PDA

View Full Version : Ted Kennedy gives free Driving Lessons to Poor Teens



Ally_Kat
12-04-2004, 01:48 AM
TED KENNEDY GIVES FREE DRIVING LESSONS TO POOR TEENS!

By MICHAEL FORSYTH

Super-compassionate liberal Senator Ted Kennedy is one of the richest politicians in America, but he's quietly giving back -- by teaching poor inner-city teens to drive, free of charge!

That's the surprising revelation of a clergyman who coordinates the program, based in a community center in Washington, D.C.

"Teddy doesn't charge these kids a dime and doesn't take any credit," reveals Father Bryan MacKelly. "He volunteers his time on the down-low -- he doesn't really want the media to make a big deal about his personal generosity.

"He told me, 'Safe driving is a skill every young American deserves to have -- not just the rich.' "

The bighearted Massachusetts senator drives himself to the community center in an unobtrusive old Pontiac he uses to give the free one-hour lessons.

"He comes and goes without waiting for thanks, like the Lone Ranger," Fr. MacKelly marvels.

When the roly-poly, silver-haired politician first showed up and was introduced as the new driving instructor, the high-schoolers -- ages 16 to 18 -- were shocked.

"Who's the weird fat dude?" one youth asked.

After Fr. MacKelly introduced him as Ted Kennedy, the teens were even more awestruck.

"It's the dude who got assassinated, y'all," another youth whispered.

Fr. MacKelly hastily explained that it was Ted's older brother, President John F. Kennedy, who was murdered in Dallas.

Lakwanda, 17, was one of the first pupils to go for a spin with the legendary lawmaker.

"At first, I was real nervous, 'cause pulling out from the curb, Mr. Ted knocked over two garbage cans and scraped the fender on a fire hydrant," she recalls. "He laughed and apologized and told me it had been a while since he did his own driving.

"But once he put me behind the wheel, he was real cool. He kept telling stories about the old days and famous people he'd met, like Bob Dylan and Fidel Castro.

"I didn't know who they were, but I liked that he was so friendly."

The senator, who was involved in the infamous 1969 Chappaquiddick car accident in which a young woman drowned, makes no attempt to downplay the tragedy during lessons. Instead, he uses the incident as a cautionary tale.

"Some of you may be a little scared of driving," he tells the youngsters. "Well you should be. One momentary lapse of attention, breaking one 'minor' traffic rule and you or a loved one could wind up dead."

The senator has been giving lessons since February, when he ran into Fr. MacKelly at a charitable function.

"I was telling Teddy about some of our programs," the pastor remembers. "When I mentioned we had two volunteer driving instructors and were looking for a third, his eyes lit up."

Ally_Kat
12-04-2004, 01:49 AM
I know that this is fake. I bet 3 people call me a retard or something and try to prove that it's a fake newssource.

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 01:52 AM
:bottle: :guzzle: :drive:

FORD
12-04-2004, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I know that this is fake. I bet 3 people call me a retard or something and try to prove that it's a fake newssource.

Is it from the Onion?

BrownSound1
12-04-2004, 02:26 AM
So he's going to show them how to drive off a bridge? ;)

Ally_Kat
12-04-2004, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Is it from the Onion?

Weekly World News!

I found it while trying to find that Saddam-BIn Laden-goat family tree pic for a friend. I had always brushed WWN off as trying to push fake shit off to gullible people, but reading this, it flows more like the Onion.

I love it!

blueturk
12-04-2004, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by Brownsound1
So he's going to show them how to drive off a bridge? ;)

You also have to get out of the water afterwards!

Phil theStalker
12-04-2004, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
TED KENNEDY GIVES FREE DRIVING LESSONS TO POOR TEENS!

By MICHAEL FORSYTH

Super-compassionate liberal Senator Ted Kennedy is one of the richest ."
See Ally_Kat, as young as you are you knew this would be funny. That's good.:)


=PtS=
:spank:

Phil theStalker
12-04-2004, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
:bottle: :guzzle: :drive:
haha wlibury

LOL

That's the BEST smiley art I've seen t2o make a point.

Congrat's

or, cuntgrats


=PtS=
:spank:

Igosplut
12-04-2004, 08:28 AM
I still say this is the funniest lampoon of Teddy boy...

Billy West did this for WBCN in the 80s...

http://www.bigmattress.com/audio/Weekend%20With%20The%20Kennedy's.ram

BigBadBrian
12-04-2004, 09:53 AM
http://misheli.image.pbase.com/u38/ethanbird/upload/25144953.8017.jpg

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 10:04 AM
Before you guys sit there and beat up poor ole' Teddy, don't forget the President you so worship was a convicted DRUNK DRIVER that redeemed himself through an extensive "borning" again process.

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Igosplut
I still say this is the funniest lampoon of Teddy boy...

Billy West did this for WBCN in the 80s...

http://www.bigmattress.com/audio/Weekend%20With%20The%20Kennedy's.ram

Ted Kenndy is the least desirable Kennedy, yet he still has been a fine leader in the Senate over the years and very effective at stumping for his constituency.

I am not defending his driving record, but ask yourself how things may go wrong in your life if you lost three brothers.

Igosplut
12-04-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Ted Kenndy is the least desirable Kennedy, yet he still has been a fine leader in the Senate over the years and very effective at stumping for his constituency.

I am not defending his driving record, but ask yourself how things may go wrong in your life if you lost three brothers.

Why don't you ask Mary Jo Kopecchne's parents how they feel about poor Teds life??

BigBadBrian
12-04-2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Ted Kenndy is the least desirable Kennedy, yet he still has been a fine leader in the Senate over the years and very effective at stumping for his constituency.

I am not defending his driving record, but ask yourself how things may go wrong in your life if you lost three brothers.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

BigBadBrian
12-04-2004, 12:01 PM
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/5739.jpg

BigBadBrian
12-04-2004, 12:02 PM
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/4905.jpg

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 12:18 PM
Cheaps Shots eh?

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 12:20 PM
Praise the lord, our fearless leader is born again! Forgive the drunk driving and cocaine usage!

BigBadBrian
12-04-2004, 12:32 PM
http://www.ytedk.com/maryjo1.jpg http://www.ytedk.com/mjgrave.jpghttp://www.ytedk.com/tedneck.jpg http://www.ytedk.com/onbridge.jpg

DrMaddVibe
12-04-2004, 12:35 PM
Nice tits!

Igosplut
12-04-2004, 01:05 PM
Gurgle.....

Igosplut
12-04-2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Praise the lord, our fearless leader is born again! Forgive the drunk driving and cocaine usage!

I'll see that report and raise you one.......

BrownSound1
12-04-2004, 01:21 PM
At least the Prez didn't drown someone in the process.

Knucklebones
12-04-2004, 01:35 PM
No, but his wife ignored a stop sign and killed someone

Warham
12-04-2004, 02:55 PM
At least Bush didn't lie under oath.

Wonder what else I can bring up about Clinton...

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Brownsound1
At least the Prez didn't drown someone in the process.

The fact he was elected president by the "Christian Right" is hypocrasy enough.

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Warham
At least Bush didn't lie under oath.

Wonder what else I can bring up about Clinton...

No he's never told a lie (under oath)!

Maybe that's because he never testified under oath to the 9/11 Commission.

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Igosplut
I'll see that report and raise you one.......

I'm not playing poker, nor am I really defending what Teddy Kennedy did.

I am merely pointing out the moral self-serving hypocrisy of the right-wingers here that so love to bash Kennedy despite the moral failings of a president they voted for, and the failings of their local and state officials that are glossed over merely because they are "Republicans." And all the while do it with a straight face!:rolleyes:

But since you want to play with incriminating photographs of people killed by a politician's gross incompetence, I guess I will "see ya.'"

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED":mad:

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 03:16 PM
By the way, Dubya says I am doing such a good job!

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 03:55 PM
can you find me a quote a quote from a speech not some pic where bush said mission accomplished? post the quote from the speech and a link to it. and don't try to say well he said it's the end of major combat crap. he was asked to say that by tommy franks. better yet back up you cocaine charge with someone creditable who is on the record about is sort of like this on al gore from his friend and former colleague John Warnecke

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2000/gore/warnecke.html

We smoked a lot of grass. Far more than he's acknowledged... Al and Tipper would come over, and the first thing Al would do, usually, to check outdoors, look out the windows, roll down the shades. You know, ask me if I had any marijuana and joints. I always had. I had good connections in San Francisco, so I always had the best dope in town and I never charged him for it. I always gave it away. We had a sort of a motto in the hippie culture that you shared your dope...

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 03:56 PM
double post

FORD
12-04-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Warham
At least Bush didn't lie under oath.



Like HELL he didn't.

He took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Under that oath, he lied us into a war against a country that posed no threat to America whatsoever.

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 04:12 PM
so can we go after clinton for all the countrys he went after? after all he went after iraq and yogoslavia etc etc etc

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
can you find me a quote a quote from a speech not some pic where bush said mission accomplished? post the quote from the speech and a link to it. and don't try to say well he said it's the end of major combat crap...

Doesn't matter! Listen to yourself; He never actually said that, he just had a big fucking sign over his head said it and he implied the hell out of it.

Is this another Bush 'Orwellian double-speak?' That is either having a lackey say something directly or strongly implying something and then relying on the "plausible deniability" concept when it gets you in trouble.



Bush, 9/11 and Iraq—a policy founded on deception
By Bill Vann
9 September 2003


President Bush’s nationally televised speech on Iraq Sunday provoked a tepid reaction from the media. The New York Times and the Washington Post both chided the president for failing to make an explicit pledge to accept greater United Nations authority in Iraq as a means of winning “international support”: i.e., cannon fodder from South Asia and money from “old Europe” to bail out a disaster-plagued occupation.

The response of the Democrats indicated that the White House will likely prevail in its bid for an additional $87 billion to finance the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—an amount equal to what the US military was squandering at the height of the Vietnam War. Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised Bush for what he claimed was a turn to multilateralism: “I think it took a big man to do that, and I plan on supporting him.”

Studiously ignored in the commentary and analysis of the speech, however, was its most salient feature: Bush’s arguments constituted a pack of lies from start to finish put together with the sole purpose of deceiving the American people as to the real nature of the intervention in Iraq.

The tone of the speech stood in stark contrast to the swaggering victory address Bush delivered on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln May 1. While then he spoke in terms of “accomplishment” and “victory,” Sunday night’s remarks, reflecting the catastrophe that has befallen US policy in Iraq, included repeated references to “sacrifice” and “burden.” Bush’s handlers obviously coached him to adopt a more somber demeanor, though his signature cynicism came through just as clearly.

What the two speeches shared in common, however, was their reliance on a lie that has served as the official justification for the Bush administration’s policies—both foreign and domestic—for the past two years: that war abroad, attacks on democratic rights at home and the destruction of social conditions for millions of American workers are all the necessary byproduct of a global struggle against imminent terrorist threats.

In the illegal war against Iraq, this lie is expressed in the claim that the regime of Saddam Hussein bore responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. Previously, this assertion was linked to charges that the Iraqi regime had massive stockpiles of chemical, biological and possibly even nuclear weapons, posing the threat that the next terrorist attack would be signaled by a “mushroom cloud.” After five months of searches by thousands of US troops have failed to turn up a trace of such weapons, the administration has fallen back on exploiting the trauma of September 11.

Speaking from the White House Sunday night, Bush made no less than six references to the September 11 attacks, repeatedly asserting that the bloodshed in Iraq is necessary to prevent new terrorist actions. “Since America put out the fires of September 11, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn,” declared Bush. “We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power.”

Later he added: “We are fighting the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities,” Bush declared.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Iraqi regime had anything to do with September 11, and its relations with Al Qaeda were characterized by mutual hatred. The thousands of Iraqi civilians and many thousands, if not tens of thousands, more Iraqi soldiers killed by American missiles, bombs and shells bore no guilt for the 3,000 American lives lost two years ago.

