Shiites Call for U.S. to Leave Iraq

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070409/D8ODBN4O0.html

By LAUREN FRAYER

Holy shiite!!

BAGHDAD (AP) - Tens of thousands of Shiites - a sea of women in black abayas and men waving Iraqi flags - rallied Monday to demand that U.S. forces leave their country. Some ripped apart American flags and tromped across a Stars and Stripes rug.

The protesters marched about three miles between the holy cities of Kufa and Najaf to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. In the capital, streets were silent and empty under a hastily imposed 24-hour driving ban.

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered up the march as a show of strength not only to Washington but to Iraq's establishment Shiite ayatollahs as well.

Al-Sadr, who disappointed followers hoping he might appear after months in seclusion, has pounded his anti-American theme in a series of written statements. The most recent came on Sunday, when he called on his Mahdi Army militia to redouble efforts to expel American forces and for the police and army to join the struggle against "your archenemy."


(AP) A Shiite woman, a follower of radical anti-US cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in the holy city of Najaf,...
Full Image


The fiery cleric owes much of his large following to the high esteem in which Shiites hold his father, Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, who was assassinated in 1999 by suspected agents of Saddam Hussein. Al-Sadr dropped from view before the start of the latest Baghdad security operation on Feb. 14. U.S. officials say he is holed up in Iran. His followers insist he's returned to Najaf.

Fearing suicide attacks, car bombings or other mayhem in the capital, Iraq's generals ordered all vehicles off the streets for 24 hours starting at 5 a.m. Monday, normally a work day. The capital was eerily quiet, shops were shuttered and locked and reports of sectarian violence fell to near zero.

Police and morgue officials reported finding just seven bodies dumped in the capital, only the second time the number of sectarian assassination and torture victims had dipped that low in the course of the Baghdad security operation. A total of 25 people were killed or found dead in the country Monday, according to police and morgue reports.

A double line of police cordoned the marchers' route from Kufa to Najaf, sister cities on the west bank of the Euphrates River. The holy places, 100 miles south of Baghdad, are a prime destination for Shiite pilgrims.

Among the snapping flags and giant banners, leaflets fluttered to earth, exhorting the marchers in chants of "Yes, Yes to Iraq" and "Yes, Yes to Muqtada. Occupiers should leave Iraq."

Salah al-Obaydi, a senior official in al-Sadr's Najaf organization, called the rally a "call for liberation. We're hoping that by next year's anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty."

And the head of al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc, Nassar al-Rubaie, blasted the U.S. presence as an affront to "the dignity of the Iraqi people. After four years of occupation, we have hundreds of thousands of people dead and wounded."

A key Washington official saw it differently.

"Iraq, four years on, is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions," Gordon Johndroe, the National Security Council spokesman, said aboard Air Force One. "And while we have much more progress ahead of us - the United States, the coalition and Iraqis have much more to do - this is a country that has come a long way from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein."

Col. Steven Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman and aide to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, praised the peaceful demonstration and said Iraqis "could not have done this four years ago."


Iraqi soldiers in uniform joined the crowd of marchers which stretch for at least three miles and was led by a dozen turbaned clerics, a Sunni Muslim among them. Many marchers, especially youngsters, danced as they moved through the streets, littered with balloons.

Brig. Abdul Kerim al-Mayahi, the Najaf police chief, said there were as many as 600,000 in the march, although other estimates were significantly lower. He said 30 lawmakers made the hike and there was no American troop presence except surveillance from helicopters hovering above.

Monday's demonstration marks four years since U.S. Marines and the Army's 3rd Infantry Division swept into the Iraqi capital 20 days into the American invasion.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari noted that "mistakes were made" after Saddam was ousted, pointing to decisions made by the first U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer.

"The main mistake was a vacuum left in the fields of security and politics, and the second mistake was how liberating forces became occupation forces," Zebari told Al-Arabiyah television.

Cars were banned from Najaf for 24 hours starting from 8 p.m. Sunday, and buses idled at all city entry points to transport arriving demonstrators or other visitors.

While al-Sadr had ordered his militia to disarm and stay off the streets during the Baghdad crackdown, he has notched up his anti-American rhetoric in three brief but hostile statements demanding the departure of U.S. troops.

"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," he wrote, apparently referring to three days of clashes between his Mahdi Army militiamen and U.S.-backed Iraqi troops in Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad.

A U.S. soldier was killed there Sunday, according to Col. Michael Garrett, with the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division. He spoke to reporters in Diwaniyah as American troops continued operations.

On Monday night, police officials in Diwaniyah said the toll since the start of the operation Friday was 14 dead and 47 wounded, both figures including civilians and members of the Mahdi Army. The numbers could not be independently confirmed.




“It is not knowable how long that conflict would last, it could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” Cheney 3/16/03
:lol :lol :lol

“We know where (the weapons) are, they’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, north and south somewhat.” Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

“Major combat operations have ENDED.” President George W. Bush, 5/1/03
:lol :lol

“We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

“Iraq will not require sustained aid.” O.M.B. Director Mitch Daniels, 3/28/03
:lol :lol

“A year from now, I’d be surprised if there’s not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.” Former Pentagon Advisor Richard Perle, 9/22/03
:flipoff

[Nbadan]

I wrote back in 03 that allowing Al-Sadr to keep a virtual city-state in Baghdad was a big, big mistake, but this is just another part of doing this invasion on the cheap, except in this case, the 'cheap part' of it was in the very unfortunate price of American combat troop lives it would have taken to compromise Al-Sadr in Sadr city. Now the Bush administration has no choice but to compromise politically with Sadr, and all while he calls for protest and resistence of coalition troops from a unknown safe haven.

[01Snake]

I wrote back in 03

And there it is. Like clockwork.

[Nbadan]

...but yet you would be the first to call me out on those rare occassions when I am wrong....

[exstatic]

Well, we may yet unite the Iraqis...into shooting at us together.

[Nbadan]

See, we are uniters!

:lol

[Nbadan]

Glass half-full mentality...


A huge anti-American protest swept two cities in Iraq today, but White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters this only underscores how much "progress" the U.S. is making in that country.

