Whose the enemy? Iran or Saudi Arabia?

[TexasTiger 12,964]

The administration will only focus on Iran-- Saudi Arabia doesn't fit the narrative they're pushing. Of course, the Saudis were more complicit in 9/11 than Iraq, but look where we ended up.

Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

...

In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...is-sunnis_x.htm

[AFTiger 282]

How many countries do you want to go to war with?

[TexasTiger 12,964]

How many countries do you want to go to war with?

As few as is necessary. I just want to make sure if we are going to war, it is for the right reason. For example, Afghanistan made sense, Iraq didn't, unless we are going to pre-emptively invade every country that poses a potential threat.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Iran, with out any question. There might be some Islamo zealots in S.A., but the Gov't is still on our side. Can't say the same for Iran.

As I understand it, S.A. is flooding the market w/ more oil, pushing the price down, so as to hurt Iran. Iran( Shia ) and S.A. ( Sunni ) aren't friends.

[AFTiger 282]

How many countries do you want to go to war with?

As few as is necessary. I just want to make sure if we are going to war, it is for the right reason. For example, Afghanistan made sense, Iraq didn't, unless we are going to pre-emptively invade every country that poses a potential threat.

So we should not have deposed Saddam but should invade Saudi Arabia?

[TexasTiger 12,964]

How many countries do you want to go to war with?

As few as is necessary. I just want to make sure if we are going to war, it is for the right reason. For example, Afghanistan made sense, Iraq didn't, unless we are going to pre-emptively invade every country that poses a potential threat.

So we should not have deposed Saddam but should invade Saudi Arabia?

I don't think we should have invaded either one, but Saudi Arabia was far more connected to 9/11 than was Iran.

[GalensGhost 0]

If you ask me, here are the true enemies (in no particular order):

1. Hillary Clinton

2. Barbara Streisand

3. Alec Baldwin

4. Ben Affleck

5. John Kerry

6. Marianne Means

7. The New York Times

8. CNN

9. Anything Bama

10. ESPN

[AURaptor 1,125]

I don't think we should have invaded either one, but Saudi Arabia was far more connected to 9/11 than was Iran.

Afghanistan was far more involved in 9/11 than Saudi Arabia AND Iran combined.

[AFTiger 282]

How many countries do you want to go to war with?

As few as is necessary. I just want to make sure if we are going to war, it is for the right reason. For example, Afghanistan made sense, Iraq didn't, unless we are going to pre-emptively invade every country that poses a potential threat.

So we should not have deposed Saddam but should invade Saudi Arabia?

I don't think we should have invaded either one, but Saudi Arabia was far more connected to 9/11 than was Iran.

Here is the flaw in you thinking. We did not go to war with Iraq to avenge 9/11. We went to war against Islamo-Facism. Iraq presented a threat because the entire world believed Iraq was working on WMD and posed a significant threat. Although Iraq was not directly involved with the attack on the WTC and Wasington DC, it was providing financing and direct training to the terrorists.

After 9/11, the doctrine of premption was implemented to avoid another 9/11 (which killed 3,000 people). Neutralizing Iraq will be a major step in winning the war. Restoring democratic rule in Iran will be the next step and then Syria.

[AUman43 5]

Yes and Yes.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

I don't think we should have invaded either one, but Saudi Arabia was far more connected to 9/11 than was Iran.

Afghanistan was far more involved in 9/11 than Saudi Arabia AND Iran combined.

Well, 15 out of 19 of the hihackers were Saudi Arabian, madrassas in Saudi Arabia raise American-hating terrorists and members of the royal family fund terrorist organizations, but your point is why we invaded Afghanistan-- which I understood and did not oppose.

[CCTAU 3,335]

I don't think we should have invaded either one, but Saudi Arabia was far more connected to 9/11 than was Iran.

Afghanistan was far more involved in 9/11 than Saudi Arabia AND Iran combined.

Well, 15 out of 19 of the hihackers were Saudi Arabian, madrassas in Saudi Arabia raise American-hating terrorists and members of the royal family fund terrorist organizations, but your point is why we invaded Afghanistan-- which I understood and did not oppose.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Iran is seeking nukes, SA is not. We are working with the government in SA to help control the funding of terrorism. Individuals are not the government. When the SA government itself starts to fund and promote terrorism, then we can look to them. They have been very wise n walking the line. Unlike Iran.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

How many countries do you want to go to war with?

As few as is necessary. I just want to make sure if we are going to war, it is for the right reason. For example, Afghanistan made sense, Iraq didn't, unless we are going to pre-emptively invade every country that poses a potential threat.

So we should not have deposed Saddam but should invade Saudi Arabia?