Moreover, the plans to carry out wars of conquest against both Iraq and Afghanistan were in place well before September 2001, with the Bush administration seizing upon the attacks as a golden opportunity to carry out these plans. The motivation for these wars was neither terrorism nor weapons of mass destruction, but the pursuit of US global hegemony and the opportunity to seize control of vast energy supplies.

All of this is well known by the media. Yet the president is free to lie and exploit the trauma of September 11 to promote what is quite literally a criminal policy. He has no fear that a servile American press corps will call him to account.

The administration is building new lies on top of old ones, attempting to exploit the misconceptions that it has itself created in the public mind in order to deceive the American people once again.

Bush’s speech was delivered just days after the release of a Washington Post poll showing that 69 percent of the American people believe that the regime of Saddam Hussein had a hand in the September 11 attacks. The paper acknowledged that there was no evidence of such a link and quoted Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects of the war, as saying so.

Yet, the source of this misconception is no mystery. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq there was a constant drumbeat from the administration that just such links existed. As the AFP news agency noted: “On Sept. 25, 2002 Bush warned against the danger that ‘al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness.’ National Security Counselor Condoleezza Rice added that there ‘clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq.’ The next day Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said there was ‘bulletproof evidence’ of an Al-Qaeda-Saddam link.”

Now the administration is attempting to portray the daily attacks on US troops in Iraq as a positive development, claiming that it represents some kind of final battle between the US-sponsored “peace and progress” and the “terrorist threat to civilization.”

Those on the ground in Iraq have been far more circumspect about the source of the attacks on US troops, as well as the recent string of massive car bombings. It is widely recognized that Iraqi workers and youth are joining the resistance movement not out of allegiance to Al Qaeda or Baathism, but because they are determined to free their country from foreign military domination. Demonstrations by many thousands of Iraqis demanding an end to occupation have likewise made it evident that those carrying out the attacks are able to do so because they enjoy the support and protection of broad layers of the population.

In essence, the administration is attempting to sell a bloody colonial war to the American public as a settling of accounts with the authors of September 11. Bush’s portrayal of anyone who opposes US military occupation as a “terrorist” sets the stage politically for a brutal military crackdown that will claim many more Iraqi lives and ensure even broader support for those who resist.

While the lies of the White House about Iraq provide no insight into the dynamics of the escalating struggle there, they say a great deal about the state of affairs within the US itself. A government that is able to defend its policies before the people only through falsification and deception is a regime of extreme crisis. And, to the extent that it is founded on these deliberate lies, whatever public support exists for the continuing Iraqi intervention is paper-thin.

More fundamentally, the domination of the lie as the currency of US political life calls into question the viability of American democracy itself. Underlying this practice is the vast gulf that separates the narrow strata of millionaires and billionaires that dominate both major political parties in the US, and the vast majority of working people who are, for all intents and purposes, politically disenfranchised.

In Iraq, Washington has carried out a criminal campaign of military aggression aimed at seizing wealth and natural resources to benefit a wealthy elite and increase the profits of a small group of politically connected corporations promised oil concessions and lucrative contracts. Yet it promotes this filthy enterprise to the public as a battle for democracy and freedom for which it should sacrifice the lives of its young and surrender increasingly scarce public monies to finance a gargantuan military budget.

A government that is prepared to lie on the scale that has been seen with the Bush administration in relation to Iraq is prepared to do anything. Nearly two years after the September 11 attacks, it continues to cloak the events of that day in a veil of official secrecy, insisting that to release even minimal information would compromise “national security.”

There is ample evidence, assembled and published most recently in a column in the British Guardian—and rigorously blacked out by the US media—by former British cabinet member Michael Meacher that the administration had ample forewarning of the terrorist attacks and welcomed them as a means of pushing through its longstanding plans for war.

The question raised by Meacher—whether elements within the administration ordered a “stand-down” of US intelligence and the military to permit a terrorist action to take place and thereby provide the pretext for war—is one that must be fully investigated.

Such an inquiry becomes all the more essential as the administration continues to use lies about September 11 to promote a policy that can only spell catastrophe for both the Iraqi and American people.

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
so can we go after clinton for all the countrys he went after? after all he went after iraq and yogoslavia etc etc etc

Sure, give me a total casualty list and we'll look into it. Bush's Iraq adventure is approaching 1,300 dead.

Clinton's policy on Iraq was the same one advocated to Bush by the Pentagon--CONTAINMENT! In order to avoid "breaking, and then buying" the fucking place.

So far Clintons scheme in the Balkans seemed to have worked pretty well to me. Milosovec fell and is now in the Hague being tried for war crimes (last I heard) and the Yugoslavian people overthrew him and democratically elected another president.

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 04:36 PM
1. bush never said mission accomplished,never impiled it and you know it

2. posting someones op ed piece does you no good

3. oh yeah saddam had nothing to do with al queda or terrorist in general :rolleyes: maybe you missed the part where CLINTON blew up a plant in the sudan becauseof its ties to al queda and iraq

maybe this al queda mofo isn't really in iraq even though the pic is from and interview he gave in iraq:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2002/05/31/image510807l.jpg

he was involved in the first wtc

or this other nut

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/02/24/sprj.nirq.main/vert.zarqawi.jpg

oh no he wasen't involved with the killing of a us diplomat pre iraq war. he just planned it from iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/12/jackal.wedding/story.carlos.jackal.jpg

or how about him? no threat right?

or this fucker?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9808/26/abu.nidal/nidal.jpg

he wasen't just hanging out in iraq. he was having so much fun he deciede to kill himslef by shooting himslef in the HEAD 4 TIMES while he was in baghdad

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0304/timeline.abu.abbas/gallery.abbas.jpg

and i guess this guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when h was CAUGHT in iraq last year.

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sure, give me a total casualty list and we'll look into it. Bush's Iraq adventure is approaching 1,300 dead.

oh so it only matter with the number of dead i see. since your counting accidents in your iraq number is use them with kosovo as well it think in total including the peace keeping it was around 200.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Clinton's policy on Iraq was the same one advocated to Bush by the Pentagon--CONTAINMENT! In order to avoid "breaking, and then buying" the fucking place.

i don't think a policy of containment includes bombing the place a half dozen times nor does it include a corrupt oil for food progam which has been used againest us in the arab world because they claimed it killed iraqi kids. in fact it work so well it was used as one of the excuses to bomb the shit out of the wtc in 01.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So far Clintons scheme in the Balkans seemed to have worked pretty well to me. Milosovec fell and is now in the Hague being tried for war crimes (last I heard) and the Yugoslavian people overthrew him and democratically elected another president.

oh yeah worked real well. kosovo still as mess, peacekeepers have been in bosnonia for a decade etc etc etc

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 04:43 PM
Full Text: Bush Speech Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln
Thursday, May 1, 2003; 9:43 PM

This is the full transcript of President Bush's speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln to mark the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

Thank you. Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card (ph), officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (APPLAUSE) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible. Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before. From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American armed forces. This nation thanks all of the members of our coalition who joined in a noble cause. We thank the armed forces of the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country. And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld, for General Franks and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done.(YA' THANKS DON AND TOMMY! EXCELLENT WORK!) (APPLAUSE)

The character of our military through history, the daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies is fully present in this generation. When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our service men and women, they saw strength and kindness and good will. When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country and I am honored to be your commander in chief. the images of fallen statues we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred of years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale. In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation. Today we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war, yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent. (APPLAUSE) In the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear. (APPLAUSE)

We have difficult work to do in Iraq.(OK HE SAID THAT, I GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR THAT MUCH) We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people. (APPLAUSE)

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (APPLAUSE) The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror

(THAT SOUNDS LIKE A CONCLUSIVE STATEMENT TO ME-VICTORY MEANS WAR OVER!)

that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America. By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.(HE IS FULL OF SHIT; RIGHT THERE BUSH LIES BY AGAIN TYING IRAQ TO 9/11)

(APPLAUSE) In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children. Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force lead by the 82nd Airborne is on the trail of the terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. (APPLAUSE) From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down Al Qaida killers. Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half of Al Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed. (APPLAUSE)

[b]The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida (BULLSHIT!) and cut off a source of terrorist funding.(BULLSHIT AGAIN!)

And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.(NO THEY JUST HAVE A NICE ASSORTMENT OF CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TO USE ON US TROOPS) (APPLAUSE)

In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got. (APPLAUSE) Our war against terror is proceeding according to the principles that I have made clear to all. Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of American justice. (SO WHY IRAQ?) (APPLAUSE)

Any person, organization or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world and will be confronted.(LIKE IRAN, NORTH KOREA?) (APPLAUSE)

And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America. (APPLAUSE) Our commitment to liberty is America's tradition, declared at our founding, affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, asserted in the Truman Doctrine and in Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire. We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope. When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life. American values and American interests lead in the same direction. We stand for human liberty. (APPLAUSE)

The United States upholds these principles of security and freedom in many ways: with all of the tools of diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence and finance. We are working with a broad coalition of nations that understand the threat and our shared responsibility to meet it. The use of force has been and remains our last resort. Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace. (APPLAUSE)

Our mission continues. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. (APPLAUSE)

The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost; free nations will press on to victory. (APPLAUSE) Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. (APPLAUSE)

After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war, after 100,000 miles on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are homeward bound. (APPLAUSE) Some of you will see new family members for the first time; 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you. (APPLAUSE)

We are mindful as well that some good men and women are not making the journey home. (AND A LOT MORE TO COME SADLY) One of those who fell, Corporal Jason Mileo, spoke to his parents five days before his death. Jason's father said, ``He called us from the center of Baghdad, not to brag but to tell us he loved us. Our son was a soldier. Every name, every life is a loss to our military, to our nation and to the loved ones who grieve. There is no homecoming for these families. Yet we pray in God's time their reunion will come. Those we lost were last seen on duty.

Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great evil and bring liberty to others. All of you, all in this generation of our military, have taken up the highest calling of history: You were defending your country and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope, a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, ``To the captives, come out; and to those in darkness, be free.''(OI VAY! MORE BIBLICAL QUOTES TO JUSTIFY WARS) Thank you for serving our country and our cause. May God bless you all. And may God continue to bless America. (APPLAUSE)
:confused:

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 04:46 PM
again you prove nothing. where does he say mission accomplihed. where des he say iraq was involved in 9-11. again he doesn't try all you might but he never said it. as far as wmd maybe i'll bump the threads where our guys got hit with SARIN in iraq. maybe i'll bump the thread where putin said saddam was planning terror attacks againes the us post 9-11 pre iraq war.

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 04:56 PM
this is from the other thread:

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
again you prove nothing. where does he say mission accomplihed. where des he say iraq was involved in 9-11. again he doesn't try all you might but he never said it. as far as wmd maybe i'll bump the threads where our guys got hit with SARIN in iraq. maybe i'll bump the thread where putin said saddam was planning terror attacks againes the us post 9-11 pre iraq war.

You quibble over mere semantics my friend!

The fact remains that he is responsible for the banners his lackeys place up behind him.

No he didn't say "Mission Accomplished." He in fact said "The Battle for Iraq is one more victory in the War on Terror," which is equally appalling.

If we were indeed "victor(ious)," why was November the bloodiest month on record since the much vaunted "conclusion of major ground combat operations" in March of 2003?

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 05:10 PM
its not semantics. that banner was put there by the ships crew:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml

Later, a Pentagon spokesman called The Associated Press to reiterate that the banner was the crew's idea.

"It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew," Navy Cmdr. Conrad Chun said, adding the president's visit marked the end of the ship's 10-month international deployment.


the battle for iraq was won. you don't see another standing army on the field. the problems now are mostly from the almost 50,000 prisnors saddam released and forigners and a few saddam fedyeen. maybe you missed the articles that show saddam planned form this "guerrila" you want me to bump those as well? he did that hoping he could hide out for awhile, let these thugs drive us out of iraq(i'm quite sure he thought we would run just like clinton did after somilia in 93 which is why you saw a huge up tick in attacks on blackhawks in oct 03 the tenth anniversary of somilia that and the fact that sadams peoople had almost 20,000 copies of that movie and were told if they recreate it we would run) then he would return to power like he did before.

