat.........
Or you're bouncing across the desert and a box of mortar shells falls off the back of your truck.......
Or you bury a weapons cache expecting to come back to it during the next offensive, but the action moves south 20 miles and you never get back to that weapons cache..........
Imagine events like that over and over again for 8 years. The territory where the battles were waged is going to be scattered with ordinance....and in a war where chemical wepons were extensively used, some portion of that ordinance will be chemical weapons.
Santorum hyped this up to deliberately deceive people. Shame on him.
Here's a link to the documents Santorum was referring to:
Here is what the experts say about them:
"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them."
" American intelligence officials hastily scheduled a background briefing for the news media on Thursday to clarify that. Hoekstra and Mr. Santorum were referring to an Army report that described roughly 500 munitions containing "degraded" mustard or sarin gas, all manufactured before the 1991 gulf war and found scattered through Iraq since 2003.
Such shells had previously been reported and do not change the government conclusion, the officials said."
06-24-2006, 10:26 PM
Then what about the Clinton Admin? it was them after all who set the policy of regime change there, to get rid of SaddamOriginally Posted by yeahright
. It was also them who claimed he was reconsituting WMD programs. It was them who sent a crusie missle (mortar, whatever, something that explodes) at them.
Like I said, I am not attacking you for being aganist this war. But when I hear people say that Bush just wanted to attack Iraq. 9/11 happens, and he just wanted to attack Iraq, didnt even want to go after Afghanistan, and Richard Clark had to bring Bush back from insanity and convince him to attack Afghanistan and go after Bin Laden. I doubt that is how it all went down. That is the kind of stuff that makes me think where you guys are really coming from.
We totally forget this was a big thing in the Clinton admin also.
Last edited by DinoTrainer; 06-24-2006 at 10:30 PM. Reason: mistake
06-24-2006, 10:33 PM
yeahright, thank you for the link to the documents. I will look at them tomorrow.
06-24-2006, 10:41 PM
It is hard to believe isn't it?....but people who were there keep saying it and their stories mutually reinforce one another. It's quite bizarre but the evidence is quite strong that this is precisely what happened. (shakes head)....and we never even did a good job in Afghanistan. We tried to do that war on the cheap and it's still dragging on (85 Taliban killed today). People forget that we're still at war there (and I support that war).Originally Posted by DinoTrainer
06-24-2006, 10:42 PM
Not a problem, reasonable people can have different positions on these things.Originally Posted by DinoTrainer
06-24-2006, 11:43 PM
Now of course there's the problem that several other intelligence agencies also believed Saddam had WMDs... That the president chose evidence and this administration misused intelligence is I think obvious, I just don't see the problem. They're not the first administration to get overly involved in the intelligence community and push them from analysis to policy advocates. One or two issues of Foreign Affairs ago there was a documentation of this and about eight other such misuses of intelligence to shift foreign policy to a certain end in our history. I see the problem let's say, I don't see why Bush is somehow particularly evil for doing so. Eliminate the foreign policy aspect of things and liberals are guilty of picking and choosing evidence to support their preconceived notions on a whole host of issues, gun ownership and global warming most prominently, and their policy decisions are likely to cost just as many if not more lives if allowed to go through. Instead of gunning people down they'll let them rot in poverty to support stupid environmental policies like banning trade and effective pesticides. So why the vitriol against Bush, as if the Democrats would be somehow less full of ****? And while the policy recommendations from other countries were to not invade, once again one has to explain the conclusions of other intelligence agencies that Saddam had WMDs.
It all basically boils down to BS. Saddam did have WMDs, did have the capability to make them, and would have resumed that process at the first opportunity. And given his symbolic status as an anti American force in the middle east it's not too far from reality to suggest a link between his regime and terrorists, if it didn't exist yet would likely have developed.
Once more I don't necessarily support the war, but the objections to Bush I don't get. He is not evil, he is not some historic anomoly whose policy decisions are somehow out of the ordinary, he is nothing extraordinary or out of the ordinary when it comes to presidents. I think the only people who object so virulently against Bush are those who either don't get the historical context of this type of leadership as it has existed before right here in the US, or who are so blinded to the other side's foibles that they think the Democrats would somehow be sunstantially better leaders which is rubbish. They'd like **** up, just in some other way. Instead of alienating the world perhaps we'd be too focussed on keeping it happy at the expense of our own security. Instead of ****ing the world in the ass we'd be too busy sucking its ****, I don't see the appeal of either position. Dealing with terrorists in a law enforcement context is I think a dismal failure, and that was the Democrat's advocated approach until very recently, if it isn't still. Dealing with leaders like Saddam from an appeasement approach is also I think a dismal failure. It doesn't leave many options, and we were fighting a low grae war there for ten years already, maybe it was time someone ended it.