Four years since the fall of Baghad, Iraq "is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions, and that was something they could not do under Saddam." Johndrove said, traveling with President Bush to Arizona.

He also noted that Moktada al-Sahr had called for "massive protests-- I'm not sure that we 've seen that, those numbers materialize."

But the Associated Press reported this afternoon: "Tens of thousands of Shiites -- a sea of women in black abayas and men waving Iraqi flags -- marched from Kufa to Najaf on Monday, demanding U.S. forces leave their country on the fourth anniversary of fall of Baghdad. Streets in the capital were silent and empty under a hastily imposed 24-hour driving ban.

Editor and Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003569090)

Americans invade Iraq, kill the people, torture them, illegally detains them and steals Iraq's resources....but they can protest the American occupation...so democracy in Iraq is working, see.

[Nbadan]

Right Wing Uses Cropped Photo To Downplay Size Of Iraq Protest

After thousands of demonstrators gathered in Najaf, Iraq, yesterday to protest the U.S. occupation, the Bush administration was quick to downplay the size of the protest. State Department official David Satterfield stated today, “I think the small size of those demonstrations is an indication of the limited appeal of Muqtada al-Sadr’s rhetoric at this moment.” White House spokesperson Johndroe said yesterday, “I note today that Sadr called for massive protests. I’m not sure that we’ve seen that.”

The right-wing has quickly echoed these talking points, circulating a U.S. Army aerial photo of the protest to support the military’s low-ball estimate that only 5,000-7,000 attended the rally. Gateway Pundit claims “proof” that “Al Sadr and the mainstream media missed the mark on this one” by claiming that the “aerial shot from Najaf, Iraq yesterday shows a protest of 5,000-7,000 Al-Sadr devotees.”

Instapundit links to Gateway Pundit and calls the protest “a weak turnout for Sadr in Nadaf.” RedState uses the aerial photo to show that “the outcome was underwhelming” at “five to seven thousand.” Weekly Standard notes that “that the Coalition is closely monitoring the protest, and put the number of demonstrators between 5,000 and 7,000” as evidence that “the Coalition has regained the initiative.”

Here’s their photographic “proof“:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/najaf3.jpg

Wingnuts are denying reality again. Protesters were not restricted to the square seen in the military’s photo; in fact, they “choked the 7-kilometer road between Najaf and neighboring Kufa and clogged streets leading to Sadrein Square, the main rallying point.” A photo:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/iraqslog_350x500shkl.jpg

The low-ball estimates puts them in lonely company. The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, AP, and Al Jazeera all note that “tens of thousands” attended the demonstration.

[whottt]

If they could Unite in the first place, all they'd have to do is ask, and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on to justify being there.

I wonder why they don't consider that...why they didn't consider that in the first place.

Fundamental Islam at work.

Still, if they can Unite to drive us out...Mission Accomplished!

[xrayzebra]

they were united under saddam

Sure they were, you bet! :dizzy :downspin:

[George Gervin's Afro]

Sure they were, you bet! :dizzy :downspin:


Yeah Ray things are so much more stable now in the middle east. Too bad it has cost us 3200 + in lives 20,000 + injured, 50,000+ innocent dead Iraqis, and all for a liberation experiemnt no one knows if it will work or not. Yeah things are so much better now..

[xrayzebra]

Yeah Ray things are so much more stable now in the middle east. Too bad it has cost us 3200 + in lives 20,000 + injured, 50,000+ innocent dead Iraqis, and all for a liberation experiemnt no one knows if it will work or not. Yeah things are so much better now..


Real reading comprehension problem. He said they were
"united" under Saddam.

And oh, never mind....... :bang

[boutons_]

Iraq is now a violent hell-hole 100 times more threatening than Saddam ever was ...

... and Iraq will get much worse when dubya & dickhead quit wasting humans for absolutely no benefit except to delay withdrawal until after Jan 2009.

[whottt]

Iraq is now a violent hell-hole 100 times more threatening than Saddam ever was ...

... and Iraq will get much worse when dubya & dickhead quit wasting humans for absolutely no benefit except to delay withdrawal until after Jan 2009.



Wow...good thing boutons wasn't President in 1863...or blacks would still be slaves. Wouldn't want to create a hellhole....

[boutons_]

Whott, under great stress as his boy dubya and his bullshit war go to hell, makes totally irrelevant, off-the-wall comments. 1863? slavery? parallel with Iraq?

Holy shit, you radical right wing chickenshit macho fakers have become way too easy to bitch slap all over forum.

And don't try to tell us dubya and dickhead went into Iraq for humanintarian reasons, that's typical ex-post-factor, moving-the-goalposts, because humanitarianism was NOT in the top bullshit reasons WHIG/neo-cunts had for invading Iraq.

[smeagol]

Can somebody tell me again why the US invaded Iraq?

Was it because Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11? (no, that was the other bad guy, Osama)

WMDs? (maybe, although they were never found)

Because Saddam refused to abide by UN regulations? (good one! - even though every right winger hates the UN anyways)

Because Saddam was a merciless dictator? (plenty of those guys to go around and the US is not going to invade all the countries they (the dictators) rule)

Oil? (I hope to God this was not the reason)

So why the fuck are Americans dying in Iraq?

[whottt]

Can somebody tell me again why the US invaded Iraq?

Was it because Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11? (no, that was the other bad guy, Osama)

Link to where it was claimed Saddam was?




WMDs? (maybe, although they were never found)

He had them before...and used them, he also kicked out the weapons inspectors.


Because Saddam refused to abide by UN regulations? (good one! - even though every right winger hates the UN anyways)

Um...Americans hate the UN because

We pay for it, and it's useless. No, it's worse than useless...

Hey Smeagol...whose brilliant idea was it to stick a bunch of European Jews smackdab in the Middle East?









Because Saddam was a merciless dictator? (plenty of those guys to go around and the US is not going to invade all the countries they (the dictators) rule)




Ahh I give up on you smeagol...

Learn about cease fire agreements
Learn about cultures that breed extreme religious fanaticism
Learn about how Oil is traded on the world market.


Once you figure out all those things, you'll see that invading Iraq was, without a doubt the best way to start liberalizing the hardline governments in the middle east and South Asia that are the chief exporters of Militant Islam.

