Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Iraq War Increased Terror

  1. #1
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Iraq War Increased Terror

    [URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?hp&ex=1159156800&en=22b7a0941b08007f&ei=5094&partner=homepage]Read it here[/URL]

    And this is coming from our OWN spy agencies! I agreed with the war in Afghanistan, but it was clear and is now becoming even clearer that the war on Iraq was totally misguided. Not only did Al-Qaeda have NO link whatsoever to Iraq, the war itself made Iraq the biggest recruiting mechanism for terror worldwide (people have been warning about this for a long time, and sure enough, our own spy agencies say this is THE reality). It's scary. As I'm watching FoxNews discuss the Clinton interview this morning, even FoxNews analysts acknowledge the facts stated in this report, so don't give me any of that "it comes from the Times so I won't read it" bullcrap.

    [QUOTE]
    A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

    The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

    The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

    An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

    The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

    More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

    Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

    National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

    Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

    Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

    Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said the White House “played no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.” The estimate’s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

    Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda.

    “Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report titled “9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges.” “We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism.”

    That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. “The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry,” it states.

    The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, “exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies.”

    On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says, “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

    The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Mr. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

    The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

    It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.

    In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

    But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism.

    In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate’s conclusions in public speeches.

    “New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

    For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

    Spy agencies usually produce several national intelligence estimates each year on a variety of subjects. The most controversial of these in recent years was an October 2002 document assessing Iraq’s illicit weapons programs. Several government investigations have discredited that report, and the intelligence community is overhauling how it analyzes data, largely as a result of those investigations.

    The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

    The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.”

    More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”[/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,110
    Post Thanks / Like
    under Bush..
    1)The worst attack on America ever..Even though they were warned for months, they did nothing..
    2)Instead of getting al qeada, Bush pulls special forces from Kabul and send them after Saddam's gun...killing tens upon tens of thousand of innocent iraquis for no reason..
    3) Afghan is now a narco state with Karzai in charhe of Kabul and nowhere else...
    4) Little BUsh then watches as Iraq descends into civil war..
    5) North Korea now has nukes
    6) Iran is close
    7) Islamic Fascism has been spread by little bush, not wiped out.
    He's the worst unelected president this country has ever seen..

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    SOSDD (Same old sh*t different day)

    Do you liberal morons think these guys would be choir boys if there was no war in iraq? If it wasn't the war it would be the Jews or the Pope or oil or a Dannish cartoon or a lunar eclipse...

    We know, you hate Bush. We get it. But wake up and use the brains God gave you. There is (and always was) a stealthy enemy out there and it primarily resides in that region of the world.

    So terrorism got worse. Well guess where it [u]didn't[/u] get worse[b][size=3]...the good old US of A[/size][/b]! And that's something you, moron.org, george soros, the nyt and the defeatocrats can't do anything about. So you desperately need to find something to sour the voting public on, since your side has nothing to offer except to quit, run and hide. And as usual, it will either backfire or just simply not work.

    If the rest of the world actually did something about terrorism -- to include a certain dress-staining commander-in-chief, it may not have gotten this way. But it is, so you deal with it and not sweep it under the rug for the next guy/generation.

  4. #4
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    363
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb]SOSDD (Same old sh*t different day)

    Do you liberal morons think these guys would be choir boys if there was no war in iraq? If it wasn't the war it would be the Jews or the Pope or oil or a Dannish cartoon or a lunar eclipse...

    We know, you hate Bush. We get it. But wake up and use the brains God gave you. There is (and always was) a stealthy enemy out there and it primarily resides in that region of the world.

    So terrorism got worse. Well guess where it [u]didn't[/u] get worse[b][size=3]...the good old US of A[/size][/b]! And that's something you, moron.org, george soros, the nyt and the defeatocrats can't do anything about. So you desperately need to find something to sour the voting public on, since your side has nothing to offer except to quit, run and hide. And as usual, it will either backfire or just simply not work.

    If the rest of the world actually did something about terrorism -- to include a certain dress-staining commander-in-chief, it may not have gotten this way. But it is, so you deal with it and not sweep it under the rug for the next guy/generation.[/QUOTE]

    If you forgot already, let me remind you. After 9/11, the majority of the world felt sympathetic for the US, including the Muslim world. That's changed. The Iraq War, undertaken under false pretenses was the KEY factor in that role. How did it make us safer? How did it help us? Even our own intelligence organizations say that it made the terror threat greater than before. How many times were there attacks on US soil from foreignors before 9/11?