06-30-2006, 02:39 PM
not to rag but....Originally Posted by yeahright
considering most do not know that majority of the Afgan war, was fought by both army special forces, teamed up with airforce combat controllers, aong wth the northern alliance. Both the green berets and controllers were called up, & actually were flown out to bases within 24hrs of the 9/11 attack, and following the first few days of carpet bombing and LG missles, (oct.)they eventually were dropped in to commit surgical strikes and link relations wit the N.alliance. The US did not have actual infantry (marines) and armor on the ground until the taliban had lost konduz and kabul , and retreated to the mountains of tora bora or Kandahr.(late nov.). the taliban was basically brought down by both the special forces units, and the northern alliance; before any american infantry and artillery div's entered the region. They simply reinforced the lines as we bombed the hell outta Kandahr. This isn't cheap, and is the correct way to fight this kind of war, using unconvential warefare in order to fight large #'s of the enemy while only retaining a low amount of, but highly trained professionals, and working in accordance with local forces while having nearly unlimited amounts of air cover. lol unfortuantley for Iraq, the "we'll just parade in with tanks" approach was used, and it has got us no where. CNN and any media has given a crappy outlook on the afgan war just as the iraq war, which ill agree, we are screwed beyond belief when it comes to organization, and tactics, and sheer presence in iraq, but afganstan was handled quite well considering the amount of men
used. It was actually more expensive to send in sf soldiers from the 1st,5th, 3rd,to go in and commit unconvential warefare considering their value in training as well extra surgical air support already added to the rest of the ac130s, tomahawks, and f16's, b2's etc, etc.; than reg. infantry. There of course is fighting still but nowhere near what it was. it should also be noted that since years have passed, the taliban/al qaida fighters obv. has increased due mostly to ofcourse foreign fighters, but much of the fighting currently, is due to the fact that us and uk forces have steeped up with operation mtn thrust which is to terminate any foreign fighters and resistnace in the mtn/Kandahr region. its been a lil while but last i checked our casulties were around 14 since the op started, (may) and we have killed around 800, of course Cnn or msnbc will prob. make it look like all out carnage b/c well thats what they get paid to do: exagerate. anyway im tired of typing, im too much of SF nut, and im gonna go enjoy my 15lbs of aquired water retention.
oh btw, its good to know u didnt forget our boys in afganstan, lol i thought i was the only one around keeping up with "the war on terror," lol.
06-30-2006, 04:16 PM
I wouldn't disagree with a point you made except in as much as we haven't won in Afghanistan close to 5 years on. Given the forces made available to the military for this operation, Afghanistan was handled as best as could have been expected....but I think that is where the mistake was made. We fought the Afghan war cheaply and as a result haven't achieved our main objectives there.Originally Posted by brk_nemesis
Depending upon which estimates you believe, the Taliban still exercise effective control of up to 1/3 of the state, the rest is in the effective control of warlords and drug runners (sometimes all three working together) with the Karzai government barely even controlling Kabul. The people I know who are there say that the only thing stopping Afghanistan from falling into utter chaos are the Coalition forces.
So we toppled the Taliban but haven't defeated them. We drove Al Queda across the border into Wazirastan but didn't destroy them, and haven't succesfully established a strong central government. These are the things that frustrate me.
07-09-2006, 12:54 AM
agreed totally, except that there is the consideration of the majority of foreign fighters that have been brought into the mix as well. This is the same problem that is being faced in Iraq, as the region sees it as a war on religious power rather than on the reign of a person or organzation. As stated afgan was cheap when compared to the iraqi war, but also as stated, highly trained soldiers were used, when compared to the almost unlimited amount of soldiers and armored div. launched from both the marines and army during the iraq war. so in a essence yup its cheaper, but looking in the eyes of a general, losing 5 tanks, and 20 infantry men is a less lose, than to loose just 3 SF soldiers, as it just takes too much time, and effort to devote tpo their training. as u stated, about the regions ongoin' control of afgan, yes the taliban and al queda commanders have taken control much of the country, u can thank the not so apparent corruption of the new gov't, as well as the same foreign fighters going into iraq who have come into afghanistan. all my #'s of course are from information from posted in direct action journals from SOCOM command released shorthly be4 last christmas, so as i said, current info in the post is about the fall of the taliban, not the current status. I diff. agree it frustates me as its ongoin, the politics and social values of people over there in the middleeast are not the same as pelple anyehere else in the world, and it does not surprise me they are still fighting as the russians faced the same problem in the 80's. the only answer is to pack out bags lol and leave. Of the security contracters i know in Afghanistan and Iraq right now, the few in the Afghan region admit at times it seems to be gettin better but that as much of the enemy that our operatives take out, foreign fighters fill the ranks back up as soon as possible. from what they have heard from their superiors, it seems this recuiting is becomin' larger as in iraq, with more and more fighters coming in and more being paid to fight; rather than joining in for religious, political, or simply justwanting to, their intel seems to prove now that there are some foreign fighters comin out of turkmenistan, and uzbekistan in larger numbers and of course the good old pakistani border that always seems to be "watched." anyway i agree wit you man, but considering that region of the world has money outta the wazoo and has been used to combat for many more years than the rest of the world, it wont end anytime soon, and if they are short of tali guys to send out at us they will just buy and recruit some more.Originally Posted by yeahright
08-07-2006, 01:36 AM
Wow finally a sane voice of reason in this debate.
YEARIGHT. many props to you bro. Now I don't have to go dig up the facts and display them here to refute the WMD statement because you did it for me.
Old containers of mustard gas ? this is a threat ?
I can't believe people fell for that Rick santorum and Sean Hannity trick about WMD's. Now I know why he is about to loose his re-election campaign.
Similar Forum Threads
- By johnyq in forum SupplementsReplies: 7Last Post: 10-28-2008, 07:01 PM
- By MaynardMeek in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 11Last Post: 06-21-2006, 09:59 PM
- By yeahright in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 06-06-2006, 10:12 AM
- By goldylight in forum General ChatReplies: 5Last Post: 07-21-2004, 01:43 PM
- By windwords7 in forum General ChatReplies: 2Last Post: 03-23-2003, 11:39 PM