The message was sent to the Saudi, Syrian and Iranian Govts...with varying degrees of success...


Control your attack dogs, or we'll take your country.


Installing a Democracy and sendign that message are the top two ways to start ending the rampant spread of militant Islam.






As for Saddam, wrong place at the wrong time, but his people were suffering for his actions...it was time for him to go rather than just perpetuating a state of misery while he shits on gold toilets.


Sucks to be him...he should have thought about that before HE ended the cease fire and kicked out the UN Inspectors.

[nkdlunch]

seriously. let's stop the party fighting and realize, it's time to GTF out of there. come on.....


enough is enough

[Phenomanul]

If it was militant Islam we were fighting we should have invaded I R A N... not Iraq.

[whottt]

If it was militant Islam we were fighting we should have invaded I R A N... not Iraq.

I wasn't aware IRan was in violation of their ceasefire agreement with us like Iraq was....


You are like the 1billionth anti-war i have met that hasn't got a clue what a ceasefire agreement is....and how it works in international politics.

[whottt]

I wish anti-wars had the intelligence to understand how sticking a Democracy in a country that borders Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia will impact the oppressive regimes that rule those countries....not to mention the message that taking Saddam out sent to those leaders.


You guys just don't see how changing Iraq's government, can and will, and already has, impacted the neighboring governments. That are the main problems...


The main problem is not Iran, it's not Pakistan, it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Usama Bin Laden...it's not even Israel.


It's A #1, Saudi Arabia.

We can't go to war with Saudi Arabia...they have not attacked and invaded their neighbors, in fact they have been one of the more stabilizing governments in the region...they are also a religious capital. It would cripple the World economy, much more than freeing the sanctioned Oil in Iraq would...




You guys just don't understand the indirect approach...


We can't take Saudi out...for political reasons.

We can't take Pakistan out...for nuclear reasons.

We can possibly take Syria out...although with no legal grounds to do so, like we had with Iraq. And taking Syria out will not have much impact anyway.

We can take Iran out and might...again, with no legal grounds to do....but we had more justification for taking Saddam out than Iran. Plus...it was easier. And Iran had zip to do with 911 anyway as well...

[whottt]

This was what the UN tried to do 60 years ago with Israel...sort of...they figured it would either work, or the jews would get slaughtered.

The problem is that despots quickly played the jew card to obscure what shitty leaders they are...and tapped into centuries of religious and ethnic hatred to distract their own populous from their failing at leadership...

They can't pull the jew card with Iraq.

[Phenomanul]

I wasn't aware IRan was in violation of their ceasefire agreement with us like Iraq was....


You are like the 1billionth anti-war i have met that hasn't got a clue what a ceasefire agreement is....and how it works in international politics.

Come on whottt, now I'm an anti-war advocate? I pretty much agreed with your whole post except for the part where you claimed that fighting militant Islam was a reason to enter Iraq. Afghanistan yes - but not Iraq.

I didn't condone or agree with Saddam's tactics (they were inhumane) - but that was the only way he managed to keep militant Shiite Islam suppressed. Due to the fundamentalist 'do or die' nature of their cause there appears to be no other viable alternative to dealing with them.... they are out-right terrorists. The difference of course being that the US, cannot allow itself to stoop to Saddam's level, 'rules of engagement' and all... but it is one of the reasons we are failing to squash this latest version of militant Islam. The one benefit Iraq does provide, is that the fight has been fought entirely 'over there' and not here at home.


The argument is not entirely absolute.

[nkdlunch]

I wish anti-wars had the intelligence to understand how sticking a Democracy in a country that borders Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia will impact the oppressive regimes that rule those countries....not to mention the message that taking Saddam out sent to those leaders.


If anything, taking Saddam out increased hate from those goverments toward USA. It made situation worse.



The main problem is not Iran, it's not Pakistan, it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Usama Bin Laden...it's not even Israel.


It's A #1, Saudi Arabia.

We can't go to war with Saudi Arabia...they have not attacked and invaded their neighbors, in fact they have been one of the more stabilizing governments in the region...they are also a religious capital. It would cripple the World economy, much more than freeing the sanctioned Oil in Iraq would...


You guys just don't understand the indirect approach...


We can't take Saudi out...for political reasons.


yes, attacking saudi would solve the worlds problems :rolleyes



We can't take Pakistan out...for nuclear reasons.

We can possibly take Syria out...although with no legal grounds to do so, like we had with Iraq. And taking Syria out will not have much impact anyway.

We can take Iran out and might...again, with no legal grounds to do....but we had more justification for taking Saddam out than Iran. Plus...it was easier. And Iran had zip to do with 911 anyway as well...

Iraq was attacked because they had WMDs remember? oh wait...


yes, we must lack the intelligence to understand this mumbo jumbo :rolleyes

[whottt]

Come on whottt, now I'm an anti-war advocate? I pretty much agreed with your whole post except for the part where you claimed that fighting militant Islam was a reason to enter Iraq. Afghanistan yes - but not Iraq.

I didn't condone or agree with Saddam's tactics (they were inhumane) - but that was the only way he managed to keep militant Shiite Islam suppressed. Due to the fundamentalist 'do or die' nature of their cause there appears to be no other viable alternative to dealing with them.... they are out-right terrorists. The difference of course being that the US, cannot allow itself to stoop to Saddam's level, 'rules of engagement' and all... but it is one of the reasons we are failing to squash this latest version of militant Islam. The one benefit Iraq does provide, is that the fight has been fought entirely 'over there' and not here at home.


The argument is not entirely absolute.



You know what, my bad, you are right....you have had a consistent position on this and I misguidedly lumped you in with those that don't.


Anyway...I guess the Admin figured there would be more support for taking out Saddam militarily than Iran...I think that was a good judgement.

The bottom line is that we had to send the message that we meant business, and taking out Afghanistant wouldn't send that message...

Taking out a sovereign mid-east leader was the only way to send that message...and Saddam had given us all the legal recourse and justification we needed...with his pursuit of WMD, with his desire to invade his neighbors, and with his total dissing of the UN resolutions and conditions that were part of his cease fire agreement.