    Keep ignoring facts, it makes you look real smart when responding to points. Wasn't G-d's real gift to the world rational thought? Embrace it and love it. It makes me feel pretty damn good at the end of the day.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,110
    Post Thanks / Like
    Al Qeada was always the enemy....
    But invading Iraq for no reason, by killing tens upon tens of thousands of innocent muslims, by torturing innocent iraquis in abu gharaib, the US pretty much validated a lot of what OBL said post 9-11...

    The US turned Iraq into a lawless state that is NOW a terrorist training camp and that is now a state that is viewed by Mulims as a reason for Jihad (just like all those Arabs who went to Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded)..
    The US (By invading Iraq) has created so many more threats than existed prior to 9-11..


    And calling people who were against the Iraq War, Liberal Morons makes you one of the stupidist people on this board.
    You are the moron.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jetsphan]If you forgot already, let me remind you. After 9/11, the majority of the world felt sympathetic for the US, including the Muslim world. That's changed. The Iraq War, undertaken under false pretenses was the KEY factor in that role. How did it make us safer? How did it help us? Even our own intelligence organizations say that it made the terror threat greater than before. How many times were there attacks on US soil from foreignors before 9/11?

    Keep ignoring facts, it makes you look real smart when responding to points. Wasn't G-d's real gift to the world rational thought? Embrace it and love it. It makes me feel pretty damn good at the end of the day.[/QUOTE]
    No offense, but this entire liberal narrative about having the world's sympathy after 9-11 is the biggest bunch of inverified nonsense I have have heard. Some headline in Le Monde doesn't mean anything. Yeah - muslims were all loving the USA after 9-11 and after we invaded Afghanistan and hey, invading Afghanistan didn't piss any potential terrorists off. Oh, and the Jews weren't even being killed prior to the Iraq War, right?

    Phan - you are a nice smart kid, but I THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I am going to read a thing the NYT says about this report. I'll read the report for myself.

    Saying the threat is "worse" now assumes that (1) we knew exactly the extent of the threat prior to the Iraq War, which we didn't and (2) we know the exact extent of the threat now, which we don't.

    Going on the offensive is obviously going to piss off your enemies and increase the threat level in the short term. When we fought back against the Japanese it increased the threat of attacks from them in the short term. It is ludicrous to then use that increased threat level as some sort of substantive point to detract from the merits of any operation.

    Also, your thinking in this is terribly short-sighted. You can agree with the War in Afghanistan all you want, but to act like Afghanistan didn't piss off musims or "increase" the threat level is itself absurd. As if potential terrorists were all fine and dandy with the USA supporting Israel and killing Afghani children, but decided to becmoe homicidal terrorists when we toppled Saddam. Grow up and stop examining things in such a narrow fashion...these wars are likely not seen as such separate things to other people. The Gitmo prisoners are primarily from the Afghani theater, right?

    I remember reading that terrorist attacks were "up" in 2004 and most of the attacks wer occurrning in Iraq, where the fight against terrorists is in progress. Well, no sh*t attacks will be "up" then. Attacks from the Japanese navy were "up" in 1942, does that mean our defense created this problem or made it worse?

    Unless you are able to explain in detail what the terrorist threat would be like today if we had never invaded Iraq, please tell me why this report means anything.

    I also like the fact that you just quickly state that the Iraq War was justified under false pretenses and to further hit it, you use a conclusion based upon work done by the same agencies that provided those "false" pretenses. So, our intel community knew nothing about Iraq prior to 2003 that was accurate, but now, all of a sudden their conclusions about something more diffuse and complicated is gospel? Spare me. We get it - you don't agree with the Iraq War. You agree with the Afghan War. Please explain to me why the hell any potential terrorist would differentiate between the two? Do you remember the muslims dancing in the streets after 9-11? I do.

    We had the world's sympathy - please. Yes, the ENTIRE world, muslims included, were just waiting to jelp us out and stop attacking us, Bush was just too much of an a-hole to notice or care. Terrorism would have just gone away, overtaken by the waves of goodwill towards us, but for Bush's Texas drawl. And there would never be storms if it weren't for SUVs and no poor people if we go rid of corporations.

    Look, dude, there is one and only one way to reduce the threat of terrorism, and that is for everyone to face Mecca and pray 5 times a day. If you think using force makes things worse you should re think your support of the Afghan War and of Israels' robust defenses.

    Israel fights back and in doing so increases the threat level. It's what happens when you defend yourself. You

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bman]Al Qeada was always the enemy....
    But invading Iraq for no reason, by killing tens upon tens of thousands of innocent muslims, by torturing innocent iraquis in abu gharaib, the US pretty much validated a lot of what OBL said post 9-11...

    The US turned Iraq into a lawless state that is NOW a terrorist training camp and that is now a state that is viewed by Mulims as a reason for Jihad (just like all those Arabs who went to Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded)..
    The US (By invading Iraq) has created so many more threats than existed prior to 9-11..