Ally_Kat
12-04-2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
See Ally_Kat, as young as you are you knew this would be funny. That's good.:)


=PtS=
:spank:

Fuck you Phil. Fuck you long and hard. You should be glad, no matter what side I'm on, that I take a vested interest in my country's politics, that MTV doesn't decide for me who I vote for, and that I can give a good explination of why I vote the way I vote.

So you can take your demeaning attitude towards me and my age, and shove it up your ass.

And that's my last response to you. Farewell.

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
its not semantics. that banner was put there by the ships crew:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml

Later, a Pentagon spokesman called The Associated Press to reiterate that the banner was the crew's idea.

"It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew," Navy Cmdr. Conrad Chun said, adding the president's visit marked the end of the ship's 10-month international deployment.


Classic ass covering! It has since been acknowledged it was in fact Bush's people.

the battle for iraq was won. you don't see another standing army on the field.

Your insane! Americans are dying in a war we "won!" Semantics! Standing army? Who gives a shit whether they are a standing army or a hit and run guerilla force. Those were the terms the British thought in during the American Revolution! "We won because no American army stands before us," qualify it how you will, we have won nothing until the country is secured! Give me a break.

the problems now are mostly from the almost 50,000 prisnors saddam released and forigners and a few saddam fedyeen.

NO!! Absolutely false! Recent Pentagon reports to the media suggest most of those killed in Falluja were Iraqis. The numbers of foriegn fighters are vastly exaggerated, even by many in the military know this. The Adminstration can spin this crap about fighting the terrorists in Iraq all they want! But we have created far more terrorists by doing so.



maybe you missed the articles that show saddam planned form this "guerilla" you want me to bump those as well? he did that hoping he could hide out for awhile, let these thugs drive us out of iraq(i'm quite sure he thought we would run just like clinton did after somilia in 93 which is why you saw a huge up tick in attacks on blackhawks in oct 03 the tenth anniversary of somilia that and the fact that sadams peoople had almost 20,000 copies of that movie and were told if they recreate it we would run) then he would return to power like he did before.

I'm not saying we should run. I am saying that the idiots that got us into this mess should be held accountable for it!

Take a look at any honest estimates of the situation and the most rosy assessment of the future for Iraq is that there might not be a civil war! The fact is that the battle plan was severally flawed from the beginning, troop numbers were too low to secure the situation. Yes we won a glorious victory over the Iraqi Army! We then failed to secure the situation thereafter. Maybe being tied down in a guerilla war was Bush's plan from the beginning, but I doubt it. The fact is there would be no guerilla army if a sizable segment of the Iraqi people didn't support it!

They lost all confidence in us after there power went out and we couldn't fix it for months. We initiated a power vacuum by destroying the Iraqi government and had nothing to replace it with other than a few self-serving corrupt pricks like Chalibi.

By the way, Somalia is the wrong analogy, I think Vietnam would be more fitting at this point. Maybe someone will come along like Richard Nixon and find a way to give us "peace with honor," but it's hard to be optimistic these days when we still have the same shitheads like Rumsfeld running the show.

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Classic ass covering! It has since been acknowledged it was in fact Bush's people.

what i posted was teh end story on it. and it's been posted in the past that the banner was made by the people on the carrier for the people on the carrier

the battle for iraq was won. you don't see another standing army on the field.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Your insane! Americans are dying in a war we "won!" Semantics! Standing army? Who gives a shit whether they are a standing army or a hit and run guerilla force. Those were the terms the British thought in during the American Revolution! "We won because no American army stands before us," qualify it how you will, we have won nothing until the country is secured! Give me a break.

i guess then we didn't win ww2 until 1948 i mean after all us troops kept dying there where it was accidents or being picked off by snipers right?


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
NO!! Absolutely false! Recent Pentagon reports to the media suggest most of those killed in Falluja were Iraqis. The numbers of foriegn fighters are vastly exaggerated, even by many in the military know this. The Adminstration can spin this crap about fighting the terrorists in Iraq all they want! But we have created far more terrorists by doing so.

no it's not exagerated. have you seen the intel reports on this? not stuff in the media. and its not just in falluja its the whole country. here do this go back and look into what our guys ran into south of baghdad during the war. it was almost and entire wall of forgien fighters. but like i said it once and i'll say it again it's mostly former prisnors,forigners adn saddam fedyeen. you'll notice not much is happening down in places like basra,kut etc etc or in the north of the country where its contoled by the kurds now why is that? becuase they are turning OVER the forgieners that want to attack us where is in the middle of the country their not doing that.

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_release.asp?NewsRelease=20041204.txt
December 3, 2004
Release Number: 04-12-04


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


IRAQI SECURITY FORCES AND MNF-I NAB 53 INSURGENTS IN NORTHERN IRAQ

MOSUL, Iraq – Iraqi Security Forces and Multi-National Forces from 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) detained 53 people suspected of anti-Iraqi activities during operations yesterday in northern Iraq.

Soldiers from 2nd Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment and soldiers from the Iraqi National Guard conducted a major cordon and search operation in the village of Bi’aj located 40 km west of the Syrian border. Bi’aj is a suspected staging area for insurgent fighters in northern Iraq and foreign fighters coming from Syria. During the operation, Soldiers detained a total of 46 people suspected of anti-Iraqi activities. Iraqi Security forces and MNF sustained no injuries during the operation.

Soldiers from 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment conducted a cordon and search in a village northeast of Mosul and detained seven people suspected of planning and conducting car bomb attacks against MNF and ISF. During a search of the residence, six AK-47s, one rocket propelled grenade, one hand grenade and one small missile were confiscated. The suspects are in custody with no MNF injuries reported during the operation.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm not saying we should run. I am saying that the idiots that got us into this mess should be held accountable for it!


its amazing your quick to bail on this. most of the country is perfectly fine and the only trouble spots are around baghdad. and why is the trouble around there? because thats were the media is and it get the attention. what purpose in any sense does a car bombing of a local shop in baghdad have?or suicide bombing of a local mosque? none. what pr power does it have? it gets people like you calling everything a mess. go ahead get a map and draw a 60 mile raduis around baghdad and everytime theres a car bombing or attack mark it down. you'll soon see it almost all fall into that radius.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Take a look at any honest estimates of the situation and the most rosy assessment of the future for Iraq is that there might not be a civil war!

there are hundreds of scenerios that might happen.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The fact is that the battle plan was severally flawed from the beginning, troop numbers were too low to secure the situation.

and the generals who are in a better postion then you disagree with you.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes we won a glorious victory over the Iraqi Army! We then failed to secure the situation thereafter. Maybe being tied down in a guerilla war was Bush's plan from the beginning, but I doubt it. The fact is there would be no guerilla army if a sizable segment of the Iraqi people didn't support it!

again most iraqis DON'T support it. no problems in the south. nothing in the kurdish areas. only problem is right in the middle with the sunnis who are involved. again see my earlier point on this.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They lost all confidence in us after there power went out and we couldn't fix it for months. We initiated a power vacuum by destroying the Iraqi government and had nothing to replace it with other than a few self-serving corrupt pricks like Chalibi.

most of the coutnry is still with us. they never had power to begin with and now things are. heres a charton just how "bad" things are :rolleyes: from the nytimes no less:

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/courses/geog_4712_s04/recitation/Op-chartIraqTrends_files/iraqTrendsJan04.gif

notice the power going up,schools opening etc etc etc oh yeah things are going down the shitter :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
By the way, Somalia is the wrong analogy, I think Vietnam would be more fitting at this point. Maybe someone will come along like Richard Nixon and find a way to give us "peace with honor," but it's hard to be optimistic these days when we still have the same shitheads like Rumsfeld running the show.

oh yeah this is just like vietnam :rolleyes: trhen again we could have left saddam alone with all those terrorists that have killed americans and things would have been just peachy

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
what i posted was teh end story on it. and it's been posted in the past that the banner was made by the people on the carrier for the people on the carrier

[b]the battle for iraq was won. you don't see another standing army on the field.

Still living in the 18th Century are we? I do see an army. One I cannot see that sets off roadside bombs and is assassinating the Iraqi Gov't security forces. My mistake. That must be a phantasm. Oh and by the way, the current eventa are exactly why the Army did not want to go into Iraq to begin with. Fighting the Iraqi Army and Republican Guards with tanks and armored fighting vehicles is sort of fun, almost. Fighting guerillas that drive suicide bomber cars into the middle of your supply convoy isn't!



i guess then we didn't win ww2 until 1948 i mean after all us troops kept dying there where it was accidents or being picked off by snipers right?

The riduculous comparison to post-WWII German occupation is what got us into this mess in the first place. I think the German Wehrmacht surrendered on mass and went home. Not even in the same ball park. I really don't think we suffered many causualties after May 1945.



no it's not exagerated. have you seen the intel reports on this? not stuff in the media. and its not just in falluja its the whole country. here do this go back and look into what our guys ran into south of baghdad during the war. it was almost and entire wall of forgien fighters. but like i said it once and i'll say it again it's mostly former prisnors,forigners adn saddam fedyeen. you'll notice not much is happening down in places like basra,kut etc etc or in the north of the country where its contoled by the kurds now why is that? becuase they are turning OVER the forgieners that want to attack us where is in the middle of the country their not doing that.

I really don't think that's the case. No there is not much happening in the Shiite controled south, or the Kurd controlled north. It's mostly happening in Bagdhad, where by all accounts things have gotten worse, and in the Sunni triangle. Most of the insurgents are waiting for the civil war to erupt because many of them now believe we are going to eventually leave.

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_release.asp?NewsRelease=20041204.txt
December 3, 2004
Release Number: 04-12-04


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


IRAQI SECURITY FORCES AND MNF-I NAB 53 INSURGENTS IN NORTHERN IRAQ

MOSUL, Iraq – Iraqi Security Forces and Multi-National Forces from 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) detained 53 people suspected of anti-Iraqi activities during operations yesterday in northern Iraq.

Soldiers from 2nd Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment and soldiers from the Iraqi National Guard conducted a major cordon and search operation in the village of Bi’aj located 40 km west of the Syrian border. Bi’aj is a suspected staging area for insurgent fighters in northern Iraq and foreign fighters coming from Syria. During the operation, Soldiers detained a total of 46 people suspected of anti-Iraqi activities. Iraqi Security forces and MNF sustained no injuries during the operation.

Soldiers from 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment conducted a cordon and search in a village northeast of Mosul and detained seven people suspected of planning and conducting car bomb attacks against MNF and ISF. During a search of the residence, six AK-47s, one rocket propelled grenade, one hand grenade and one small missile were confiscated. The suspects are in custody with no MNF injuries reported during the operation.





its amazing your quick to bail on this. most of the country is perfectly fine and the only trouble spots are around baghdad. and why is the trouble around there? because thats were the media is and it get the attention. what purpose in any sense does a car bombing of a local shop in baghdad have?or suicide bombing of a local mosque? none. what pr power does it have? it gets people like you calling everything a mess. go ahead get a map and draw a 60 mile raduis around baghdad and everytime theres a car bombing or attack mark it down. you'll soon see it almost all fall into that radius.

Bombing stuff and random assassinations is a classic guerilla/terrorist tactic to drive a wedge between the people and "government" by showing them the authorities cannot maintain any order or security.


there are hundreds of scenerios that might happen.

True, things may turn out better. But I shudder tho think how they may turn out.


and the generals who are in a better postion then you disagree with you.

Not all disagree. But some no doubt would. Like Gen. Westmorland for instance.



again most iraqis DON'T support it. no problems in the south. nothing in the kurdish areas. only problem is right in the middle with the sunnis who are involved. again see my earlier point on this.

