THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Too many here, unlike hamburger and me, would rather criticize our current government than discuss persons or ways to solve the Iraq and Afghanistan al-Qaeda problems.

When writing this, you are surely aware that the 'current government' has spent the last several years insulting, marginalizing, and belittling those who seek to 'discuss persons or ways to solve the Iraq and Afghanistan al-Qaeda problems.' They have called us unserious, terrorist-supporters, anti-American. Anyone who has disagreed with the 'hammer them with the military, ends-justifying-means' line taken by the Republican party has been ridiculed and denounced by those who take the 'current government's' position. Their supporters such as yourself have parroted this position.

So, it is somewhat disingenuous to blame people for criticizing the government... who doesn't allow dissenting opinions to be considered, who insults those who offer them, and who is totally uninterested in them.

Cycloptichorn

This post of yours is outrageously stupid malarkey!

You have accused the Republicans and the Bush administration of doing exactly what the Democrats and Soros gang have been doing to the Republicans and Bush administration ever since Bush was elected president in November 2000. These kinds of reverse accusations have become the mantra of the Democrats and the Soros gang. They fool no one but themselves ... maybe not even them.

So I post here again:
Too many here, unlike hamburger and me, would rather criticize our current government than discuss persons or ways to solve the Iraq and Afghanistan al-Qaeda problems.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

For years, Dems and others have been talking about: pulling out of Iraq, using more of a 'police response' then an armed response, and other suggestions, all of which have been ridiculed and treated as unserious by the admin. and its' supporters such as yourself.

You're telling me that the pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war side doesn't refer to their ideological opponents in the fashion that I described? That they honestly and openly welcome discussions which revolve around choosing different methods then the ones that they have chosen? I find that to be 100% bullshit, and if you want me to, I'll find you any number of quotes backing that up, just here on A2K.

Cycloptichorn

Ah yes, ican. The genius of denial.

Pillars of Metal and concrete for a house of smoke and mirrors.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Too many here, unlike hamburger and me, would rather criticize our current government than discuss persons or ways to solve the Iraq and Afghanistan al-Qaeda problems.

When writing this, you are surely aware that the 'current government' has spent the last several years insulting, marginalizing, and belittling those who seek to 'discuss persons or ways to solve the Iraq and Afghanistan al-Qaeda problems.' They have called us unserious, terrorist-supporters, anti-American. Anyone who has disagreed with the 'hammer them with the military, ends-justifying-means' line taken by the Republican party has been ridiculed and denounced by those who take the 'current government's' position. Their supporters such as yourself have parroted this position.

So, it is somewhat disingenuous to blame people for criticizing the government... who doesn't allow dissenting opinions to be considered, who insults those who offer them, and who is totally uninterested in them.

Cycloptichorn

This post of yours is outrageously stupid malarkey!

You have accused the Republicans and the Bush administration of doing exactly what the Democrats and Soros gang have been doing to the Republicans and Bush administration ever since Bush was elected president in November 2000. These kinds of reverse accusations have become the mantra of the Democrats and the Soros gang. They fool no one but themselves ... maybe not even them.

So I post here again:
Too many here, unlike hamburger and me, would rather criticize our current government than discuss persons or ways to solve the Iraq and Afghanistan al-Qaeda problems.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

For years, Dems and others have been talking about: pulling out of Iraq, using more of a 'police response' then an armed response, and other suggestions, all of which have been ridiculed and treated as unserious by the admin. and its' supporters such as yourself.

You're telling me that the pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war side doesn't refer to their ideological opponents in the fashion that I described? That they honestly and openly welcome discussions which revolve around choosing different methods then the ones that they have chosen? I find that to be 100% bullshit, and if you want me to, I'll find you any number of quotes backing that up, just here on A2K.

Cycloptichorn

Your post is Incredible malarkey!

The Democrats and the Soros gang--and you too among many others here--have regularly personally vilified Bush and the members of his administration, while only occasionally offering your unsupported (and, I think, your unsupportable) suggestions. On the other hand, Bush and the members of his administration have disagreed with and/or criticized the suggestions of Democrats and the Soros gang, but only occassionally criticized Democrat and the Soros gang members themselves.

Amigo wrote:

Ah yes, ican. The genius of denial.

Pillars of Metal and concrete for a house of smoke and mirrors.

Thank you, Amigo, for exemplifying my point.

Too many here, unlike hamburger and me, would rather criticize our current government than discuss persons or ways to solve the Iraq and Afghanistan al-Qaeda problems.

ican has now reverted to a new word, "malarkey." I think this is about the fifth or sixth word he over-uses to make his point. Doesn't address any of the issues, but ican falls in love with words that expresses his very limited vocabulary and his inability to challenge the actual statements he disagrees with.

Loser.

...
there has not been an open and inviting atmosphere for discussion about what to do about Iraq and Al Qaeda in general. ...

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
there has not been an open and inviting atmosphere for discussion about what to do about Iraq and Al Qaeda in general. ...

Cycloptichorn

Too many here, unlike hamburger and me, would rather criticize our current government than discuss persons or ways to solve the Iraq and Afghanistan al-Qaeda problems.