    And calling people who were against the Iraq War, Liberal Morons makes you one of the stupidist people on this board.
    You are the moron.[/QUOTE]

    Terrorism is not confined to AQ and this war did not begin on 9-11.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,110
    Post Thanks / Like
    I know..but AQ was/is the MAIN threat to the US..SAddam is a thug/wussy compared to OBL and NEVER attacked the US.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bman]I know..but AQ was/is the MAIN threat to the US..SAddam is a thug/wussy compared to OBL and NEVER attacked the US.[/QUOTE]

    Tell that to the pilots he shot at every day from 91-03 and to G.H.W. Bush.

    Saddam had the largest army in the region and tons of weapons. He had a history of supporting terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons and WMD. Sanctions were crumbling and he was subverting them through O for F and a corrupt, toothless UN that lacked the will enforce the very sanctions they drew up. Regardless of the current revisionist liberal history, Saddam was not merely making cookies as a senile, impotent old man.

    Waiting until someone attacks us within our borders is exactly the type of thinking that allowed 9-11 to occur. Everyone, GOP, Dems, deserves blame for this. Clearly, we should have launched an aggressive campaign to get OBL before 9-11. Clinton, Bush -all are to blame for not doing this. And had we done so, people like you and phan would likely now be saying, "OBL is some fool running around caves 10,000 miles away with a few old Kalishnikovs, what threat does he pose?? Look - by invading Afghanistan for no reason and killing and pissing off the world - the UN would NOT have been on board - we are making terrorism WORSE!!!!!!! And who knows, you'd probably even be saying that Saddam is likely getting to be more of a threat, bah blah blah."

    Bman - didn't you also recently say that Bush won't talk to N Korea and now they may have nukes? You do see the irony in that position, right? Talking to N Korea in 1994 is precisely why they are now a thorn in our side. We "talked" to them and signed a treaty. All they did was ignore it and take the money we provided to them per that threay to pursue nukes at a faster pace. "Talking" to them in 1994 MADE THINGS WORSE, not better.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Terrorism is not confined to AQ and this war did not begin on 9-11.[/QUOTE]

    Fine, so please explain how the war in Iraq and its outcomes have benefited this so called "war on terror". One other question, does Iran today pose a greater or lesser threat to the USA than Iraq did before we invaded and occupied them.


    BTW congrats on the birth of your child! Parenthood is the greatest thing in the world!!! :)

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,861
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]
    He had a history of supporting terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons and WMD. [/QUOTE]
    Clearly using this criteria we should have invaded Iran and not Iraq. Sadaam did not have a good relationship with AQ, and his tyrannical rule kept the volatile parties under control. Iran certainly along with it's proxy Hezbollah and was much more of an imminent threat and was clearly destabilizing the region. The new govt in Iraq if anything has increased the power and influence of Iran.

    With the exception of pursuing nuclear weapons Syria is/was much more of a threat than Iraq. AQ has moved their training bases from Afghanistan to there and Syria has assassinated the PM of Lebanon and actively funds terrorists.

    Again why Iraq when Syria and Iran were much more dangerous. Also most importantly if you invade Iraq do it right!
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 09-25-2006 at 06:49 PM.

  12. #12
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    363
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]No offense, but this entire liberal narrative about having the world's sympathy after 9-11 is the biggest bunch of inverified nonsense I have have heard. Some headline in Le Monde doesn't mean anything. Yeah - muslims were all loving the USA after 9-11 and after we invaded Afghanistan and hey, invading Afghanistan didn't piss any potential terrorists off. Oh, and the Jews weren't even being killed prior to the Iraq War, right?

    Phan - you are a nice smart kid, but I THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I am going to read a thing the NYT says about this report. I'll read the report for myself.

    Saying the threat is "worse" now assumes that (1) we knew exactly the extent of the threat prior to the Iraq War, which we didn't and (2) we know the exact extent of the threat now, which we don't.

    Going on the offensive is obviously going to piss off your enemies and increase the threat level in the short term. When we fought back against the Japanese it increased the threat of attacks from them in the short term. It is ludicrous to then use that increased threat level as some sort of substantive point to detract from the merits of any operation.

    Also, your thinking in this is terribly short-sighted. You can agree with the War in Afghanistan all you want, but to act like Afghanistan didn't piss off musims or "increase" the threat level is itself absurd. As if potential terrorists were all fine and dandy with the USA supporting Israel and killing Afghani children, but decided to becmoe homicidal terrorists when we toppled Saddam. Grow up and stop examining things in such a narrow fashion...these wars are likely not seen as such separate things to other people. The Gitmo prisoners are primarily from the Afghani theater, right?