Most Iraqis don't support us either, but do fear the consequences of a US withdrawl.



most of the coutnry is still with us. they never had power to begin with and now things are. heres a charton just how "bad" things are :rolleyes: from the nytimes no less:

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/courses/geog_4712_s04/recitation/Op-chartIraqTrends_files/iraqTrendsJan04.gif

notice the power going up,schools opening etc etc etc oh yeah things are going down the shitter :rolleyes:

Yes I notice that, I also notice all the dead Iraqi police officers and military assassinated in an insurgent campaign of intimidation.



oh yeah this is just like vietnam :rolleyes: trhen again we could have left saddam alone with all those terrorists that have killed americans and things would have been just peachy


What terrorists? Do you have evidence of collusion between Saddam and Al-Qaida? The US Government sure as hell doesn't have any. The arguments and facts of such have been systematically discredited.

And I find the parallels to Vietnam disturbing but inescapable.

lucky wilbury
12-04-2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Still living in the 18th Century are we? I do see an army. One I cannot see that sets off roadside bombs and is assassinating the Iraqi Gov't security forces. My mistake. That must be a phantasm.

it's been just a bunch of thugs and jihadists not an army.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The riduculous comparison to post-WWII German occupation is what got us into this mess in the first place. I think the German Wehrmacht surrendered on mass and went home. Not even in the same ball park. I don't think we suffered many causualties after May 1945.

the iraq army surrenderd in mass. we lost guys in germany after ww2. plus why were we in germany they weren't involved in pearl harbour.they never attacked us or threatend us. same with italy but we still took them out because roosevelt relized that those evil forces had to be dealt with. between 1941-45 polls showed as much as 90% and as low as 60% of the american public thought hitler was some how involved with pearl harbour.




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I really don't think that's the case. No there is not much happening in the Shiite controled south, or the Kurd controlled north. It's mostly happening in Bagdhad, where by all accounts things have gotten worse, and in the Sunni triangle. Most of the insurgents are waiting for the civil war to erupt because many of them now believe we are going to eventually leave.

there won't be a sunni started cival war. they'd never win. its a power play on their part since they are the minority. they are involved with the nuts coming in there and even now they are relizing dealing with them is a bad idea. they'll come around


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It is a classic guerilla/terrorist tactic to drive a wedge between the people and "government" by showing them the authorities cannot maintain any order or security.

but there is security and even many sunnis are relizing what the kurds knew first and the shites later picked up on: it's easier to rebuild, create jobs and be politcally involed if they don't fight. their coming around



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Most Iraqis don't support us either, but do fear the consequences of a US withdrawl.

the last set of polls showed the iraqis are very optimistic about teh future.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes I notice that, I also notice all the dead Iraqi police officers and military assassinated in an insurgent campaign of intimidation.

and it should be pointed out the iraqis are fighting back weather its their police army or even local groups that have been rounding up fighters


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What terrorists? Do you have evidence of collusion between Saddam and Al-Qaida? The US Government sure as hell doesn't have any. The arguments and facts of such have been systematically discredited.

And I find the parallels to Vietnam disturbing but inescapable.

all you have to do is look at abdul rahmen yasin. al queda member whos been hanging out in baghdad since 1993! it's not just al queda its almost every terrorist group out there. you'll notice the extreme dropoff in sucide attacks in israel for instance because saddam is no longer paying suicide bombers families. but go back to the list of pics i posted. all are terrorists. all are or have been in iraq. all of them killed americans.

blueturk
12-04-2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
can you find me a quote a quote from a speech not some pic where bush said mission accomplished? post the quote from the speech and a link to it. and don't try to say well he said it's the end of major combat crap. he was asked to say that by tommy franks. better yet back up you cocaine charge with someone creditable who is on the record about is sort of like this on al gore from his friend and former colleague John Warnecke

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2000/gore/warnecke.html

We smoked a lot of grass. Far more than he's acknowledged... Al and Tipper would come over, and the first thing Al would do, usually, to check outdoors, look out the windows, roll down the shades. You know, ask me if I had any marijuana and joints. I always had. I had good connections in San Francisco, so I always had the best dope in town and I never charged him for it. I always gave it away. We had a sort of a motto in the hippie culture that you shared your dope...

You got a problem with pot?

Nickdfresh
12-04-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
it's been just a bunch of thugs and jihadists not an army.

They are thugs and jihadists. But that does not prevent them from being a guerilla army.


the iraq army surrenderd in mass. we lost guys in germany after ww2. plus why were we in germany they weren't involved in pearl harbour.they never attacked us or threatend us. same with italy but we still took them out because roosevelt relized that those evil forces had to be dealt with. between 1941-45 polls showed as much as 90% and as low as 60% of the american public thought hitler was some how involved with pearl harbour.

Not even close to the scale of things here. The Germans were war weary and, for the most part, happy to be under US or British control (as opposed to the poor Germans under Russian or French control--you reap what you sew I guess).





there won't be a sunni started cival war. they'd never win. its a power play on their part since they are the minority. they are involved with the nuts coming in there and even now they are relizing dealing with them is a bad idea. they'll come around

They don't have to "win" per se by dominating the Shiites, they just need to prevent incursions on their turf like a gang or in the Balkans. Let's hope they come around without killing too many more of our people.

but there is security and even many sunnis are relizing what the kurds knew first and the shites later picked up on: it's easier to rebuild, create jobs and be politcally involed if they don't fight. their coming around

Perhaps, but it has taken a while which is a direct result of the poor war planning by Rummy.


the last set of polls showed the iraqis are very optimistic about teh future.

Which Iraqis did they poll? Some are and do like Coalition troops, but a sizable minority are supporting the mujahadeen.


and it should be pointed out the iraqis are fighting back weather its their police army or even local groups that have been rounding up fighters

True, to some extent. But remember that there are three varieties of Iraqis.

you have to do is look at abdul rahmen yasin. al queda member whos been hanging out in baghdad since 1993!

One guy is not enough to justify an invasion. The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11 and for all its brutality, Saddam's regime was a secular one that despised and feared Islamic fundimentalists almost as much as we do.

its not just al queda its almost every terrorist group out there. you'll notice the extreme dropoff in sucide attacks in israel for instance because saddam is no longer paying suicide bombers families. but go back to the list of pics i posted. all are terrorists. all are or have been in iraq. all of them killed americans.

True that suicide attacks decreased, partially 'cause of Saddam's fall, and partially 'cause Israel has built a wall partitoning themselves from the Palestinians. Although I like Israel, Israeli national security is not my priority. American national security comes first! Hamas and Hezbollah do not attack American interests, and they haven't for at least 15 years or so. If the Israelis were upset by Saddam's support for suicide bombers, then THEY should have invaded Iraq!

lucky wilbury
12-05-2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They are thugs and jihadists. But that does not prevent them from being a guerilla army.

an army even the vc had a command and control structure and planning that came from above. other then trying to win the pr war the are uncoordinated



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Not even close to the scale of things here. The Germans were war weary and, for the most part, happy to be under US or British control (as opposed to the poor Germans under Russian or French control--you reap what you sew I guess).

most germans and the french were pissed that we were still around because we controled everything



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They don't have to "win" per se by dominating the Shiites, they just need to prevent incursions on their turf like a gang or in the Balkans. Let's hope they come around without killing too many more of our people.

no the sunnis want to be returned ot the top of the food chain where their given everything they want because thats how saddam once treated them



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Perhaps, but it has taken a while which is a direct result of the poor war planning by Rummy.

they only erason it's taken awhile is because for the first year they were only told that saddam and the bathists were the only way to go. they are a year behind the rest of the country



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Which Iraqis did they poll? Some are and do like Coalition troops, but a sizable minority are supporting the mujahadeen.

all

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5143&highlight=poll+iraqis


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...world-headlines

Surveys: More Iraqis Want Democracy

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

May 14, 2004, 2:22 PM EDT

PHOENIX -- Iraqis are likely to say they want to live in a democracy, though they don't necessarily understand how it works.

Some pollsters who have done nationwide surveys of Iraq in recent months talked about their findings at a meeting this week of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.

One barrier to democracy is that many in the country need more information about how it would work, their research suggests.

"There's the sense that people in Iraq know they want democracy, but they don't know how to get there," said Christoph Sahm, director of Oxford Research International.

Sahm's firm conducted its first nationwide poll of Iraq last fall, and conducted another in February for ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp., the German broadcasting network ARD and the Japanese network NHK. Oxford is continuing to poll in Iraq.

Richard Burkholder, director of international polling for Gallup, said the type of government Iraqis preferred was a multiparty democracy like those in many Western European countries.

"Very low down the list is an Islamic theocracy, in which mullahs and religious leaders have a lot of influence, such as in Iran," said Burkholder, who polled in Baghdad in August and nationwide in late March and early April for CNN and USA Today.

In the most recent Gallup poll, four in 10 said they preferred a multiparty parliamentary democracy -- that was the form of government most often mentioned. When Oxford Research International asked Iraqis in a separate poll to name the party they favored or the candidate they backed, the majority offered no preference on either question.

For Sahm, the inability or unwillingness to answer those questions indicates Iraqis have much to learn about how democracies and political parties work after decades living in a country ruled by a dictator.

Sahm and Burkholder said they've found Iraqis have a sense of optimism about the future of their country. But they understand that nothing can be achieved until the nation is more secure.

Both pollsters found Iraqis very willing to share their feelings.

Burkholder recounted how a transitional Iraqi government minister initially told his team Iraqis would not talk to pollsters. But as soon as the minister left the room, another Iraqi laughed and told the Gallup pollster: "Don't pay any attention to him, he's been in Minneapolis for the last 19 years."

Added Sahm, "The response has been tremendous. We go into 100 households and only four or five refuse. It's unheard of."

A recent Pew Research Center study of response levels in the United States found that only about one in four people contacted agreed to participate in a survey conducted over several days.

Both pollsters found Iraqis growing more impatient with the presence of coalition troops, even before the prison abuse controversy emerged. However, most favored getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Iraqis have identified some successful areas in post-Saddam Iraq, the pollsters found.

"One of the things that comes up again and again as a success in the transition so far is education," Sahm said. He also mentioned increasing trust in the Iraqi police and the new Iraqi army.

"When we see the images of war and terror on the TV screen," Sahm said, "it's hard to believe that behind all of this, many Iraqis are leading normal lives and going about their business."




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
One guy is not enough to justify an invasion. The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11 and for all its brutality, Saddam's regime was a secular one that despised and feared Islamic fundimentalists almost as much as we do.

what about the rest of them? abu nidal not good enough for you? abu abbas? carlos the jackel? zarqawi? all of which received support from saddam. all of which have killed americans. and yashin was involved in the first wtc attack something of which saddam was suspected of being involved with any way. heres something that was written by a clinton adviser from 95/96 and as you read it remember yousefs uncle is kahlid shiek mohammed and Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman former number two man was aymen al zawari

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB:
Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
True that suicide attacks decreased, partially 'cause of Saddam's fall, and partially 'cause Israel has built a wall partitoning themselves from the Palestinians. Although I like Israel, Israeli national security is not my priority. American national security comes first! Hamas and Hezbollah do not attack American interests, and they haven't for at least 15 years or so. If the Israelis were upset by Saddam's support for suicide bombers, then THEY should have invaded Iraq!

first off hamas and hebbollah ahve attacked american interests and they have killed and kidknapped americans. who do you think was involved with all teh shit in lebanon? secondly israel should concern you because as long as suicide bombings keep happening it gives the jidists and excuse to attack america because we support israel. cut off their funding, the bombings stop, peace and they lose one more excuse to attack us

Nickdfresh
12-05-2004, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
an army even the vc had a command and control structure and planning that came from above. other then trying to win the pr war the are uncoordinated

The VC/NLF got there asses handed to them during the "Operation Phoenix program" in which a large segment to the high command were assassinated or captured by SOF types.
There are different groups with different motivations and ethnic backgrounds. They sometimes work together, sometimes fight each other.



most germans and the french were pissed that we were still around because we controled everything

Most Germans were appreciative that we didn't summarily execute a large segment of the male population and rape almost the entire female population between ages 12-70. Any country that was occupied by the Germans (i.e. France) tended to let their occupation troops take revenge.




no the sunnis want to be returned ot the top of the food chain where their given everything they want because thats how saddam once treated them

Or they want their own seperate nation.




they only erason it's taken awhile is because for the first year they were only told that saddam and the bathists were the only way to go. they are a year behind the rest of the country

And they fear an election in which they will be a minority.


all

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5143&highlight=poll+iraqis


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...world-headlines

Surveys: More Iraqis Want Democracy

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

May 14, 2004, 2:22 PM EDT

PHOENIX -- Iraqis are likely to say they want to live in a democracy, though they don't necessarily understand how it works.