The true error the US made in the Middle East was not taking Saddam out in 1991...by encouraging an uprising and then failing to support it.

But you know what? That was the UN method we tried...try and sanction a shitty leader into becoming a good one...it doesn't work. All it punishes is the people...and the leader usually makes sure it's the people he likes the least that take the brunt of the sanctions.

[whottt]

If anything, taking Saddam out increased hate from those goverments toward USA. It made situation worse.

Scared them...because, taking out Saddam, sent the message that if this shit continues, we're going to take you out, no matter how well you think your subterfuge is disguised.









yes, attacking saudi would solve the worlds problems :rolleyes

No..but installing liberalize governments in the mid-east will go a long way towards solving the problems of modern terrorism.




Iraq was attacked because they had WMDs remember? oh wait..









yes, we must lack the intelligence to understand this mumbo jumbo :rolleyes


Seriously...you just don't get it.



As evidenced by the fact that you want to create another Afghanistan by pulling out. Only this time...they'll have money.


Whether Saddam had WMD or not....he needed to be taken out for his own actions...and we had legal recourse to do it....and the message it sent was an invaluable one. As are the gains made by installing an Arab Democracy(as opposed to a European Jew one) in the middle east.


And anyone that says he's going to nuke mecca if an American city gets suicide nuked, has my vote in the next election.

I gurantee you that if we get nuked it won't be by a Sunni.


THe first Mullah that calls for that will have his head cut off by King Abdullah himself.

[whottt]

And BTW, this is midleading...Shiites do not call for a pull out...Sadr is calling for a pull out.

Just the fact that he has representatives within the government that heel like a dog on his command openly and blatantly, tells you he is part of the problem.

[nkdlunch]

Scared them...because, taking out Saddam, sent the message that if this shit continues, we're going to take you out, no matter how well you think your subterfuge is disguised.









No..but installing liberalize governments in the mid-east will go a long way towards solving the problems of modern terrorism.













yes, we must lack the intelligence to understand this mumbo jumbo :rolleyes


sorry but it's you who doesn't get it. Create democracies in the middle east and who do you think those people will elect? they will elect religious and traditional leaders, because that's what most arabs are.

and a religious and traditional leader will always have a problem with US. so your solution to install liberal democratic goverments is completely off.

installing that will still not change the way they think. they will still hate the US. regardless. you cannot scare or make someone like you. you can't.

[whottt]

sorry but it's you who doesn't get it. Create democracies in the middle east and who do you think those people will elect? they will elect religious and traditional leaders, because that's what most arabs are.

and a religious and traditional leader will always have a problem with US. so your solution to install liberal democratic goverments is completely off.

Wrong...you are ignorant of the state of the Middle East as recently as 40 years ago. Before the Russians fucked everything up.


They invented Democracy.





installing that will still not change the way they think. they will still hate the US. regardless. you cannot scare or make someone like you. you can't.

Oh yes it will...

And they don't hate the US, they envy it.

If they hate the US they sure can't get the fuck over here fast enough.


Sorry but you have an overly simplistic view of things.


There are two people that know for a fact you have only looked at these issues superficially...I am talking to one of them, and you are talking to the other, the huge sweeping gaps in historical knowledge, and oversimplification of an extremely complex problem, are obvious to one who has...I suggest you actually take it upon yourself to become more educated on the subject than what you learn from the latest CNN newsblurb.


Religious fanatacism is an act of desperation, borne out of hopelessness...

[smeagol]

Link to where it was claimed Saddam was?


I’m lazy with links. But it was claimed many times that Saddam had ties to AQ. Ask Yoni, he still believes it.



He had them before...and used them, he also kicked out the weapons inspectors.


Iran and NK have, or are in the process of acquiring, nuclear capabilities. When is the US invading them?



Um...Americans hate the UN because

We pay for it, and it's useless. No, it's worse than useless...


Even though you hate it, you use it as one of the excuses the US invaded Iraq. Makes sense.



Hey Smeagol...whose brilliant idea was it to stick a bunch of European Jews smackdab in the Middle East?

Relevance?



Ahh I give up on you smeagol...


Why? I don’t give up on you even though 90% of the posters have.



Learn about cease fire agreements


Enlighten me.



Learn about cultures that breed extreme religious fanaticism


You are talking about the entire ME and parts of Asia, right?



Learn about how Oil is traded on the world market.


Just like any other market. Supply and demand. But feel free to enlighten me.



Once you figure out all those things, you'll see that invading Iraq was, without a doubt the best way to start liberalizing the hardline governments in the middle east and South Asia that are the chief exporters of Militant Islam.


whottt, if the Iraq invasion’s objective was to liberalize the hard-line governments in the ME, tell your boy Bush to simply come out and say so and cut the WMDs and other crap he has been spouting for the last 6 years.



Installing a Democracy and sendign that message are the top two ways to start ending the rampant spread of militant Islam.


If you think what Iraq is governed by is a democracy, you are not playing with a full squad.



As for Saddam, wrong place at the wrong time, but his people were suffering for his actions...it was time for him to go rather than just perpetuating a state of misery while he shits on gold toilets.

Two word for you: North Korea.

Kim Jung Ill's troillets are also made of gold, fitted with diamonds.

[whottt]

I’m lazy with links. But it was claimed many times that Saddam had ties to AQ. Ask Yoni, he still believes it.

That's Yoni's problem...and yours.






Iran and NK have, or are in the process of acquiring, nuclear capabilities. When is the US invading them?

There is a major difference between having them, and in the process of acquiring them...surely you see the difference there?

And Iran likely will get the shit bombed out of it before it's allowed to happen.






Even though you hate it, you use it as one of the excuses the US invaded Iraq. Makes sense.


The Cease fire agreement was with us...not the UN.

And yes...I hate the UN because it lacks the balls to enforce it's own resolutions...it does nothing.


No scratch that...it's corrupt. It's quite possibly the most corrupt international body in the world.

And we pay for it...and they do shit like put Saudi Arabia on the Human Rights Commitee.



And even if the UN had fully supported us...who the fuck do you think would have been doing the fighting? Argentina?











Relevance?

Reasons why America hates the UN? And why flowers don't shoot out of it's ass?











Enlighten me.

