The Iraq War: Pretty much the opposite of a war on terror

And your secret source, is?

 

You might not believe me, which is your prerogative but I was in Iraq. I spent almost a year in Iraq and was on the road almost every day and I was given updates before we left on our missions.

 

Are you Osama bin-Laden? Not trying to out you on the board or anything - just curious.

 

indiansnetwork: You are an idiot.

"You do not know like I do from first hand accounts that al Qaeda is in Iraq." How do you know what I might know from firsthand accounts? Answer: You don't know jack. Yes, al Qaeda is there --- now. It was not present in Iraq until Bush and Rumsfeld fucked up.

"Truthfully most of the terrorist in Iraq were coming in from Iran and Syria." Again, that wasn't happening before Bush and Rumsfeld fucked up.

"You seem to support the idea that we had won the war on terrorism because of our silencing of al Qaeda in Afghanistan." No, that's not what I said. The current administration could have won the war against al Qaeda and produced the desired outcome ... until it lost focus and got all wound up about Saddam, then divided its strategic attention to deal with a non-threat. That failure not only led directly to the current quagmire, it deprived the current administration of a key negotiating point with Iran (that government's enmity toward Saddam because of the Iran-Iraq War 20 years ago) which could have been used effectively and easily to avoid the current unnecessary war of words with the current Teheran administration.

"These Islamic fundamentalists were hell bent on destroying America and our way of life." Oh look, how positively quaint --- a buzz-phrase designed to strike fear in my heart. Too bad it doesn't. They're not coming. They'd like to, but actions by American forces in Afghanistan broke down al Qaeda's support structure to the point that it can't effectively mount an operation in this country. However, the administration's inability to stay on task cost it a chance to finish the job.

FACT: If there's no invasion of Iraq in 2003, Islamoterrorists would not have a flashpoint to focus their efforts on now.

FACT: Iraq would not be a problem now if Bush and his cronies had stayed on-task in Afghanistan instead of lying to the world in an attempt to justify their completely unnecessary actions in Iraq. Saddam might still have been in power, but he would have been just as isolated as he was before.

And "hellbent" is one word, fanboy.

"Unless their is underground weapons shops, the supply of arms is slowly dwindling." Oh, please. With 100 bucks in sub-Sahara Africa, I can get a surplus AK-47 and hundreds of rounds of ammo for it.

You don't know who I am, what I have done in my life, who I might know and where I might have been before this, yet for some irrational reason you seem to think you can read my mind and that you have the right to place words in my mouth. Let me be blunt: You're off your fucking rocker.

 

Military or Haliburton? In either case, you should not have been there.

 

Boom, be honest. You wanted to call me a racist, didn't you? How many shots did you take at spelling "racist" before you gave up and went with the ignorant shit above?

 

"the current administration could have won the war against al Qaeda and produced the desired outcome ... until it lost focus and got all wound up about Saddam, then divided its strategic attention to deal with a non-threat. That failure not only led directly to the current quagmire, it deprived the current administration of a key negotiating point with Iran (that government's enmity toward Saddam because of the Iran-Iraq War 20 years ago) which could have been used effectively and easily to avoid the current unnecessary war of words with the current Teheran administration."

Are you serious, Iran was never going to deal with us. Maybe you didn't know that we supported the War between Iraq and Iran because of the radical fundamental Islam in Iran. We gave Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction so that is why we knew he had Sarin gas. I should not have been in Iraq, why because you are concerned with my personal safety or are you just being a jerk. The terrorist coming into Iraq from Iran and Syria would have come to America if we were not in Afghanistan and Iraq. So instead of soldiers taking care of terrorist you might be running for your life here.

"FACT: Iraq would not be a problem now if Bush and his cronies had stayed on-task in Afghanistan instead of lying to the world in an attempt to justify their completely unnecessary actions in Iraq. Saddam might still have been in power, but he would have been just as isolated as he was before."

How is this a fact?
Saddam was a terrorist by nature himself and his hatered for the United States made him a danger to our safety whether he had weapons of mass destruction or not.


"Unless their is underground weapons shops, the supply of arms is slowly dwindling." Oh, please. With 100 bucks in sub-Sahara Africa, I can get a surplus AK-47 and hundreds of rounds of ammo for it.

So you have a AK-47, and if you can buy one that easily that is a problem because assult rifles should not be so easy to buy. Therefore you prove that we need to be vigilant and proactive instead of sitting on our hands. Because if you can buy one, what is stopping a terrorist from buying thousands of AK-47 which puts us in jeopardy of an attack on our soil.

"These Islamic fundamentalists were hell bent on destroying America and our way of life." Oh look, how positively quaint --- a buzz-phrase designed to strike fear in my heart. Too bad it doesn't. They're not coming. They'd like to, but actions by American forces in Afghanistan broke down al Qaeda's support structure to the point that it can't effectively mount an operation in this country. However, the administration's inability to stay on task cost it a chance to finish the job.

You are not afraid of terrorist? I guess when they come knocking at your backdoor you might change your mind. You still don't seem to understand that our war in Iraq is not the cause of their hatered for us but our arrogance, morals and not being Islamic is the cause. These extremest hate us because we do not belong to their religion which makes us infidels. In Islam anyone who is an infidel deserves death.

 

Iran was going to deal with us, if we had been able to offer them something. A hand against Saddam was something we could have offered. The enemy of my enemy, etc.

Saddam was not a terrorist. He was a thug. There is a difference. Learn it.

I never said I have a Kalashnikov. I said I can get one easily in sub-Saharan Africa. Pay attention and STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH, YOU ASSHOLE!

And no, I'm not afraid of an Islamoterrorist attack. They're not coming to my back door. They're not coming to my front door. Al Qaeda no longer has the ability to pull off operations in the United States. I repeat: They're not coming.

 

Not only that, but we armed BOTH SIDES in the Iran-Iraq war,
And don't put words in 2Much's mouth, foof.

 

I only posed the question about you having a AK-47 because you seemed to think it was easy to acquire one. How would you know how easy it is to acquire one if you have not acquired one.
Al Qaeda doesn't have the ability to pull off operations in the United States only because we are fighting them in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secondly because George W. Bush changed some of the rules and regulations on how intelligence agencies acquire and share information helping to prevent attacks. I would say anyone who kills thousand of people would be considered a terrorist even if it is his own people, so Saddam definitely qualifies as a terrorist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800161.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/17/subway.plot/index.html?section=cnn_latest

 

What is in Iraq is a rat's nest of insurgent groups. Neither Sadr's people nor the Mahdi Army are al Qaeda. Neither are most of the Shia who want to kill all the Sunnis or the Sunnis who want to kill the Shia. al Qaeda's a brand name, no more no less. There was nobody who knew anything about Iraq who didn't say this was going to happen -- not the generals, not the Future of Iraq people at State, and not the actual counter-terrorism pros. The only ones who believed that fantasy was the candy-and-flowers crowd who've now run the armed forces into the ground.
This is more Fun With Stupid than we've had since the high old days during Katrina, I will admit, but delusional yahoos generally run out of steam.

 

Humm, So if Iraq has a "rat's nest" of terrorist and we are fighing a war on terrorism, wouldn't it make sense to go their to clean it up so they don't come here?