Some pollsters who have done nationwide surveys of Iraq in recent months talked about their findings at a meeting this week of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.

One barrier to democracy is that many in the country need more information about how it would work, their research suggests.

"There's the sense that people in Iraq know they want democracy, but they don't know how to get there," said Christoph Sahm, director of Oxford Research International.

Sahm's firm conducted its first nationwide poll of Iraq last fall, and conducted another in February for ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp., the German broadcasting network ARD and the Japanese network NHK. Oxford is continuing to poll in Iraq.

Richard Burkholder, director of international polling for Gallup, said the type of government Iraqis preferred was a multiparty democracy like those in many Western European countries.

"Very low down the list is an Islamic theocracy, in which mullahs and religious leaders have a lot of influence, such as in Iran," said Burkholder, who polled in Baghdad in August and nationwide in late March and early April for CNN and USA Today.

In the most recent Gallup poll, four in 10 said they preferred a multiparty parliamentary democracy -- that was the form of government most often mentioned. When Oxford Research International asked Iraqis in a separate poll to name the party they favored or the candidate they backed, the majority offered no preference on either question.

For Sahm, the inability or unwillingness to answer those questions indicates Iraqis have much to learn about how democracies and political parties work after decades living in a country ruled by a dictator.

Sahm and Burkholder said they've found Iraqis have a sense of optimism about the future of their country. But they understand that nothing can be achieved until the nation is more secure.

Both pollsters found Iraqis very willing to share their feelings.

Burkholder recounted how a transitional Iraqi government minister initially told his team Iraqis would not talk to pollsters. But as soon as the minister left the room, another Iraqi laughed and told the Gallup pollster: "Don't pay any attention to him, he's been in Minneapolis for the last 19 years."

Added Sahm, "The response has been tremendous. We go into 100 households and only four or five refuse. It's unheard of."

A recent Pew Research Center study of response levels in the United States found that only about one in four people contacted agreed to participate in a survey conducted over several days.

Both pollsters found Iraqis growing more impatient with the presence of coalition troops, even before the prison abuse controversy emerged. However, most favored getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Iraqis have identified some successful areas in post-Saddam Iraq, the pollsters found.

"One of the things that comes up again and again as a success in the transition so far is education," Sahm said. He also mentioned increasing trust in the Iraqi police and the new Iraqi army.

"When we see the images of war and terror on the TV screen," Sahm said, "it's hard to believe that behind all of this, many Iraqis are leading normal lives and going about their business."





what about the rest of them? abu nidal not good enough for you? abu abbas? carlos the jackel? zarqawi? all of which received support from saddam. all of which have killed americans. and yashin was involved in the first wtc attack something of which saddam was suspected of being involved with any way. heres something that was written by a clinton adviser from 95/96 and as you read it remember yousefs uncle is kahlid shiek mohammed and Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman former number two man was aymen al zawari

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB:
Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters





first off hamas and hebbollah ahve attacked american interests and they have killed and kidknapped americans. who do you think was involved with all teh shit in lebanon? secondly israel should concern you because as long as suicide bombings keep happening it gives the jidists and excuse to attack america because we support israel. cut off their funding, the bombings stop, peace and they lose one more excuse to attack us [/B]

We definately need to solve this problem, but somehow I think an unquestioning support for Israel is not the answer. Especially since they have killed three times as many Palestinians than Israelis have died.


As far as elections, I am watching ABC news as I write this, and the big "lead" story is the guerillas attempting to "derail" things through assassinations and bombings (70 Iraqis killed over the weekend in attacks).

Nickdfresh
12-05-2004, 06:39 PM
McCain criticizes Pentagon on Iraq war
Biden also cites concerns about 'outbreak of civil chaos'
Sunday, December 5, 2004 Posted: 12:51 PM EST (1751 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The increase in U.S. troop strength in Iraq announced last week is not likely to be enough, Sen. John McCain said Sunday.

McCain told "Fox News Sunday" that more troops probably will be required to protect polling places during next month's elections, prosecute the fight against the insurgency and help reconstruct Falluja, the volatile city where U.S. forces have been conducting an operation.

The Arizona Republican, who has frequently been critical of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said Sunday that he respects President Bush's decision to keep Rumsfeld in his post. But McCain declined to give the decision an endorsement.

"I respect the president," McCain said. "The president of the United States was re-elected by a majority of the American people, and I respect his right. And I will work with the president obviously and with the secretary of defense."

Asked if such comments were a vote of confidence, McCain responded, "No, it's not."

The United States is dispatching an additional 1,500 troops to Iraq and extending the stays of more than 10,000 others to bolster security ahead of January's scheduled elections, the Pentagon said last week. The moves will bring the number of U.S. troops in Iraq from nearly 140,000 to an all-time high of about 150,000, the Pentagon said. (Full story)

McCain said the problems in Iraq go deeper than troop numbers.

"The problem we have here is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy rather than taking initiatives from which the enemy has to react to," he said.

"And the problem, when you react, you have to extend people on duty there, which is terrible for morale. There's a terrific strain on Guard and reservists. If you plan ahead, then you don't have to do some of these things.

"The military," he said, "is too small."

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, said U.S. forces in Iraq are "still paying an awesome price for the initial failures on policy and refusal to change them of this administration, of going in with too little power and too little legitimacy."

Biden, who recently returned from a trip to Iraq, told ABC's "This Week," "We've won everything we've tried to do, including Falluja, but then we've lacked the resources to secure what we've won."

Biden said that, after his trip to Iraq, he was "less concerned about an outbreak of civil war than I am about the outbreak of civil chaos."

Biden also predicted that the Pentagon would keep troops in place until an objective has been reached, in this case the elections, "and then you're going to see them draw down again."

Asked about newly surfaced photographs that appear to show mistreatment of Iraqi detainees, McCain said he believed the United States is now treating prisoners properly.

"I think there was a period of time where we were not," he said.

Torture, said McCain -- who was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War -- has been "proven time after time" to be ineffective.

"When someone has reached a degree of discomfort, they'll say anything that you want them to say," he said. "But more importantly, we are trying to eradicate from the Earth people who do these kinds of things. That [should] make us different."

lucky wilbury
12-05-2004, 09:38 PM
it was and still is in the long term interests of the usa that saddam was gotten rid of and the middle east be reformed. it is one of the last places on the planet that is still acting like its the 1300's. with democratic reforms terrorism will go down because they will no linger have any excuses to perform terrorism.

FORD
12-06-2004, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
it was and still is in the long term interests of the usa that saddam was gotten rid of and the middle east be reformed. it is one of the last places on the planet that is still acting like its the 1300's. with democratic reforms terrorism will go down because they will no linger have any excuses to perform terrorism.

Bullshit. Democracy doesn't even exist HERE anymore, yet you believe it will be embraced by people who have no concept whatosever of what it means.

As far as them acting like the 1300's, they LIKE it that way. The Shah of Iran, and Saddam, for all of their faults, were successful in modernizing their countries, but it wasn't done by the wishes of the people, but for the benefits of the corporations.

And the BCE's motives are exactly the same.

But what happenned to Iran, once the Shah was gone (thanks to a revolution engineered by Poppy's CIA)

Yep, back to the 12th century. They like it there. Fucking leave em to it, if that's what they want.

DrMaddVibe
12-06-2004, 12:05 PM
tick tock tick tock...

Nickdfresh
12-06-2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
it was and still is in the long term interests of the usa that saddam was gotten rid of and the middle east be reformed. it is one of the last places on the planet that is still acting like its the 1300's. with democratic reforms terrorism will go down because they will no linger have any excuses to perform terrorism.

I'm not so sure. Saddam was far more worried about Iran than he was the US, that's why his regime implied they had chemical weapons (to the Iranians). Because his conventional forces were vastly weakend!

Some Muslims would point out our double-standard of supporting authoritarian regimes that use torture and a police state to repress "democracy" such as Saudi Arabia (our friends!), Pakistan, Egypt, and Algeria. You might see why they might be skeptical of our intensions after invading an oil-rich state and proclaiming that we will transform it by instilling Western values.

We even supported Saddam at one point during the Iran-Iraq War!

fanofdave
12-06-2004, 01:12 PM
gentlemen,

i believe we can all agree that the vast majority
of politicians; republicans/democrats/independents,
are full of bullshit, carry excess baggage, lie and
have skeletons in their closets. Those are just a
few of the main ingredients of a U.S. politician.


"WINNING AN ARGUMENT ON THE INTERNET
IS LIKE WINNING A RACE IN THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS:

YOU'RE STILL RETARDED."

lucky wilbury
12-06-2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm not so sure. Saddam was far more worried about Iran than he was the US, that's why his regime implied they had chemical weapons (to the Iranians). Because his conventional forces were vastly weakend!

i'll let the guy in your avatar explain why it was nessesary to it iraq:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=716&highlight=clark+iraq


http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX

WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED

**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."

MORE

Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts . It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
[B] Some Muslims would point out our double-standard of supporting authoritarian regimes that use torture and a police state to repress "democracy" such as Saudi Arabia (our friends!), Pakistan, Egypt, and Algeria. You might see why they might be skeptical of our intensions after invading an oil-rich state and proclaiming that we will transform it by instilling Western values.

first of pakisthan is some form of democracy they do have a parliment and have had presidential elcetions. seconldy the people in most of those countries blame israel for their circumstance. you can go to the poorest of poor towns in any one of those country and asked why its that way and thell say its becaus the jews are in palistine. their government situation won't even come up.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
We even supported Saddam at one point during the Iran-Iraq War!


fdr supported stalin so whats your point? the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Phil theStalker
12-06-2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
again you prove nothing. where does he say mission accomplihed. where des he say iraq was involved in 9-11. again he doesn't try all you might but he never said it. as far as wmd maybe i'll bump the threads where our guys got hit with SARIN in iraq. maybe i'll bump the thread where putin said saddam was planning terror attacks againes the us post 9-11 pre iraq war.
There was a big "handy" sign behind Bush on an aircraft carrier in war operations, IMAGING THAT! How did that sign get there? Who made it? Who's running the "Wag The Dog" show?

Not the American people -- red states or blue.

The high office of President is taking orders from the one world government organizers, and they all like it that way -- red or blue.

This country needs to be taken back from the red and blue supporters, because any U.S. President takes his orders from the globalists and Presidents themselves are globalists openly members of the Council on Foreign Relations that openly, publicly advocates for a one world government, let alone the UN as big as that globalist, one world government organization that is, and these globalists Presidents sign treaties with the globalist UN. It's right there out in the open.

The high office of President cannot defend the American people from the world domination of the one world government organizers, which includes U.S. Presidents, sadly.

Only the ARMED American CITIZEN can protect the COUNTRY (i.e., not the Nazi word, HOMELAND) from this global conspiracy.

JOHN F. KENNEDY
Columbia University
10 days before his assassination

"The high office of President has been used to forment a plot to destroy the American freedom and before I leave office I must warn the citizen of his plight."