Ok...a defacto state of war existed with the United States, from the moment Saddam violated it...about 1992.












Just like any other market. Supply and demand. But feel free to enlighten me.


It's a globally traded commodity...

You Argies drive cars?

Well ya'll are probably getting it cheap from Hugo, for now. Cheap depending on how much you like being able to pursude your own future,.

The discount Oil was being given under the UN program...


The only Oil gain the US has out of this is...nothing.

We aren't even getting the post development deals.





whottt, if the Iraq invasion’s objective was to liberalize the hard-line governments in the ME, tell your boy Bush to simply come out and say so and cut the WMDs and other crap he has been spouting for the last 6 years.


Because that would pretty much destroy any chance we have of being successful at that goal.

What makes you think stating your war plan is an effective way to win it?


If I tell someone I am going to punch them in the face, don't you think that decreases my chances of being successful?

DoI really have to explain this?


Hey...why doesn't Pop just announce his game plan for the Mavs...






If you think what Iraq is governed by is a democracy, you are not playing with a full squad.


It is 100% governed by a Democracy...one that is supported by the majority of Iraqis...


It's corrupt..but transparently so.

It's also fledegling...these things take decades to develop...not months.







Two word for you: North Korea.

Has nuclear weapons...

Pursuing nukes...has them...

Do you see the difference smeagol?








Kim Jung Ill's troillets are also made of gold, fitted with diamonds.


AndI bet you think we should just leave him in power right?



Oh my bad...you think we should just invade him, because you can't tell the difference between, having nukes, and pursuing them....

You also can't tell the difference between, supported by China...and supported by Syria.

Major differences...If you don't see them...it's your vision that is bad...not mine.

[nkdlunch]

Oh yes it will...

And they don't hate the US, they envy it.

If they hate the US they sure can't get the fuck over here fast enough.

sorry but if you can't accept the fact that most arabs over there hate the US, I can't argue with you :D

I will let you get caught up...

[whottt]

Link to prove most Arabs over here hate the US?

[whottt]

The only people that truly hate the US are the ex commie sore losers over in Europe...and the Islamic Fundamentalists...the majority of which were pulled off the streets homless in Pakistan and Saudi and raised in the Wahabi Madrassas'. Raised to believe nuclear holocaust is god's divine plan for men...



Oh..and Democrats.

[smeagol]

The only people that truly hate the US are the ex commie sore losers over in Europe...and the Islamic Fundamentalists...the majority of which were pulled off the streets homless in Pakistan and Saudi and raised in the Wahabi Madrassas'. Raised to believe nuclear holocaust is god's divine plan for men...



Oh..and Democrats.
You should visit LatAm . . .

[boutons_]

Apparently, Whott hasn't travelled extensively or lived outside of USA.

Typical myopic, chauvinsitic view that the entire planet just loves USA.

[cheguevara]

The only people that truly hate the US are the ex commie sore losers over in Europe...and the Islamic Fundamentalists...the majority of which were pulled off the streets homless in Pakistan and Saudi and raised in the Wahabi Madrassas'. Raised to believe nuclear holocaust is god's divine plan for men...



Oh..and Democrats.
:nope

when is the last time you traveled overseas???

[whottt]

:nope

when is the last time you traveled overseas???

About 5 years ago...I went to Russia...St. Petersburg and Moscow.



And I don't suppose the irony of the fact that some idiot named cheguevera is second guessing me, is getting through to you, is it?

[Yonivore]

So, is the Iraq government asking us to leave?

No, it's Muqtada "Iranian Vacation" Sadr's gang.

On a side note, I wish all those countries that hate us so much would quit accepting our foreign aid.

[ChumpDumper]

That's Yoni's problem...and yours.And the vice-president's.

Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of Al Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704060428apr07,1,7229611.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Published April 7, 2007

[cheguevara]

About 5 years ago...I went to Russia...St. Petersburg and Moscow.

things have changed a LOT in the the last 5 years.(coincidence? not!) you'd be surprised.



And I don't suppose the irony of the fact that some idiot named cheguevera is second guessing me, is getting through to you, is it?

you can insult me if you want. but that doesn't change the fact, you have no idea the state of the world today.

[ChumpDumper]

About 5 years ago...I went to Russia...St. Petersburg and Moscow.Did you take a plane?

[whottt]

Apparently, Whott hasn't travelled extensively or lived outside of USA.

Typical myopic, chauvinsitic view that the entire planet just loves USA.



As opposed to the myopic chauvinistic view that they all hate us?

If you listen to liberals...Kerry won in 04. Blair and Howard were voted out...Shroeder and Chiraq will be re-elected.

Stop claiming you speak for everyone, when in fact, you don't even speak for the majority of Americans.


BTW, boutons, the fact you threatened me the other day wasn't lost on me...

I literally have nothing to say to you anymore....

And the fact that you can be provoked into a threat by words on a message board proves what a mentally weak bitch you are.

GFY and don't bother replying anymore unless you want to be ignored.

[whottt]

Did you take a plane?


To Moscow yeah...a Russian one.

I also got my wallet stolen, and got to eat some of the shittiest food ever created(I'd be an asshole too if I had to eat beets all the time).

[whottt]

things have changed a LOT in the the last 5 years.(coincidence? not!) you'd be surprised.

And when was the last time you went there?




[you can insult me if you want. but that doesn't change the fact, you have no idea the state of the world today.


Dude...you call yourself Cheguervara...you're an idiot of rare caliber. I don't care if you believe me or want to discuss it or not.

You call yourself Cheguevara.

[whottt]

So let me get this straight...boutons and cheguevara have been to every country in the world in the past 5 years and thus are qualified to speak...

Meanwhile...immigration numbers rule.

[cheguevara]

And when was the last time you went there?






Dude...you call yourself Cheguervara...you're an idiot of rare caliber. I don't care if you believe me or want to discuss it or not.

You call yourself Cheguevara.

hehe actually I'm more glad today that I have that login name. As it amuses so much ppl like you :D

[whottt]

And the vice-president's.

Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of Al Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704060428apr07,1,7229611.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Published April 7, 2007


What you need to give me is the link to Cheney saying we invaded Iraq because they were behind 911.