What do you, Cyclo, think we should now do about Iraq and Al Qaeda in general?

CBS) WASHINGTON Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with Al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides.

Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of Al Qaeda links to Saddam's Iraq, contending that the terrorist group was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of Al Qaeda. Others in Al Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview Thursday. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of Saddam and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The Sept. 11 Commission's 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network during that period.

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

...
In fact, dissenting opinions and plans are offered all the time, and you merely disagree with them.

NO! I have disagreed with them AND have said why.

Part of the way to solve the Iraq problem is to get rid of the idiots in our government who created the problem in the first place.

Who do you think are those idiots?

Why do you think them idiots?

Who would you have replace those idiots?

Why would you have those people replace those idiots?

... why do you expect poor leadership to result in anything other then poor results?

I do not expect "poor leadership to result in anything other then poor results."

Cycloptichorn

ican, Can't you get it through your thick skull that Bush doesn't "listen" to anybody but Rove and Cheney? Bush doesn't listen to the American People, the congress, or our much smaller allies. Bush has fired almost everybody that disagreed with his viewpoint. After four years in Iraq, you are stupid enought to think we can solve the problems of Iraq when Bush doesn't listen to the American People and congress. Get your head out of your arse, and smell the fresh air. Bush created this mess, and wants to continue it for the duration of his term. Maybe another "surge" is in the planning. It's too bad people like you can't see all the misery Bush has created for our soldiers, their families and friends, and the Iraqi People.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
In fact, dissenting opinions and plans are offered all the time, and you merely disagree with them.

NO! I have disagreed with them AND have said why.

okay, but they are offered, you admit. And with frequency.

Part of the way to solve the Iraq problem is to get rid of the idiots in our government who created the problem in the first place.

Who do you think are those idiots?

Bush and his crew who run our government.

Why do you think them idiots?

Based upon their track record of poor choices, with respect to both diplomacy and military matters.

Who would you have replace those idiots?

Those of either party who are less idiotic.

Why would you have those people replace those idiots?

So that we will have less mistakes made on the international level, thereby leading to greater safety here at home and increased prosperity for mankind.

... why do you expect poor leadership to result in anything other then poor results?

I do not expect "poor leadership to result in anything other then poor results."

Then stop supporting poor leadership! Instead of vilifying those who point out poor leadership, agree with them and start doing something about replacing said leadership.

Cycloptichorn

ican711nm wrote:

...
What do you, Cyclo, think we should now do about Iraq and Al Qaeda in general?

Since you asked,

- Leave Iraq. Immediately. And without a residual force.
- Focus on rebuilding diplomatic ties with nations around the world.
- Lead the world in building an international team to track down actual members of Al Qaeda and stop them, without going to war with entire countries.
- Improve defenses here at home.
- Shore up our forces in Afghanistan. Use the troops redeployed from Iraq to put pressure on Pakistan to clean up Waziristan.

...
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

...
What do you, Cyclo, think we should now do about Iraq and Al Qaeda in general?

Since you asked,

- Leave Iraq. Immediately. And without a residual force.
- Focus on rebuilding diplomatic ties with nations around the world.
- Lead the world in building an international team to track down actual members of Al Qaeda and stop them, without going to war with entire countries.
- Improve defenses here at home.
- Shore up our forces in Afghanistan. Use the troops redeployed from Iraq to put pressure on Pakistan to clean up Waziristan.

...
Cycloptichorn

WHY do you think your recommended actions will solve our al-Qaeda problem?

If you were to read my earlier long post here today in response to revel, you would already have what I consider significant evidence WHY I think your recommendations if adopted will fail to adequately solve our al-Qaeda problem in Iraq. Should you have any questions about that post, please feel free to ask.

Ican you desperately need to update your info and get out of biased reporting from conservative blogs.

Quote:

CBS) WASHINGTON Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with Al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides.
...

Your post are full of old news marlakey.

...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

- Leave Iraq. Immediately. And without a residual force.
- Focus on rebuilding diplomatic ties with nations around the world.
- Lead the world in building an international team to track down actual members of Al Qaeda and stop them, without going to war with entire countries.
- Improve defenses here at home.
- Shore up our forces in Afghanistan. Use the troops redeployed from Iraq to put pressure on Pakistan to clean up Waziristan.

I think this will help begin to solve our Al Qaeda problem, because unlike you, I can differentiate between the group which we call Al Qaeda (who attacked us on 9/11) and the group who decided to call themselves 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' (who has practically nothing to do with the other group). Spending time focusing on the second group, who exists primarily to fight the occupation of their homeland by foreigners, is a waste of time.
...
Cycloptichorn

ican: What would you have Bush's replacement do NOW? WHY?


NOW? It obvious that the majority of Americans want our troops to come home in some specified manner - soon. One thing is universal; we don't want to "stay the course." We also want the Iraq government to meet some "benchmarks," but that's impossible under the present makeup of the government. Maliki has no influence or power, and their "government" is too splintered to agree on the important issues of their country. They'll have to settle their problems after our troops leave: we can't stay in Iraq forever.

WHY? Because the American People and congress wants our troops to come home; and not prolong it to get more of our soldiers killed for an unknown goal.