Idiot, if your strategy is creating more enemies rather than fewer enemies, it is a failure.
I guess you missed my point. Unless you think the strategy in the entire middle east should be pull out. Abandon any allies in the region. Yankee Go Home. Oh, wait! That is what you think. Right?
Address the issue, which is the WOT is supposed to result in fewer terrorists, not more.
Did the war against Germany result in fewer German soldiers ... before we won? Did the war against Vietnam result in fewer North Vietnamese soldiers? Did the cold war result in smaller Soviet forces ... before we won? Could it be that you are trying to look at this in too simplistic a fashion?
"So have things really changed for the worse?"
According to the people of Iraq, yes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece "DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services."
And your claim that "thousands dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control" is dubious to put it mildly.
On the contrary. That was the claim of many of those now on your side of the Iraq war debate. It was a claim based on experts in epidemiology at the UN and WHO. It was a claim blessed by none other than the Lancet, whom you've defended on numerous occasions.
Why was Bush "just like the DemocRATS" and turned down 3 separate requests by his own armed forces to attack Zarqawi when he was in Kurdistan beyond the reach of Saddam and protected by the United States Air Force.
Well first of all, he wasn't "protected by the United States Air Force". Second, there was no more guarantee that bombing the camps in Northern Iraq would kill al-Zarqawi than there was that bombing bin Laden's camps would kill bin Laden. They did that remember? And a few years later was 9/11.
You have NO plan for what you would have done about a guy in Iraq who was funding and masterminding plans to kill tens of thousands in Jordan, including many Americans.
Right under the nose of the American occupation, Zarqawi actually did kill thousands including many Americans, and not just "plot" to do it as you allege.
But eventually they found and killed him. Were it up to you, he'd still be running around free ... plotting, planning and murdering. Perhaps tens of thousands.
So you've been rebutted.
I notice that you didn't deny my assertion that you'd NOT have bombed al-Zarqawi's camps if it had been up to you. That you'd NOT have put men on the ground to make sure he was dead. No, instead you would have sounded the retreat and pulled all American influence out of the Middle East and the rest of the world.
Your comments about "What would you have done about Zarqawi" are absolutely and totally irrelevant
On the contrary ... they've exposed who you are AGAviator.
You've absolutely and totally been refuted.
I notice you haven't denied my assertion that you'd NOT have bombed the camps in Northern Iraq, if you'd have been President at the time. Just has you'd not have gone to the aid of Kuwait in 1991. I'm sorry AGAviator, but the readers of this thread should should know that you think we have no business being in the ME at all. That we should just abandon all allies there and withdraw all influence we have ... all contacts we have. Then they'll have no reason to attack us. Right?
And I notice that you don't deny my assertion that you don't think the WOT is real. You think it is just as phony as what the many links I've provided say about al-Zarqawi. Right? Folks should know that too.
Iraq is a safe haven for terrorists to this day.
Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists. If you think so, you don't know the meaning of the term "safe haven". There is no place in Iraq where they can go that we won't strike if we find out about them. A far cry from the days of Saddam, when terrorists were even operating in Baghdad under the nose of Saddam to attack us.
That's why thousands of non-terrorists are dying every month.
Make up your mind. Is it sectarian violence or al-Qaeda terrorists who are responsible for the killing of most innocent Iraqis? Or would you claim its us?
Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
"And his proof for this? What's the name of his source?"
More of your patented intellectual dishonesty.
What's the problem, AGAviator? Don't you know who his source is?
The facts are that Zarqawi was not killing people when Saddam was in power
Now that's not true. A US diplomat was murdered by al-Zarqawi when Saddam was still in power. And al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad at the time.
Fuck you and do your own research, troll.
Thanks for demonstrating once again how 4umers debate ... those, that is, that don't hide behind bozo filters to avoid debate entirely.