Do you "red or blue" boys, men, women think the President of the United States use of the word, "plot," could mean a "conspiracy."

Conspiracy=plot

The President said this. It's the President.

President of the United States of America

Is the President of the United States of America a "conspiracy" nut?

I saw that man and his wife pass me in their open convertable car, and a month later he was shot dead in the middle of the street.

I've been waiting for you "foreign assets" since then. You will not like it when you find me.

This little boy that day has been waiting for you since then. And I'm not a little boy anymore.

I'm here.

And I'm waiting for you.

Phil theStalker
12-06-2004, 02:29 PM
When you find me remember, I didn't come to your country to meet with you. You came to my country with the globalists big lie that you're helping America.

You weren't even born in 1963 when I knew you were coming to meet me one day.

I'm waiting for you.

I've been expecting you for a long time.

And I'm ready to meet you.

Do not come into my house with a gun from a foreign land.

You will not like the welcome to America you are going to get.

Listen to me Slovak boy. Listen to me Russian boy. Listen to me Chinese boy. You do not belong in my house with your gun.

Phil theStalker
12-06-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
When you find me remember, I didn't come to your country to meet with you. You came to my country with the globalists big lie that you're helping America.

You weren't even born in 1963 when I knew you were coming to meet me one day.

I'm waiting for you.

I've been expecting you for a long time.

And I'm ready to meet you.

Do not come into my house with a gun from a foreign land.

You will not like the welcome to America you are going to get.

Listen to me Slovak boy. Listen to me Russian boy. Listen to me Chinese boy. You do not belong in my house with your gun.
My house is America.

Nickdfresh
12-06-2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by fanofdave
gentlemen,

i believe we can all agree that the vast majority
of politicians; republicans/democrats/independents,
are full of bullshit, carry excess baggage, lie and
have skeletons in their closets. Those are just a
few of the main ingredients of a U.S. politician.


"WINNING AN ARGUMENT ON THE INTERNET
IS LIKE WINNING A RACE IN THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS:

YOU'RE STILL RETARDED."

Part 1- Somewhat true.

Part 2- This is not an argument, it is a debate. Nobody's going to "win" anything.

Nickdfresh
12-06-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
i'll let the guy in your avatar explain why it was nessesary to it iraq:

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX

WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED

**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

Whoever said I give a shit about what Wesley said, or what pseudo-journalist Matt Fudge says either. Bob Dylan was strongly against the Vietnam War and American militerism. You have him in your avatar!

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."

Gee. What ever happened to the "joyous throngs" of Iraqis? Maybe they're busy hinding in the homes for fear of being killed in a bombing attack.





first of pakisthan is some form of democracy they do have a parliment and have had presidential elcetions. seconldy the people in most of those countries blame israel for their circumstance. you can go to the poorest of poor towns in any one of those country and asked why its that way and thell say its becaus the jews are in palistine. their government situation won't even come up.

A pseudo-Democracy maybe. They are also a big nuclear proliferator (see my Dr. Khan thread) that is being very uncooperative.


fdr supported stalin so whats your point? the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

My point is we should not be so hypocritical and short sighted when choosing which dictators we support and which ones we proclaim a holy crusade against! And act so cavalier as the worlds holy liberator and spreader of democracy!

lucky wilbury
12-06-2004, 03:33 PM
1. bob never said anything about the vietnam war. people interpreted his songs their own way and used them in their own way and the media(which he hates) tired to pin him to one point of view even though he might have had a different point of view:

"My stuff -- (they) were songs, they weren't sermons," he tells 60 Minutes. "If you examine the songs I don't believe you're going to find anything in there that says that I'm a spokesman for anybody or anything really."

2. our support for iraq was started under jimmy carter again eenemy of my enemy is my friend

3. pakistan sold nuke secrets and went nuclear under clintons watch

Nickdfresh
12-06-2004, 04:33 PM
1- Bob Dylan's songs quite clearly reflected the times "are a changin'" and his background coming from a working class family. He never wrote a Toby Kieth style pro-American song either.


2-
our support for iraq was started under jimmy carter again eenemy of my enemy is my friend

You mean like Bin Laden and his mujahedeen during the Reagan Adminstration?

The support for Iraq continued unabated and was accelerated throughout the Reagan and Father's Administrations until Saddam had more tanks that Hitler did by 1989 and was devoid of an enemy to fight (Iran) which led directly to his invasion of Kuwait.

3- What's Dubya doing about Pakistan's Dr. Kahn besides turning a blind eye to their lionizing him as a nat'l hero and allowing their renegade intelligence service to continue to support the Taliban.

lucky wilbury
12-06-2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
1- Bob Dylan's songs quite clearly reflected the times "are a changin'" and his background coming from a working class family. He never wrote a Toby Kieth style pro-American song either.


bobs songs like he said can be anything you want them to be he just thinks many people have taken them and are taking them the wrong way



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
2-

You mean like Bin Laden and his mujahedeen during the Reagan Adminstration?

try again. but since your a new on the board i'll go over this ground again so here we go:

the cia DID NOT support bin laden. EVER. the cia was responsible for afghans and afghans only and the isi ,inter services intelligence, in pakisthan ran all the little jihadists that went into afghanisthan. all of them who stayed were later supported by the isi in their creation of the taliban. just the notion of the us supported bin laden is one of the dumbest things out their because what would he get from us? money? he was loaded. he got 250 million when he turned 18. oh yeah the pennies that he would have gotten from us would have made a huge difference:rolleyes:

some stuff from janes:

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/janes011001_1_n.shtml


The ISI chief, Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed, who was visiting Washington when New York and the Pentagon were attacked, agreed to share desperately needed information about the Taliban with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other US security officials. The CIA has well-established links with the ISI, having trained it in the 1980s to ‘run’ Afghan mujahideen (holy Muslim warriors), Islamic fundamentalists from Pakistan as well as Arab volunteers by providing them with arms and logistic support to evict the Soviet occupation of Kabul.


Founded soon after independence in 1948 to collect intelligence in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and in East Pakistan (later Bangladesh), the ISI was modelled on Savak, the Iranian security agency, and like Savak was trained by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the SDECE, France’s external intelligence service. The 1979 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan led the CIA, smarting from its retreat from Vietnam, into enhancing the ISI's covert action capabilities by running mujahideen resistance groups against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

------------------

the pakisthanis ran everything. and who's idea was all this? jimmy carters:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

Zbigniew Brzezinski:How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic , having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.

The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" Portions of the books can be read at: <http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm>




[i]Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The support for Iraq continued unabated and was accelerated throughout the Reagan and Father's Administrations until Saddam had more tanks that Hitler did by 1989 and was devoid of an enemy to fight (Iran) which led directly to his invasion of Kuwait.


again enemy of my enemy is my friend. it stopped the spread of an iranian style government throughout the middle east.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
3- What's Dubya doing about Pakistan's Dr. Kahn besides turning a blind eye to their lionizing him as a nat'l hero and allowing their renegade intelligence service to continue to support the Taliban.


1. bush stopped it unlike clinton who let it run wild.

2. only parts of the isi are againest the us and pakisthan. so are with us some are againest us but so far their help has lead to the capture of:

KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED
ABU ZUBAYDAH
RAMZI BINALSHIBH
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani
TAWFIQ ATTASH KHALLAD

to name a few

FORD
12-06-2004, 06:42 PM
As far as Dylan's songs go, I believe this one is pretty blatant regarding his feelings toward war and the BCE-fueled military-industrial complex....

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

lucky wilbury
12-06-2004, 06:49 PM
maybe bob wrote this one from dlr's perspective. hell maybe dlr should cover it and dedicate it the the vh bros!

You got a lotta nerve
To say you are my friend
When I was down
You just stood there grinning

You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that's winning

You say I let you down
You know it's not like that
If you're so hurt
Why then don't you show it

You say you lost your faith
But that's not where it's at
You had no faith to lose
And you know it

I know the reason
That you talk behind my back
I used to be among the crowd
You're in with

Do you take me for such a fool
To think I'd make contact
With the one who tries to hide
What he don't know to begin with

You see me on the street
You always act surprised
You say, "How are you?" "Good luck"
But you don't mean it

When you know as well as me
You'd rather see me paralyzed
Why don't you just come out once
And scream it

No, I do not feel that good
When I see the heartbreaks you embrace
If I was a master thief
Perhaps I'd rob them

And now I know you're dissatisfied
With your position and your place
Don't you understand
It's not my problem

I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you

Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is
To see you

lucky wilbury
12-06-2004, 06:51 PM
even this part.

You see me on the street
You always act surprised
You say, "How are you?" "Good luck"
But you don't mean it

sounds like dlr/eddie meeting in nyc back in the 90's as describe in his book. maybe bob's physic and can see the future!

lucky wilbury
12-06-2004, 08:39 PM
here the full exchange of the quote i used. click on the link or go to the dylan thread in music for the rest of it:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=322345#post322345

"My stuff were songs, you know? They weren't sermons," says Dylan. "If you examine the songs, I don't believe you're gonna find anything in there that says that I'm a spokesman for anybody or anything really."

"But they saw it," says Bradley.

"They must not have heard the songs," says Dylan.

"It's ironic, that the way that people viewed you was just the polar opposite of the way you viewed yourself," says Bradley.

"Isn't that something," says Dylan.

Nickdfresh
12-06-2004, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
bobs songs like he said can be anything you want them to be he just thinks many people have taken them and are taking them the wrong way




try again. but since your a new on the board i'll go over this ground again so here we go:

the cia DID NOT support bin laden. EVER. the cia was responsible for afghans and afghans only and the isi ,inter services intelligence, in pakisthan ran all the little jihadists that went into afghanisthan. all of them who stayed were later supported by the isi in their creation of the taliban. just the notion of the us supported bin laden is one of the dumbest things out their because what would he get from us? money? he was loaded. he got 250 million when he turned 18. oh yeah the pennies that he would have gotten from us would have made a huge difference:rolleyes:

some stuff from janes:

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/janes011001_1_n.shtml

Bin Laden used U.S. intelligence, training, and weapons provided directly or indirectly. I doubt Osama used much of his own fortune in any case since he was, as were most of the jihadists, getting money from the Saudis.

As far as the ISI, if you think they are pursuing anyones' agenda but their own, you would be quite mistaken. The Pakistani's were astute enough to know we were really pissed after 9/11 and knew it was effectively a matter of national survival that they cooperate. In anycase, there are numerous factions in the ISI and their connection to Al-Qaida and the Taliban was quite close as they were fighting a proxy war with India (the Indians supported the Nothern Alliance before we did). If they were such great allies, why did the Pakistanis not cooperate before 9/11. Do you really believe they were totally ignorant of Al-Qaida planning? Did they not realize, as I did, that something really big was coming 9/09/01 when Masood was assassinated in order to purge Afghanistan of any possible leaders that the U.S. could support against them.


The ISI chief, Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed, who was visiting Washington when New York and the Pentagon were attacked, agreed to share desperately needed information about the Taliban with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other US security officials. [b]The CIA has well-established links with the ISI, having trained it in the 1980s to ‘run’ Afghan mujahideen (holy Muslim warriors), Islamic fundamentalists from Pakistan as well as Arab volunteers by providing them with arms and logistic support to evict the Soviet occupation of Kabul.

That was big of him! I wonder how much this corrupt douche, Lt. Gen Ahmed, knew about the 9/11 plot. I bet he had a really good idea something was about to happen!