    I remember reading that terrorist attacks were "up" in 2004 and most of the attacks wer occurrning in Iraq, where the fight against terrorists is in progress. Well, no sh*t attacks will be "up" then. Attacks from the Japanese navy were "up" in 1942, does that mean our defense created this problem or made it worse?

    Unless you are able to explain in detail what the terrorist threat would be like today if we had never invaded Iraq, please tell me why this report means anything.

    I also like the fact that you just quickly state that the Iraq War was justified under false pretenses and to further hit it, you use a conclusion based upon work done by the same agencies that provided those "false" pretenses. So, our intel community knew nothing about Iraq prior to 2003 that was accurate, but now, all of a sudden their conclusions about something more diffuse and complicated is gospel? Spare me. We get it - you don't agree with the Iraq War. You agree with the Afghan War. Please explain to me why the hell any potential terrorist would differentiate between the two? Do you remember the muslims dancing in the streets after 9-11? I do.

    We had the world's sympathy - please. Yes, the ENTIRE world, muslims included, were just waiting to jelp us out and stop attacking us, Bush was just too much of an a-hole to notice or care. Terrorism would have just gone away, overtaken by the waves of goodwill towards us, but for Bush's Texas drawl. And there would never be storms if it weren't for SUVs and no poor people if we go rid of corporations.

    Look, dude, there is one and only one way to reduce the threat of terrorism, and that is for everyone to face Mecca and pray 5 times a day. If you think using force makes things worse you should re think your support of the Afghan War and of Israels' robust defenses.

    Israel fights back and in doing so increases the threat level. It's what happens when you defend yourself. You[/QUOTE]

    Kinda short on time right now, but I'll respond more completely later on. Before I do that, please tell me what connection Saddam had to Al Qaeda. I really want to know. Everyone knew Bin Laden wanted Saddam removed from power too. Saddam was secular and if anything, kept Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq in check. Secularism is one of the principles of Ba'thism. He did give money to suicide bombers in Israel (which is terrible), but that's not a connection to international terrorism that necessitates US invasion. What terrorist threat did Saddam present? He wasn't even capable of attacking any American targets.

    The invasion of Afghanistan had overwhelming international support from every region of the globe, including the Middle East. People did celebrate in the streets in countries all over, yet that was fairly limited. Additionally, the Northern Alliance provided the domestic legitimacy to have support within Afghanistan. The two invasions could not have gone differently, although since Iraq has gone awry, less attention has been given to Afghanistan and it too is falling apart.

  13. #13
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Fine, so please explain how the war in Iraq and its outcomes have benefited this so called "war on terror". One other question, does Iran today pose a greater or lesser threat to the USA than Iraq did before we invaded and occupied them.


    BTW congrats on the birth of your child! Parenthood is the greatest thing in the world!!! :)[/QUOTE]

    iraq & libya are no longer the threats they were
    which is a good thing
    despite whatever the un-patriots here state

    iran has been a threat to the USA for decades
    both were specifically identified as a threat before Iraq was invaded
    if we invaded Iran instead wed hear the same defeatist BDS crap

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]iraq & libya are no longer the threats they were
    which is a good thing
    despite whatever the un-patriots here state

    iran has been a threat to the USA for decades
    both were specifically identified as a threat before Iraq was invaded
    if we invaded Iran instead wed hear the same defeatist BDS crap[/QUOTE]


    If you think Iraq is less of a threat to us now than it was under Saddam, then you are dumber than i thought. Do you know who won the elections in Iraq? Its the same guys who were trained by the Iranian Revolutionary guard and killed Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s. Once/if this civil war is settled the elected government of Iraq will move closer to Iran than ever before. Dont believe it? Well its already started. Take a guess who side Iraq will be taking if we start any conflict w Iran. I assure you it wont be us


    [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5337300.stm[/url]
    [url]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6061545[/url]
    [url]http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/06/21/index-e.htm[/url]

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    19,619
    Post Thanks / Like
    A major thing Bush did wrong when he took office was not cleaning house, ESPECIALLY after the contested 2000 election. There are still way too many holdover cretins working against his administration from the inside. :steamin:

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,939
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum]There are still way too many holdover cretins working against his administration from the inside. :steamin:[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. Checks and balances are for Al Queda sympathizing wussies.



    [B]What the hell gives people the right to question our elected officials?!?[/B]
    [IMG]http://billhutton.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/constitution.jpeg[/IMG]

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Agreed. Checks and balances are for Al Queda sympathizing wussies. [/QUOTE]

    Lean on the Constitution until the part about the electoral college or the right to bear arms or the right to freely practice ones religion...

    Thanks for reminding us how libs cherry pick the legal foundations of our country.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us