[whottt]

hehe actually I'm more glad today that I have that login name. As it amuses so much ppl like you :D


What amused me was this:


The only people that truly hate the US are the ex commie sore losers over in Europe

Thank you Che...I know, not in Europe...point remains.


I thank you for your quick response.

[cheguevara]

What amused me was this:



Thank you Che...I know, not in Europe...point remains.


I thank you for your quick response.

so you call me a commie cause I like che guevara :lol

how close minded are you dude, it's kinda pathetic

[whottt]

No...you're not a commie, you're a useful idiot. There's a difference...but not much of one.

[Yonivore]

so you call me a commie cause I like che guevara
Why do you like Che Guevara?

[smeagol]

That's Yoni's problem...and yours.

Not my problem. It was used as an excuse to go to war.



There is a major difference between having them, and in the process of acquiring them...surely you see the difference there?


And what nuclear capability was Iraq about to acquire? Your argument is circular and leads nowhere.



The Cease fire agreement was with us...not the UN.


Who said otherwise?



And yes...I hate the UN because it lacks the balls to enforce it's own resolutions...it does nothing.


Nah, you hate the UN because you think the US is the only country who always does the right thing and never makes mistakes when it comes to foreign policy. You blame Europe for every evil in the world.



No scratch that...it's corrupt. It's quite possibly the most corrupt international body in the world.


Do you hate your government for the corruption that stems from it? There’s corruption everywhere.


And we pay for it...and they do shit like put Saudi Arabia on the Human Rights Commitee.


Everybody pays for it. You pay more because you are richer.



And even if the UN had fully supported us...who the fuck do you think would have been doing the fighting? Argentina?


We sent two ships in the first Iraq war. And why would you need our help anyways? You guys love liberating countries.



Reasons why America hates the UN? And why flowers don't shoot out of it's ass?


Huh?



Ok...a defacto state of war existed with the United States, from the moment Saddam violated it...about 1992.


So the US waits 10 years after the cease fire was broken to invade Iraq. Perfect timing.



It's a globally traded commodity.. .


As most of the commodities are . . .



You Argies drive cars?


Nah, we still horseback ride to work down here.



Well ya'll are probably getting it cheap from Hugo, for now. .


Wrong again. Chavez does not sell oil to us. Actually nobody does. We produce more than we consume. Hence, we export oil.

OTOH, with all the rhetoric between Bush and Hugo, the US continues to be the largest buyer of Venezuelan crude. Go figure.



Because that would pretty much destroy any chance we have of being successful at that goal.

What makes you think stating your war plan is an effective way to win it?


If I tell someone I am going to punch them in the face, don't you think that decreases my chances of being successful?

DoI really have to explain this? .


Ahh, so all those excuses, Powel at the UN, the WMDs, the Iraq-AQ connection were all . . . well just that . . . excuses. The real reason was the US wants a free and democraticize the ME.

Okie dokie . . .

[cheguevara]

No...you're not a commie, you're a useful idiot. There's a difference...but not much of one.

thanks your highness.

actually I do look forward to your posts in here, because I also want to know what a typical ignorant redneck thinks.

[smeagol]

Why do you like Che Guevara?
I have sort off the same question.

Why would anyone like Che Guevara, Castro or Chavez?

[cheguevara]

Why do you like Che Guevara?

he had more balls than all of us put together to start. and also a lot of his writings make sense to me. but of couse I don't agree 100% with him. that's all I'm gonna say cause whott might call the CIA on my ass.

[Yonivore]

he had more balls than all of us put together to start.
Having balls doesn't make you worthy of respect or affection.


...and also a lot of his writings make sense to me.
Really? Which ones?


...but of couse I don't agree 100% with him. that's all I'm gonna say cause whott might call the CIA on my ass.
I see.

[smeagol]

he had more balls than all of us put together to start.

Stalin, Saddam, Chavez, etc, etc probably also had / has balls. Not really a good reason to idolize them


and also a lot of his writings make sense to me.


Which ones? The ones where we called for guerrillas in all LatAm. Yep, great writings :rolleyes

[cheguevara]

Which ones? The ones where we called for guerrillas in all LatAm. Yep, great writings :rolleyes

you do realize there are ppl living in complete shit in Latin America right? and that has been happening for centuries.

i beleive violence is not the answer(it was his answer) but something has to be done about that.

[ChumpDumper]

What you need to give me is the link to Cheney saying we invaded Iraq because they were behind 911.:lol

WMDs + links to terra = reason to go to war

You can't get away with being this disingenuous.

[whottt]

Not my problem. It was used as an excuse to go to war.

Link? Link to where went into Iraq because Saddam was behind 911...






And what nuclear capability was Iraq about to acquire?

Um....the nuclear kind?

IIRC, WMD was the key word.....

IIRC, Saddam had kicked the weapons inspectors out 4 years prior.





Your argument is circular and leads nowhere.

No smeagol.....my argument is not circular, my argument is linear...and sensible. You are circular...as is your country.......coincidence? I think not.


I'm giving you the answers...you just can't understand.

NK - DEFINITELY HAS FUCKING NUKES
IRAQ AND IRAN - Not definite.


There is no circular there....

IRaq - Violated a Cease Fire...working to acquire WMD(again)

Iran - did not

North Korea - has nukes.

There is no circular there.


See you can't tell the difference as to why one is a good military target, with justification and legal recourse, and the others aren't...

That's not ciruclar, that's you not being able to understand the FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEFINITELY HAS NUKES AND WORKING TO ACQUIRE THEM.









Who said otherwise?

You did...when you asked why we cite UN Resolutions as justification for the IRaq war even though we hate the UN.

The cease fire wasn't a UN resolution. It was an agreement between the US and Iraq. That he violated when he fired on our fucking planes.


Has Iran done that? Has Saudi done that?






Nah, you hate the UN because you think the US is the only country who always does the right thing and never makes mistakes when it comes to foreign policy.


Link?

Oh the US is definitely better than the UN...

The UN is an impotent, corrupt and aristocratic piece of shit.



You blame Europe for every evil in the world.


No...just for communism, socialsim, anti-semitism, racism(the original concept), the Israelie Palestine conflict, the current fucked up layout of the Middle East and Africa, and the religious conflicts therein...