I don't think we should have invaded either one, but Saudi Arabia was far more connected to 9/11 than was Iran.

Here is the flaw in you thinking. We did not go to war with Iraq to avenge 9/11. We went to war against Islamo-Facism. Iraq presented a threat because the entire world believed Iraq was working on WMD and posed a significant threat. Although Iraq was not directly involved with the attack on the WTC and Wasington DC, it was providing financing and direct training to the terrorists.

After 9/11, the doctrine of premption was implemented to avoid another 9/11 (which killed 3,000 people). Neutralizing Iraq will be a major step in winning the war. Restoring democratic rule in Iran will be the next step and then Syria.

Where to start with the flaws in your thinking...first of all, you're not thinking. Your parroting Bushco, Inc. Reasons for Invading Iraq 6.0

Go back and read the lead up to war-- the flavor was avenging 9/11, the reasons were to not first see the smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud. Great manipulative language for an administration that rules from fear and not reason. "Islamo-Fascism" was trotted out much later, and it's a mentally lazy term. Even a true conservative like Pat Buchanan sees that:

What is wrong with the term Islamo-fascism?

First, there is no consensus as to what “fascism” even means. Orwell said when someone calls Smith a fascist, what he means is “I hate Smith. ” By calling Smith a fascist, you force Smith to deny he’s a sympathizer of Hitler and Mussolini.

As a concept, writes Arnold Beichman of the Hoover Institution, “fascism … has no intellectual basis at all nor did its founders even pretend to have any. Hitler’s ravings in ‘Mein Kampf’ … Mussolini’s boastful balcony speeches, all of these can be described, in the words of Roger Scruton, as an ‘amalgam of disparate conceptions.’”

Richard Pipes considers Stalinism and Hilterism to be siblings of the same birth mother: “Bolshevism and fascism were heresies of socialism.”

Since the 1930s, “fascist” has been a term of hate and abuse used by the left against the right, as in the Harry Truman campaign. In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. claimed to see in the Goldwater campaign “dangerous signs of Hitlerism.” Twin the words “Reagan, fascism” in Google and 1,800,000 references pop up.

Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives, whose roots are in the Trotskyist-social Democratic left, who are promoting use of the term. Their goal is to have Bush stuff al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran into the same “Islamo-fascist” kill box, then let Strategic Air Command do the rest.

But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.

But Saddam was about as devout a practitioner of Islam as his hero Stalin was of the Russian Orthodox faith. Saddam was into booze, mistresses, movies, monuments, palaces and dynasty. Bin Laden loathed him and volunteered to fight him in 1991, if Saudi Arabia would only not bring the Americans in to do the fighting Islamic warriors ought to be doing themselves.

And whatever “Islamo-fascism” means, Syria surely is not it. It is a secular dictatorship Bush I bribed into becoming an ally in the Gulf War. The Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in Syria. In 1982, Hafez al-Assad perpetrated a massacre of the Brotherhood in the city of Hama that was awesome in its magnitude and horror.

http://www.buchanan.org/blog/?p=75

The world thought Saddam had remnants of his biological and chemical weapons from the early 90s only because he hadn't accounted for its destruction-- he wanted to keep Iran guessing. But there was no meaningful evidence that he had done anything recently and there was no meaningful evidence that he was an iminent threat. So even if you embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, whom do you invade first? Second? Where do you stop? Do you really think Iraq posed the greatest threat after Aghanistan? Base on what?

[AFTiger 282]

So we were supposed to fight Al Qaida only?

Ah yes, Buchanan, the left's favorite conservative. Buchanan ran with a communist as his VP candidate. He does not speak for conservatives.

Islamo-Facists are an Islamic based belief that hates Jews and wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. One cannot engage only one faction of the enemy. We declared war on terrorism, took on the Taliban who was providing cover for AQ, then turned to Iraq.

TT put down your talking points and engage your brain,. Yours is a path to our destruction.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

So we were supposed to fight Al Qaida only?

Ah yes, Buchanan, the left's favorite conservative. Buchanan ran with a communist as his VP candidate. He does not speak for conservatives.

Islamo-Facists are an Islamic based belief that hates Jews and wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. One cannot engage only one faction of the enemy. We declared war on terrorism, took on the Taliban who was providing cover for AQ, then turned to Iraq.

TT put down your talking points and engage your brain,. Yours is a path to our destruction.

I've never heard you say anything I wouldn't expect from Bush' press secretary. Your brain's on auto-pilot. Your parroting folks who are failures. Wake up.

[AFTiger 282]

So we were supposed to fight Al Qaida only?

