Brino said:
1)We had a chance to capture Osama at Tora Bora but we didnt. Now were going to respect a nations sovereignty and let Osama get away. 2)Bullshit! We didnt do that with anybody else and now were going to do that with Pakistan? Bullshit!
3)Yes troops died in WWI and WWII but those wars needed to be fought and this one didnt.
4)Bullshit. Bad people dont talk about bad things all the time.
5)There were no WMD's. The whole world was fooled, nobody knew ****. We didnt have one operative on the ground in Iraq to say that they did or didnt have WMD's. The official government report came out and said there were no WMD's. Give it up for fucks sake. Your only making a fool out of yourself.
6)How stupid are you!? That's exactly what happened, we won the war and we couldnt keep the peace. Remember the looting? Remember all the attacks on our troops after the war was officially over. Why do you think our troops are still dying over there more than a year after the war was over? Do you just not think?
1)Clinton had the chance to capture osama and the sudanese gave him useful info but clinton didn't give a fuck about it and did nothing against osama.
2)You don't know that so how can you than the us won't respect according to your cristal ball?
3) once again you prouve that you prefer to see a dictator rather than having a democracy
4)bad people are stupid, *****ish and blattantly ignorant.that is proven
5) you are a total idiot
For the hunt for Osama, let me ask a few questions about terrorism in general:
Even with some of the top intellignece agencies in the world, the British can't stop IRA car bombers, and the isralis can't stop Palestinian terrorists. We, otoh, may not have gotten bin Laden yet, but we've actually put a HUGE dent in the ME ****** network, taking two major terrist-supporting governments out of commission. We removed most of the Al Qaeda network, and the primary strongholds in Afghanistan, fairly quickly. We discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. A highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with nearly infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change.
But yet you say, we haven't done anything?
.................................................
About Bush's comments on not winning the war on ******, you TOTALLY took it out of contexts, as is typical. He said that you can't win a war on ****** like you "win" a conventional war. You don't sit down at a table and someone signs surrender papers. You create a situation where the terrorists can't wage their war and then you will have "won."
Consider the facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:
Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center ******...
Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on the Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use the search engine and look for articles by Hayes.
According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as Bill Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent President George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the ringleader of the World Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence service. Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev. ed. 2001).
Although Saddam never threatened the territorial integrity of America, he repeatedly threatened Americans. For example, on November 15, 1997, the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein's *** Uday) ordered: "American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political ******." (Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 94.) On November 25, 2000, Saddam declared in a televised speech, "The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests."
On the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a weekly newspaper owned by Uday Hussein said that Arabs should "use all means-and they are numerous-against the aggressors...and considering everything American as a military target, including embassies, installations, and American companies, and to create suicide/martyr [fidaiyoon] squads to ****** American military and naval bases inside and outside the region, and mine the waterways to prevent the movement of war ships..."
Moreover, the Saddam regime did not need to make verbal threats in order to "threaten" the United States. The regime threatened the United States by giving refuge to terrorists who had ******ed Americans, and by funding terrorists who were ****ing Americans in Israel. Saddam gave refuge to terrorists who had attacked the United States by bombing the World Trade Center. In addition:
In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having ****ed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to **** many more…
.Iraqi ****** fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam….On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
Hitchens, Slate. The cited article is David E. Sanger & Thom Shanker, "A Region Inflamed: Weapons. For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour; Files Tell of Talks With North Korea, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2003.
As French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated on November 12, 2002, "The security of the United States is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons." (Hayes, p. 21.) De Villepin's point is indisputable: Saddam was the kind of person who was capable of using chemical weapons, since he had actually used them against Iraqis who resisted his tyrannical regime. As de Villepin spoke, Saddam was sheltering terrorists who had ******ed Americans, and was subsidizing the ****** of Americans (and many other nationalities) in Israel.
Oh, BTW, we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first, before turning to Iraq. We destroyed the primary Al Qaeda network, liberated a nation, and reduced the ability of the terrorists to do major damage, before turning to iraq to both reduce international terrorisme more AND deal with a nation that had already invaded a neigboring country and ******** 14 UN resolutions.