Founded soon after independence in 1948 to collect intelligence in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and in East Pakistan (later Bangladesh), the ISI was modelled on Savak, the Iranian security agency, and like Savak was trained by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the SDECE, France’s external intelligence service. [b]The 1979 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan led the CIA, smarting from its retreat from Vietnam, into enhancing the ISI's covert action capabilities by running mujahideen resistance groups against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

And terrorists in Kashmir! And drug pushers! And Islamic fundimenatalist terrorists.

the pakisthanis ran everything. and who's idea was all this? jimmy carters:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

Zbigniew Brzezinski:How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul...I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire...What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Brezinzski can crow all he wants. Carter was out by 1981 and the Reagan Administration were the ones who up'ed the ante' by providing more than the crude Soviet designed weapons that the mujahedeen started out with. Especially stinger missiles they used to essentially win the war. There were also people in the intelligence community that grew increasingly concerned that we were supporting the wrong mujahedeen, which was comprised of an umbrella of several factions. And the Saudis supported the most radical with the money we helped them pump in.

1. bush stopped it unlike clinton who let it run wild.

Gross hyperbole on Clinton. And Bush hasn't stopped anything.

2. only parts of the isi are againest the us and pakisthan. so are with us some are againest us but so far their help has lead to the capture of:

KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED
ABU ZUBAYDAH
RAMZI BINALSHIBH
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani
TAWFIQ ATTASH KHALLAD

But not Bin Laden and his senior circle. Very interesting.

Phil theStalker
12-06-2004, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Fuck you Phil. Fuck you long and hard. You should be glad, no matter what side I'm on, that I take a vested interest in my country's politics, that MTV doesn't decide for me who I vote for, and that I can give a good explination of why I vote the way I vote.

So you can take your demeaning attitude towards me and my age, and shove it up your ass.

And that's my last response to you. Farewell.
Be nice. I know you're tremendous for taking more than an interest in your country. You're not an MTV-Spears nut.

lms2 filled me in. She said just what you said. And, I agree. You don't need me to tell you what you have the vision to see yourself when all of these things come to past.

Hello darkness my old friend.

I've come to talk with you again.


P

Phil theStalker
12-06-2004, 10:58 PM
Um...do all you guys got me on Ignore or sumtin?


:(

Phil theStalker
12-06-2004, 11:03 PM
Dylan, Dylan? ok ok

You gotta lotta nerve

t2o say yoo are mmmy frends

wen i type yoo doon't evun reed tit !

little sister don't you

little sister don't you

kiss me o1nce or t2wice and then yoo cum

yeh, yeh, yeh

you've lost that loving feeling


Want moor?


=PtS=
<marquee direction=left>:spank:</marquee>

lucky wilbury
12-07-2004, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Bin Laden used U.S. intelligence, training, and weapons provided directly or indirectly. I doubt Osama used much of his own fortune in any case since he was, as were most of the jihadists, getting money from the Saudis.

bin laden didn't use any intelligence. shit the intel we would get would be from pakistan on how things were going. now who would be more reliable to the arabs other arabs or the americans? gee i wonder who. he used plenty on his own money. he used to play to have heavy equipment flown into pakistan to be used to build bases their. that info isn't new its so old it's not funny. :

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?010924fr_archive03

Soon we began to hear other tales. In the ungovernable tribal areas on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier, and in the military training camps outside Peshawar and in Afghanistan, jihad trainees and clerics began to speak of another enigmatic Saudi. He had arrived in an unmarked military transport plane, and brought in bulldozers and other pieces of heavy equipment, which he deployed to design and construct defensive tunnels and storage depots, and to cut roads through the deep valleys of Afghanistan. According to one frequently told story, the man often drove one of the bulldozers himself across the precipitous mountain peaks, exposing himself to strafing from Soviet helicopter gunships. This man also turned out to be bin Laden, and the equipment that he brought in was furnished by the Bin Laden Group.

----

The C.I.A. station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989 was Milt Bearden, an avuncular, barrel-chested man with an easy smile. He arrived with the first shipments of Stinger missiles that Washington dispatched to the combatants, and he spent a good deal of time in the mountains with the resistance groups. Not long ago, I asked Bearden, who is now retired, if he had known bin Laden during the war years.

"No," he replied. "Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did, but did I say that this tall, slim, ascetic Saudi was instrumental? No, I did not. There were a lot of bin Ladens who came to do jihad, and they unburdened us a lot. These guys were bringing in up to twenty to twenty-five million dollars a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra two hundred to three hundred million dollars a year. And this is what bin Laden did. He spent most of the war as a fund-raiser, in Peshawar. He was not a valiant warrior on the battlefield."




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
As far as the ISI, if you think they are pursuing anyones' agenda but their own, you would be quite mistaken. The Pakistani's were astute enough to know we were really pissed after 9/11 and knew it was effectively a matter of national survival that they cooperate.

the pakistanis didn't need a reason to cooperate after 9-11 since they were all ready helping BEFORE 9-11. we were running global hawks out of pakistan since 99. shit we picked up people in the n west provences there with snatch and grabs in 2000 and early 01. they knew were were there and they were helping. we picked up ramzi yousef in pakistan in 1995



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
In anycase, there are numerous factions in the ISI and their connection to Al-Qaida and the Taliban was quite close as they were fighting a proxy war with India (the Indians supported the Nothern Alliance before we did). If they were such great allies, why did the Pakistanis not cooperate before 9/11. Do you really believe they were totally ignorant of Al-Qaida planning?

maybe you missed i don't know say everything thats happen in the past few years but even obl admits only a very few people knew about 9-11. the high jackers didn't even know what was going to happen on 9-11. shit obl joked that they didn't know

OBL: The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.

OBL: (…inaudible…) then he said: Those who were trained to fly didn't know the others. One group of people did not know the other group. (…inaudible…)




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Did they not realize, as I did, that something really big was coming 9/09/01 when Masood was assassinated in order to purge Afghanistan of any possible leaders that the U.S. could support against them.

nice revisionism. i'm willing to bet you didn't even know who he was before 9-11. did you see him brought up in a tv speacal? let me guess you saw the thing from national geographic on him right? or cnn? maybe fox? and if you were so sure something big was coming why didn't you go out and warn people? hold a news conference? tell the local paper etc etc. because i'll be straight i ain't buying what your selling because again to be straight your new on the boards and you don't have the creditability to make such a claim. oh and the other reason i don't by it was he wasn't assasinated he was attacked on 9/9/01 which was just one of many attempts on his life and he was injured but didn't die until 9/14/01 even then it might have been because of lack of medical care and the fact the the taliban ,at times, claimed responsiblity and a taliban offensive happened shortly there after:

http://www.newsday.com/ny-woafgh152367620sep15.story

But since the assassination explosion Sunday, the Taliban appear to have stepped up their attacks against Masood's forces, the last cohesive military force facing the hard-line Islamic group.

A major Taliban offensive was launched north of Kabul two days after the attack and Friday AIP reported other Taliban forces in the far north of Afghanistan had made their biggest gains against the opposition in two years.





Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That was big of him! I wonder how much this corrupt douche, Lt. Gen Ahmed, knew about the 9/11 plot. I bet he had a really good idea something was about to happen!

some how i doubt that since even most of the high jackers didn't know what they were going to do on 9-11 as i pointed out earlier.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Brezinzski can crow all he wants. Carter was out by 1981 and the Reagan Administration were the ones who up'ed the ante' by providing more than the crude Soviet designed weapons that the mujahedeen started out with. Especially stinger missiles they used to essentially win the war. There were also people in the intelligence community that grew increasingly concerned that we were supporting the wrong mujahedeen, which was comprised of an umbrella of several factions. And the Saudis supported the most radical with the money we helped them pump in.

do your homework. the plan in afghanistan was a five year plan that carter implemented and wasn't change by anyone. the afghans didn't use any high tech weapons and were only given a dozen or so stingers some of which were returned after the were used which now hang on some peoples walls in their offices. the afghans mostly used captured soviet weapons or imported chinese ones that were given to them by the pakistanis. hell they even used muskets that the british left behind



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Gross hyperbole on Clinton. And Bush hasn't stopped anything

really? go look up and see when when he sold all his shit:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm

The confessed proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000, though it is suspected that proliferation activities to North Korea continued after that date. The network used to supply these activities is global in scope, stretching from Germany to Dubai and from China to South Asia, and involves numerous middlemen and suppliers.

gee it looks like clinton was in charge most of those years now what about bush:

http://www.dawn.com/2004/10/27/top10.htm

WASHINGTON, Oct 26: The Bush administration launched its campaign to persuade President Pervez Musharraf to remove Dr A. Q. Khan from Pakistan's nuclear establishment as early as 2001, months before the Sept 11, terrorist attacks, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

now tell me is the guy in business now? no but he did all is damage YEARS ago under clinton.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But not Bin Laden and his senior circle. Very interesting.

do your homework on the people i listed or better yet i'll do it for you:

KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED uncle of 1993 wtc bomber ramzi yousef(who was also caught in pakistan) was the planner of 9-11 and was the number 4 man in al queda right behind obl,zawari, and attef.

ABU ZUBAYDAH he's about number 5 or 7 on the list and was a key operational planner for 9-11

RAMZI BINALSHIBH another planner and possable high jacker on 9-11. the only reason he wasn't on any plane is because his visa was denied.

nope no one from his inner circle just the people who are on tape bragging about how they planned 9-11

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/08/60II/main524794.shtml

Atta's Roommate Outlines 9/11 Plot

(CBS) 60 Minutes II will broadcast excerpts that have not been heard in America of Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda’s interview with Ramzi Binalshibh, who describes how the Sept. 11 plot developed, how the terrorists were chosen, how they trained for their mission and how they chose the date.

Binalshibh was Mohamed Atta’s roommate and is the self-described coordinator of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

During the interview, conducted in Karachi, Pakistan, in June, Binalshibh describes how the Sept. 11 plot evolved from the choice of terrorists to the choice of date. Correspondent Bob Simon’s report will be broadcast tonight, Oct. 9, at 8 p.m., ET/PT.

Nickdfresh
12-07-2004, 03:48 PM
L Wilbury:


Originally posted by lucky wilbury
bin laden didn't use any intelligence. shit the intel we would get would be from pakistan on how things were going. now who would be more reliable to the arabs other arabs or the americans? gee i wonder who. he used plenty on his own money. he used to play to have heavy equipment flown into pakistan to be used to build bases their. that info isn't new its so old it's not funny. :

I never said he didn't use his own money. I merely said he received a sizable amount of funding from Saudi supporters, by the way, just because he impressed all of the poor mujahedeen with his extensive funds didn't mean that all of the money came from his account. In fact, I'm sure a lot of the money came from Dubyas family friends, the Bin Ladens before Osama was "cut off."

As far as intellignce, I'm sure Bin Laden received no information on Soviet weapon systems and tactics that didn't origionate, one way or another, from the CIA of the military.



The C.I.A. station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989 was Milt Bearden..."There were a lot of bin Ladens who came to do jihad, and they unburdened us a lot. These guys were bringing in up to twenty to twenty-five million dollars a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra two hundred to three hundred million dollars a year. And this is what bin Laden did. He spent most of the war as a fund-raiser, in Peshawar. He was not a valiant warrior on the battlefield."

Exactly my point! We let these fundimentalist douchebags take over the war, often at the expence of more western leaning groups




the pakistanis didn't need a reason to cooperate after 9-11 since they were all ready helping BEFORE 9-11. we were running global hawks out of pakistan since 99. shit we picked up people in the n west provences there with snatch and grabs in 2000 and early 01. they knew were were there and they were helping. we picked up ramzi yousef in pakistan in 1995

They were playing both sides with their hearts with the Taliban and their pocket books with the US. If Pakistan, or the ISI more specifically, was so pro-US, why did they not quit supporting the Taliban that they in fact knew was in league with Bin Laden who was one of the main Taliban strategists?





maybe you missed i don't know say everything thats happen in the past few years but even obl admits only a very few people knew about 9-11. the high jackers didn't even know what was going to happen on 9-11. shit obl joked that they didn't know

OBL: The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.