Ah yes, Buchanan, the left's favorite conservative. Buchanan ran with a communist as his VP candidate. He does not speak for conservatives.

Islamo-Facists are an Islamic based belief that hates Jews and wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. One cannot engage only one faction of the enemy. We declared war on terrorism, took on the Taliban who was providing cover for AQ, then turned to Iraq.

TT put down your talking points and engage your brain,. Yours is a path to our destruction.

I've never heard you say anything I wouldn't expect from Bush' press secretary. Your brain's on auto-pilot. Your parroting folks who are failures. Wake up.

Put down the daily Koz. TT how do you propose we WIN the war?

Tony Snow is pretty smart BTW.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

So we were supposed to fight Al Qaida only?

Ah yes, Buchanan, the left's favorite conservative. Buchanan ran with a communist as his VP candidate. He does not speak for conservatives.

Islamo-Facists are an Islamic based belief that hates Jews and wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. One cannot engage only one faction of the enemy. We declared war on terrorism, took on the Taliban who was providing cover for AQ, then turned to Iraq.

TT put down your talking points and engage your brain,. Yours is a path to our destruction.

I've never heard you say anything I wouldn't expect from Bush' press secretary. Your brain's on auto-pilot. Your parroting folks who are failures. Wake up.

Put down the daily Koz. TT how do you propose we WIN the war?

Tony Snow is pretty smart BTW.

Alot of smart people have spun some pretty crazy crap over the years. I posed questions to you that you didn't answer:

So even if you embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, whom do you invade first? Second? Where do you stop? Do you really think Iraq posed the greatest threat after Aghanistan? Base on what?

[AFTiger 282]

TT, I will answer your question even though you continue to evade mine.

Look at a map. The Taliban in Afganistan was the most immediate threat. Iraq was the next as recognized by the world, even the thoroughly corrupt United Nations. We have been at war since Sept 11, 2001 when we were attacked.

Under your logic, we preempted North Africa, France, The Phillipines, Denmark, Belgium, and many others to defeat our enemies in WWII. Once in war you fight the war and not a politically correct one either.

You have some difficulty understanding the world today. I will try to understand your thinking.

1. Are we at war?

2. If so, who is the enemy?

3. Should we try to win the war or hope they go away?

4. If you agree that we are in a war and should win it, how would you propose winning it?

If you can stop calling me a neocon facist for a while, I would like to hear your answers.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

TT, I will answer your question even though you continue to evade mine.

Look at a map. The Taliban in Afganistan was the most immediate threat. Iraq was the next as recognized by the world, even the thoroughly corrupt United Nations.

You still haven't really answered my questions. If you embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, where do you stop? How many countries pose possible potential threats? You think Iraq posed more of a threat than Iran? Korea? China?

The world did not recognize Iraq as such an obvious threat to warrant invasion. The UN was unconvinced, even by Colin Powell's BS presentation. Most of the world was opposed to this invasion. There was no credible evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat. NONE. Even so, if we thought that the photos we had proved something, we could have bombed those supposedly mobile chemical labs. We could have bitch-slapped Saddam until the cows came home. But we decided to get into nation building-- that which candidate Bush said he didn't believe in.

[AFTiger 282]

TT, I will answer your question even though you continue to evade mine.

Look at a map. The Taliban in Afganistan was the most immediate threat. Iraq was the next as recognized by the world, even the thoroughly corrupt United Nations.

You still haven't really answered my questions. If you embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, where do you stop? How many countries pose possible potential threats? You think Iraq posed more of a threat than Iran? Korea? China?

The world did not recognize Iraq as such an obvious threat to warrant invasion. The UN was unconvinced, even by Colin Powell's BS presentation. Most of the world was opposed to this invasion. There was no credible evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat. NONE. Even so, if we thought that the photos we had proved something, we could have bombed those supposedly mobile chemical labs. We could have bitch-slapped Saddam until the cows came home. But we decided to get into nation building-- that which candidate Bush said he didn't believe in.

Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. We went in before the threat became imminent. Regime change was official US policy.

Iraq is not the war, McFly. Answer the questions.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

TT, I will answer your question even though you continue to evade mine.

Look at a map. The Taliban in Afganistan was the most immediate threat. Iraq was the next as recognized by the world, even the thoroughly corrupt United Nations.

You still haven't really answered my questions. If you embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, where do you stop? How many countries pose possible potential threats? You think Iraq posed more of a threat than Iran? Korea? China?