Oh and because their former colonies are spawning grounds for Socialism and Communism....






Do you hate your government for the corruption that stems from it?

No..because it's not as fucked up and corrupt as most of the Governments that are hostile towards us.


There’s corruption everywhere.

Some places more than others...at least we drag our own dirty laundry out...why you fools think you don't see that done with your own countries because it doesn't happen there.




Everybody pays for it. You pay more because you are richer.

And get less benefit from it...


It's not jsut pay...we end up enforcing most of their military resolutions as well...


They can't do shit without us...and all they are doing is working to protect dictators.






We sent two ships in the first Iraq war. And why would you need our help anyways? You guys love liberating countries.

We didn't need your help...matter of fact, you could have opposed us and sympathized with Saddam, like you did Hitler during WWII, and it likely wouldn't have made a difference...kinda like WWII.






Huh?

You asked a question and I answered it.






So the US waits 10 years after the cease fire was broken to invade Iraq. Perfect timing.


No..the US honored the fucking do nothing coalition aligned before the Persian Gulf War.

The coalition didn't allow for Saddam's removal.

And I agree it was mistake...but why don't you try blaming the goddamn UN for that...since it was thre policy.

I agree...we should have ignored it.






As most of the commodities are . . .





Nah, we still horseback ride to work down here.



WEll if you guys didn't default on the largest loans in history, mayber someone would trust you with some oil and cars.






Wrong again. Chavez does not sell oil to us. Actually nobody does. We produce more than we consume. Hence, we export oil.

Big deal...so do we.




OTOH, with all the rhetoric between Bush and Hugo, the US continues to be the largest buyer of Venezuelan crude. Go figure.

We're the largest buyer of many countries crude...I suggest you do a little more research on global commodity and then tell me if you understand it yet.

Then go look at OPEC...








Ahh, so all those excuses, Powel at the UN, the WMDs, the Iraq-AQ connection were all . . . well just that . . . excuses. The real reason was the US wants a free and democraticize the ME.

Okie dokie . . .


Of course we want to Democratize the ME...we've tried to Democratize the World for the last century...pay attention much?

We try to Democratize it...the Commies fuck it up, then we blow the whole thing up because the people are too stupid to see through the propaganda.

That's been the way the word has worked for the last century...or at least since Europe kept involving us in their wars.


In summary...

America>UN
America>Europe
America>Argentina


Fact...not arrogance.

[whottt]

:lol

WMDs + links to terra = reason to go to war

You can't get away with being this disingenuous.



So you can't provide the link....

Figureed as much, media slut.

[whottt]

Smeagol...I can't believe you'd hate on one of your own countrymen like Che. Argetines need something to be proud of do...being Nazi Sympathizers and defaulting on the largest loan in history doesn't go very far.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, they just said this stuff for the hell of it.

2002

Rice, Sept. 25: "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here. ... And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad."

Bush, Oct. 7: "We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

2003

Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28: "And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

Bush, Feb. 6: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

2004

Cheney, Jan. 21: "I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."

Cheney, Monday: Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

I was wrong. You can be that disingenuous. You're as bad as Nbadan.

[whottt]

Yeah, they just said this stuff for the hell of it.

2002

Rice, Sept. 25: "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here. ... And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad."

Bush, Oct. 7: "We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

2003

Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28: "And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

Bush, Feb. 6: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

2004

Cheney, Jan. 21: "I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."

Cheney, Monday: Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

I was wrong. You can be that disingenuous. You're as bad as Nbadan.



Connections between Saddam and AlQaeda does not = Saddam being behind 911.

Are you saying that you don't believe Saddam and Al Qaeda both hated America? And that there were never any contacts between them?

[whottt]

In the attempt to pre-empt some Chump twisting and stupidity...


what you need to give me is the link to Cheney saying we invaded Iraq because they were behind 911.

Still waiting for that link.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually I don't have to give you shit.

The Bush administration did all it could to perpetuate the fundamental misunderstanding the American puiblic had about Saddam's involvement in 9/11. The record is clear on this.

That's all that needs to be understood. I know you'll never understand it, but that's it.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll wait for your link where Bush says Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 before the invasion.

[whottt]

what you need to give me is the link to Cheney saying we invaded Iraq because they were behind 911.



*Grabs a snickers*.


Chump, did I ever tell you how owned you are when you're angry, darling?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, I never said any such link existed.

Just that you are disingenuous and that WMD + link to terra = cause for invasion. I can link this thread to prove that if you like.

Since I never made the claim that the administration outright said Saddam was behind 9/11, I don't have to give you shit for that.

[whottt]

Ok then STFU, since you gave an answer for a question that no one was asking...at least I wasn't.


And I am pretty sure that the administration portrayed the Saddam AlQaeda as a potential WMD terror hook up...which it most definitely was.

Look there's no doubt the Administration played up the threat of Saddam and demonized him...

BFD, that's standard preparation for readying a country for war...

[whottt]

i beleive violence is not the answer.


They needed you at Virgina Tech yesterday...

Evidentally those kids were too stupid to suggest peace to the homicidal maniac...if only...

Fuck you guys are stupid. Only in America can you be sheltered enough to be that fucking stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

Look there's no doubt the Administration played up the threat of Saddam and demonized him...I know you are fine with lying and distortion, whottt. That isn't in question.

[whottt]

I know you are fine with lying and distortion, whottt. That isn't in question.


You completely misspelled, " I know you have accepted that governments are all corrupt, whottt, which makes you the smarter of the two of us".


Bottom line is that sticking a Democracy smack dab in the middle east is the best way to combat militant Islam...

Qualifier: An Arab/Muslim Democracy...

And would you racist bigoted idiots please stop saying they can't understand it...it aint that difficult.

[smeagol]

Smeagol...I can't believe you'd hate on one of your own countrymen like Che. Argetines need something to be proud of do...being Nazi Sympathizers and defaulting on the largest loan in history doesn't go very far.
When you start insulting me with unrelated shit, that's when I know I'm kicking your ass.

Just like that time when we discussed rugby . . . :lol

Dude, the difference between you and me is that I do get embarassed by some of the shit my countrymen (and especially the Argentine politicians) do. You, OTOH, naivly believe whatever the US does is fine.