OBL: (…inaudible…) then he said: Those who were trained to fly didn't know the others. One group of people did not know the other group. (…inaudible…)

I'm not disputing that the operation had a high level of secrecy and compartmentalization, but we now know that the Taliban leadership was in on the the whole operation. ANd if the Taliban leadership was in on it, guess who else was...THE PUPPETMASTER PAKISTANI's and the ISI!






nice revisionism. i'm willing to bet you didn't even know who he was before 9-11. did you see him brought up in a tv speacal? let me guess you saw the thing from national geographic on him right? or cnn? maybe fox? and if you were so sure something big was coming why didn't you go out and warn people? hold a news conference? tell the local paper etc etc. because i'll be straight i ain't buying what your selling because again to be straight your new on the boards and you don't have the creditability to make such a claim. oh and the other reason i don't by it was he wasn't assasinated he was attacked on 9/9/01 which was just one of many attempts on his life and he was injured but didn't die until 9/14/01 even then it might have been because of lack of medical care and the fact the the taliban ,at times, claimed responsiblity and a taliban offensive happened shortly there after:

http://www.newsday.com/ny-woafgh152367620sep15.story

But since the assassination explosion Sunday, the Taliban appear to have stepped up their attacks against Masood's forces, the last cohesive military force facing the hard-line Islamic group.

A major Taliban offensive was launched north of Kabul two days after the attack and Friday AIP reported other Taliban forces in the far north of Afghanistan had made their biggest gains against the opposition in two years.


I actually remeber what I was doing when I heard on NPR he was killed by suicide bombers posing as cameramen/journalists. I was shaving in my bathroom and recall being sort of nervous after hearing it. I certainly had no idea that this meant planes were going to be flying into WTCs two days later, but I had a really bad feeling never the less.

And I wasn't working in the intelligence community then, the people who were should have had the hair stand up on the back of their necks when that happened. I was aware of Bin Laden since I had a certain perverse interest in the Afghan war up into high school, and even in the Army. I followed the battles between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban as early as 91.' I admittedly may not have been ables to pick Masood out of a line up, but I was aware he was the only reason the N. Alliance never folded to begin with.

What did the ISI make of his death? I bet they felt really good about it! Our wonderful fucking allies!

What's that? The Friend of my enemy is my ambiguious friend?







ome how i doubt that since even most of the high jackers didn't know what they were going to do on 9-11 as i pointed out earlier.

I totally agree that the "muscle" thought it would be a conventional hijacking, yes. But I'm not taliking about foot solders. I meant the Generals!




do your homework. the plan in afghanistan was a five year plan that carter implemented and wasn't change by anyone. the afghans didn't use any high tech weapons and were only given a dozen or so stingers some of which were returned after the were used which now hang on some peoples walls in their offices. the afghans mostly used captured soviet weapons or imported chinese ones that were given to them by the pakistanis. hell they even used muskets that the british left behind

My homework? Wrong! The Afghan's were clever and resourceful no doubt, but they received billions in Soviet style weapons.

A dozen Stingers??? No, try hundreds!

Associated Press September 24, 2001
Stinger missiles said unlikely to threaten U.S. troops in Afghanistan

BY: JOHN J. LUMPKIN

American-made Stinger surface-to-air missiles remain in small numbers in Afghanistan, left over from when the United States supported rebels fighting the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. The shoulder-fired, heat-seeking Stinger is capable of bringing down a low-flying plane or a helicopter.

Both Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia and the rebels of the Northern Alliance are believed to have a small supply of the missiles. Experts said it is unlikely they will present a great threat to U.S. aircraft flying over the country. During the late 1980s, the CIA, through Pakistan, supplied hundreds of missiles and launchers to the Afghan rebels, the mujahedeen. The rebels used the Stingers effectively, bringing down scores of Soviet helicopter gunships.

The introduction of Stingers into the conflict is widely regarded as a turning point in the war, as it gave the rebels a high-tech weapon to oppose the Soviets. The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, and the communist government there fell a short time later.

The missiles still in Afghanistan are at least a decade old and have not been properly maintained. U.S. aircraft and helicopters have newer countermeasures and flares to divert the missiles.

Stingers also are more effective in daylight, when a gunner can more easily pinpoint his target before firing. U.S. helicopters carrying special forces will probably operate only at night, said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a think tank in Alexandria, Virginia. "You think about American forces - we own the night," he said.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, said the Stingers supplied to Afghanistan also had "friend-or-foe" receivers that only let them be fired at Soviet aircraft. Those can be removed by a clever engineer, he said.

"The Stinger weapons are kind of obsolete weapons at this point," Cannistraro said. "They have a mythological status."

Several Taliban soldiers were seen toting Stingers in a recent military parade in Kabul. The missiles still see action from time to time in Afghanistan's ongoing civil war.

In 1999, a Stinger fired by the Northern Alliance brought down a Taliban Su-22 fighter-bomber. At the time, it was estimated that between 50 and 100 Stingers remained in the country.

Several years ago, the United States launched a buyback program, offering to purchase remaining Stinger missiles for dlrs 80,000. Washington said it feared the missiles could be used by terrorists against civilian aircraft.

The missiles, built by Hughes Missile Systems in Tucson, Arizona, have a range of about two miles (three kilometers) and can hit targets at altitudes around 12,000 feet (3,600 meters).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2001 Associated Press

[/url]


really? go look up and see when when he sold all his shit:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010924-attack01.htm)

The confessed proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000, though it is suspected that proliferation activities to North Korea continued after that date. The network used to supply these activities is global in scope, stretching from Germany to Dubai and from China to South Asia, and involves numerous middlemen and suppliers.

gee it looks like clinton was in charge most of those years now what about bush:

[url]http://www.dawn.com/2004/10/27/top10.htm

WASHINGTON, Oct 26: The Bush administration launched its campaign to persuade President Pervez Musharraf to remove Dr A. Q. Khan from Pakistan's nuclear establishment as early as 2001, months before the Sept 11, terrorist attacks, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

now tell me is the guy in business now? no but he did all is damage YEARS ago under clinton.

Okay, you got me there! Now our problem is Iran and we are effectively unable to do anything about it because Bush has us tied down in the Iraqi quagmire!




do your homework on the people i listed or better yet i'll do it for you:

KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED uncle of 1993 wtc bomber ramzi yousef(who was also caught in pakistan) was the planner of 9-11 and was the number 4 man in al queda right behind obl,zawari, and attef.

ABU ZUBAYDAH he's about number 5 or 7 on the list and was a key operational planner for 9-11

RAMZI BINALSHIBH another planner and possable high jacker on 9-11. the only reason he wasn't on any plane is because his visa was denied.

nope no one from his inner circle just the people who are on tape bragging about how they planned 9-11

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/08/60II/main524794.shtml

Atta's Roommate Outlines 9/11 Plot

(CBS) 60 Minutes II will broadcast excerpts that have not been heard in America of Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda’s interview with Ramzi Binalshibh, who describes how the Sept. 11 plot developed, how the terrorists were chosen, how they trained for their mission and how they chose the date.

Binalshibh was Mohamed Atta’s roommate and is the self-described coordinator of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

During the interview, conducted in Karachi, Pakistan, in June, Binalshibh describes how the Sept. 11 plot evolved from the choice of terrorists to the choice of date. Correspondent Bob Simon’s report will be broadcast tonight, Oct. 9, at 8 p.m., ET/PT.

lucky wilbury
12-07-2004, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

I never said he didn't use his own money. I merely said he received a sizable amount of funding from Saudi supporters, by the way, just because he impressed all of the poor mujahedeen with his extensive funds didn't mean that all of the money came from his account. In fact, I'm sure a lot of the money came from Dubyas family friends, the Bin Ladens before Osama was "cut off."

theres no reason to bring bush into this. in the 80's it was customary for muslims around the world to donate money to "charity" that was then used for use in afghanistan or to fund terrorist groups like hamas. hell if you smoked dope in the 80's money from that has been used to fund terrorist attacks againest us.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
As far as intellignce, I'm sure Bin Laden received no information on Soviet weapon systems and tactics that didn't origionate, one way or another, from the CIA of the military.

the cia and the military in general overestimated what the soviets can do. the afghan for the most part had almost a trial and error way of attacking the soviets and the evenutally refined that into the tactics they used. they would attack a convoy that was heading to a base, wait for that base to send people to rescue that convy then attack that base and steal what ever wasen't bolted down. that was just one of may things they did.





Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Exactly my point! We let these fundimentalist douchebags take over the war, often at the expence of more western leaning groups

through the 80's the afghans and the jihadist praised us for helping them bring down the "godless" soviets. the afghans still liked us into the 90's until we allowed the taliban to take hold in 95 or 96. they lost some faith in us then but they love us again now that the taliban is gone. the jihadists on the other hand really becuase uber fundalmentalists under the taliban. or lack of opposition to the taliban in the 90's allowed it to grow



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They were playing both sides with their hearts with the Taliban and their pocket books with the US. If Pakistan, or the ISI more specifically, was so pro-US, why did they not quit supporting the Taliban that they in fact knew was in league with Bin Laden who was one of the main Taliban strategists?

only part of the isi was in on the taliban sort of a rouge op that was run by former fighters that later because isi. the isi for the most part looked the other way because post soviet union and with the collapse of the afghan gov they thought it was in thier best interest to allow a group like the taliban to take over so their would be some stability and the flood of refugees would stop.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm not disputing that the operation had a high level of secrecy and compartmentalization, but we now know that the Taliban leadership was in on the the whole operation. ANd if the Taliban leadership was in on it, guess who else was...THE PUPPETMASTER PAKISTANI's and the ISI!

the only evidence of anyone knowing anything was mullah omar and even then it is reported he had only told people after the fact that he knew anything.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I actually remeber what I was doing when I heard on NPR he was killed by suicide bombers posing as cameramen/journalists. I was shaving in my bathroom and recall being sort of nervous after hearing it. I certainly had no idea that this meant planes were going to be flying into WTCs two days later, but I had a really bad feeling never the less.

And I wasn't working in the intelligence community then, the people who were should have had the hair stand up on the back of their necks when that happened. I was aware of Bin Laden since I had a certain perverse interest in the Afghan war up into high school, and even in the Army. I followed the battles between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban as early as 91.' I admittedly may not have been ables to pick Masood out of a line up, but I was aware he was the only reason the N. Alliance never folded to begin with.

i'm not doubting you that you may have heard about it. the only reason i questioned it is we've had nuts and trolls come in here saying they knew what was going to happend because of that and bush knew and he let 9-11 happend and bush planned 9-11 etc etc etc and every other bullshit theory on the net. they come in stir up trouble and leave. his death on a tactical level made sense to the taliban because they wanted to end the northern alliance. the attack on him and his eventual death probably did even raise an eyebrow because in the end soneone else maybe not as carasmatic and media savy as him would have taken him place. when they taliban started buying off warlords like hecmetayer and dostum that should have been red flagged.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What did the ISI make of his death? I bet they felt really good about it! Our wonderful fucking allies!

i bet they thought good now they'll be stability and all the refugees can return home.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I totally agree that the "muscle" thought it would be a conventional hijacking, yes. But I'm not taliking about foot solders. I meant the Generals!

the 9-11 op had a great deal of security and it's belived only obl,zawahri,atteff,KSM, ZUBAYDAH and Binalshibh knew about it. and those pricks didn't talk to or trust many people ouside their circle.






Originally posted by Nickdfresh
My homework? Wrong! The Afghan's were clever and resourceful no doubt, but they received billions in Soviet style weapons.

A dozen Stingers??? No, try hundreds!


"In 1999, a Stinger fired by the Northern Alliance brought down a Taliban Su-22 fighter-bomber. At the time, it was estimated that between 50 and 100 Stingers remained in the country."

i should have said that were used. after they took down a few russian helicopters the russians no longer started to provide close air support for their troops



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Okay, you got me there! Now our problem is Iran and we are effectively unable to do anything about it because Bush has us tied down in the Iraqi quagmire!

just by them being there puts pressure on the iranians. and witht eh threat of sanctions the iranians are coming around