The world did not recognize Iraq as such an obvious threat to warrant invasion. The UN was unconvinced, even by Colin Powell's BS presentation. Most of the world was opposed to this invasion. There was no credible evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat. NONE. Even so, if we thought that the photos we had proved something, we could have bombed those supposedly mobile chemical labs. We could have bitch-slapped Saddam until the cows came home. But we decided to get into nation building-- that which candidate Bush said he didn't believe in.

Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. We went in before the threat became imminent. Regime change was official US policy.

Iraq is not the war, McFly. Answer the questions.

We are not at war in Iraq? Please explain over 3,000 dead troops, then, Biff.

If we go to war before threats become imminent, where to next? Where does it stop? Don't you think China poses a potential threat? Korea? How exactly does this strategy work? How many bad countries are there?

[AFTiger 282]

TT, I will answer your question even though you continue to evade mine.

Look at a map. The Taliban in Afganistan was the most immediate threat. Iraq was the next as recognized by the world, even the thoroughly corrupt United Nations.

You still haven't really answered my questions. If you embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, where do you stop? How many countries pose possible potential threats? You think Iraq posed more of a threat than Iran? Korea? China?

The world did not recognize Iraq as such an obvious threat to warrant invasion. The UN was unconvinced, even by Colin Powell's BS presentation. Most of the world was opposed to this invasion. There was no credible evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat. NONE. Even so, if we thought that the photos we had proved something, we could have bombed those supposedly mobile chemical labs. We could have bitch-slapped Saddam until the cows came home. But we decided to get into nation building-- that which candidate Bush said he didn't believe in.

Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. We went in before the threat became imminent. Regime change was official US policy.

Iraq is not the war, McFly. Answer the questions.

We are not at war in Iraq? Please explain over 3,000 dead troops, then, Biff.

If we go to war before threats become imminent, where to next? Where does it stop? Don't you think China poses a potential threat? Korea? How exactly does this strategy work? How many bad countries are there?

OK McFly. Iraq is one front in the War. Korea is being dealt with. I leave China to Walmart who is doing more to bring capitalism to China than any government could.

You have evaded the question once again. Your failure to answer the questions is your answer. You and Bottomfeeder need to get together in your delusional conspiracy theories and God save this nation from the looney left.

I'm done.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

TT, I will answer your question even though you continue to evade mine.

Look at a map. The Taliban in Afganistan was the most immediate threat. Iraq was the next as recognized by the world, even the thoroughly corrupt United Nations.

You still haven't really answered my questions. If you embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, where do you stop? How many countries pose possible potential threats? You think Iraq posed more of a threat than Iran? Korea? China?

The world did not recognize Iraq as such an obvious threat to warrant invasion. The UN was unconvinced, even by Colin Powell's BS presentation. Most of the world was opposed to this invasion. There was no credible evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat. NONE. Even so, if we thought that the photos we had proved something, we could have bombed those supposedly mobile chemical labs. We could have bitch-slapped Saddam until the cows came home. But we decided to get into nation building-- that which candidate Bush said he didn't believe in.

Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. We went in before the threat became imminent. Regime change was official US policy.

Iraq is not the war, McFly. Answer the questions.

We are not at war in Iraq? Please explain over 3,000 dead troops, then, Biff.

If we go to war before threats become imminent, where to next? Where does it stop? Don't you think China poses a potential threat? Korea? How exactly does this strategy work? How many bad countries are there?

OK McFly. Iraq is one front in the War. Korea is being dealt with. I leave China to Walmart who is doing more to bring capitalism to China than any government could.

You have evaded the question once again. Your failure to answer the questions is your answer. You and Bottomfeeder need to get together in your delusional conspiracy theories and God save this nation from the looney left.

I'm done.

You're done without explaining the strategy you blindly defend. I'm sure that's because you have no explaination. I agree, it makes no sense. At least we end in agreement.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

We are the enemy.

"DU [deleted uranium] is released from fired weapons in the form of small. particles that may be inhaled, ingested or remain in the environment."

Depleted Uranium a slow, silent killer a crime against humanity. Killing our own with depleted uranium the United States has no business employing such weapons.

This blatant disregard for scientific, medical proof that these weapons are damaging is a crime against humanity - some justifiably label it a war crime.

"Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.7 billion years; that means thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children will suffer for tens of thousands of years to come. This is what I call terrorism," says Dr Ahmad Hardan

The kids got to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=804copyJcHE

Free trips to Iraq, but without MOP gear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnOEvcX9D9A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvCztxiX5hQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap9D3Dq4RwA

DEPLETED URANIUM ALERT! Invisible War, Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OJ66fVERxU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltOnbz1p_3g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr-sBIHLulg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jud5qdMqLtE

The sanction years

[AFTiger 282]

Dear Jesus!