[smeagol]

you do realize there are ppl living in complete shit in Latin America right? and that has been happening for centuries.

Of course I do, I come from there, remember? And now I live in LatAm again (after a while living in the US).


i beleive violence is not the answer(it was his answer)

So how can you sympathize with the dude? All he predicated was violence. He, and his ilk, are the reason we have had so much violence in the 60s and 70s in LatAm.


but something has to be done about that.

Huh? So you don't agree witrh violence but you end up saying this shit, which practicly justifies the violence.

You are like whottt, but from the left, who claims the US never used the Saddam-AQ link to go to war, even after the VP continues to support that link.

[whottt]

Dude, the difference between you and me is that I do get embarassed by some of the shit my countrymen (and especially the Argentine politicians) do.

Yeah, I've never ripped any of my countymen or it's politicians...

No, smeagol, that sort of take is why I insulted you.

Are you honestly trying to say I never rip my country or it's politicians?

You deserve to be insulted for that take...it's a stupid fucking take.

just like, you deserve to be insulted for not knowing the difference between having WMD, and seeking to accquire them, and why that would make a difference in a war strategy....when it is clearly in front of you.

Either you are genuinely stupid, which I doubt, and if you are retarded I apologize for my abusive demeanor...or you are simply choosing to be closeminded...in which case you deserve my derision...






All I do on here is rip my countrymen and politicians...

boutons and nbadan are my countrymen...yannnow?


John Kerry is a politician, yannow?





You, OTOH, naivly believe whatever the US does is fine.

False...



I didn';t think it was fine we pulled out of Vietnam and left millions of Vietnames to die and be enslaved and have their property stolen from them..I consider that a point of shame for this country.



I didn't think it was fine we didn't take Saddam out the first time we had the opportunity. After encouraging the uprising...in fact, I think that might have been the biggest asshole act in the history of my country...

But I just want to make sure that you realize that it wasn't only my country that did that...and pretty sure Daddy Bush being the war monger that he is, would have liked nothing better.







But wha tI do think? Is my country is less fucked up than yours, it's less fucked up than France, it's less fucked up than any country in the middle east....it's less fucked up than China. It's less fucked up than 90% of the countries in Europe...


IF your country is doing better...by all means rip. If it's not...I sincerely believe you'd be better served by figuring out your own countries numerous problems...rather than trying to fix mine, or blaming mine for your countries problems. I say this not to you...but international posters in general.


I wish I had a dollar for every dumbass Euro that's run slavery smack on me for being American...all the while being so incredibly fucking stupid as not realize that it was custom imported directly from Europe, and institutionalized in this country when it was a European Colony....not the USA.





Hey Smeagol...how many blacks hold polical office in Argentina?

How many Africans in France?


How many whites in South Korea?


How many whites and Christians in the Middle East?


And we're the racists?



What was Argentina's reason for invading the Falkands? To install Democracy?


GFY.

[boutons_]

In their campaign of lies, misrepresentation, disinformation, and cherry picking, WHIG made it very clear that:

Saddam = Terror

al Quaida = Terror

al Quaida = Terror = WTC

ergo, the very blatant association in the sheeple/rabble dumbfucks:

Saddam = WTC

So a majority of US and the US military believed, in 2003/04, that the invasion of Iraq/Saddam equalled payback for the WTC/al-Quaida/terror. The majority now know, as dubya has admitted, while dickhead kept saying the opposite, that there was no Saddam-WTC or Saddam-al Quaida link.

here's an article that synopsizes well, with quotes,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm

Note the pre-2000 work, campaign, publications of the neo-cunts at AEI/PNAC and elsewhere to build a false case for invading Iraq as smokescreen for grabbing Iraqi oil.

[xrayzebra]

In their campaign of lies, misrepresentation, disinformation, and cherry picking, WHIG made it very clear that:

Saddam = Terror

al Quaida = Terror

al Quaida = Terror = WTC

ergo, the very blatant association in the sheeple/rabble dumbfucks:

Saddam = WTC

So a majority of US and the US military believed, in 2003/04, that the invasion of Iraq/Saddam equalled payback for the WTC/al-Quaida/terror. The majority now know, as dubya has admitted, while dickhead kept saying the opposite, that there was no Saddam-WTC or Saddam-al Quaida link.

here's an article that synopsizes well, with quotes,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm

Note the pre-2000 work, campaign, publications of the neo-cunts at AEI/PNAC and elsewhere to build a false case for invading Iraq as smokescreen for grabbing Iraqi oil.

Good old boutons, preaching a little more hate today.
Typical liberal.

[George Gervin's Afro]

In their campaign of lies, misrepresentation, disinformation, and cherry picking, WHIG made it very clear that:

Saddam = Terror

al Quaida = Terror

al Quaida = Terror = WTC

ergo, the very blatant association in the sheeple/rabble dumbfucks:

Saddam = WTC

So a majority of US and the US military believed, in 2003/04, that the invasion of Iraq/Saddam equalled payback for the WTC/al-Quaida/terror. The majority now know, as dubya has admitted, while dickhead kept saying the opposite, that there was no Saddam-WTC or Saddam-al Quaida link.

here's an article that synopsizes well, with quotes,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm

Note the pre-2000 work, campaign, publications of the neo-cunts at AEI/PNAC and elsewhere to build a false case for invading Iraq as smokescreen for grabbing Iraqi oil.


Boutons..you will never get the Fox News 'Fair and Balanced' crowd to acknowledge if you repeat something enough people will start to believe it as fact..ie. 'saddam and 9/1'1 in almost every speech in the run up to the unecessary war..

[whottt]

Still waiting for that link where Bush said Saddam was behind 911 when we went into Iraq...

Any century now...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Still waiting for that link where Bush said Saddam was behind 911 when we went into Iraq...

Any century now...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0916-02.htm


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478/


Ok whott you can play stupid. Bush and Cheney continually linked both saddam and 9/11 in very speech leading up to the uncessary war. Why do you suppose a majority of Americans at one time believe that Saddam had something to with 9/11? Please explain that? How could the public link Saddam and 9/11 ?????