Why waste time arguing with lying, murdering, criminals and their facilitators/enablers? If the rules of honest debate and fair play cannot be successfully invoked and if the next morning any points you scored are ignored and the shill is right back on the playbook, then you should assume that any frustration you display is a source of humor for them.
That's right, 4umers. Withdraw behind a bozo filter like HoundDawg.
Nothing like living in a world of self-delusion where only one side of the debate is even heard.
HOWSUMEVER, might I remind one and all that when you are listing anything about the 'terrorists', you MUST always remember to list that D) he hates us for our freedoms!
Got it? Sheesh..........and here I was thinkin youse about as smart as them eye-stein pepples. :
Some days are more about style and I indulge myself, hopefully with the understanding of others.
And, you're right.
They hate us for our govt's freedom to select a country and exercise the freedom to slaughter them all, plunder their antiquities, contract their mineral rights away for profit and power, and take any discussion of morality off the table because Israel wants it and ....Hell, I shouldn't have said that. Because Israel wants it no explanation should be offered, period.
If I'm still in shock and trying to get my mind around the truth then I'm a handicapped excuse for an American. Real Americans don't faint at the sight of rivers of blood. And they don't demand explanations for piles of bodies.
That's why I only supply proof when I feel it's appropriate
Doesn't wash, AGAviator.
The reason you don't supply proof for much of what you claim is that you CAN'T.
I will, however, continue to rebut lies, misinformation, and seriously flawed excuses for arguments as I feel like it.
Good, I hope you try. Just like you've tried (and failed) here.
As far as lurkers scanning the thread - BAC's pretend audience
Go ahead, AGAviator, insult anyone who might chance upon this website. I wouldn't dream of doing that. I just want them to know what's really going on here. And dig a little deeper than just accepting the nonsense you folks post and claim on topic after topic.
Just curious, Christine. How many different folks actually visit 4um on an average day? Compared to the number of members. You must have statistics like that. I'm just wondering how big this "pretend" audience is?
I like him enough in a weird kind of way when he is not being too rude. He is fun to try to pin down and you have to admire his tenacity though I get angry with him sometimes.
Christine can you restore his ROTFLOF! privilages as it took away from his much-needed humorous side.
And, the army's own expert returned from Iraq with his dying team
Never happened. Post ANY source that actually confirms what Rokke claims about his credentials, time in Iraq and the condition of his team. Go ahead.
Maj. Rokke had no reason to lie
Yet he did. Clearly did. On multiple occasions. So why did he lie, Dawg?
And what did shill boy say? Why, there's no documentation to support the diagnoses of DU sickness in any service people
I never said any such thing. Strawmen seem to be all your side has, Dawg.
or the estimated 500,000 Iraqi babies who were affected.
Estimated by whom? *Dr* Rokke? A guy who LIES? Certainly no health physicist has estimated that. Nor any other peer reviewed credible source.
And, what about the ALA guard unit who upon return from Desert Storm suffered a 67% rate of profound birth defects, including children born with no eyes, arms or brain stems?
Oh by all means link us to the source of this claim.
Actually, he did. And he planned to kill many more while still under Saddam. If we hadn't invaded, the attack on Jordan would still have occurred ... and perhaps succeeded since then he would been able to monitor the planning more carefully instead of spending most of his time RUNNING from Coalition forces looking for him. And then tens of thousands would have died including everyone in the US embassy in Amman. How many Americans would that have been, AGAviator?
When you insult other people on a site that already doesn't like you
I haven't insulted anyone while on this site. I've been most courteous. Just like now.
Even at LP I never really insulted people. I just pointed out the truth about them. Some were liars. Some were democRATS. Some didn't like America. In each case, there were clear reasons to think those assertions were right. But I never used foul language. I never called insulted the intelligence of someone unless they'd already insulted mine (and even then I often ignored their insults).
And now even posting facts to 4umers is considered an insult. Go figure. ROTFLOL!
#204. To: Zipporah, AGAviator, christine, ALL (#195)
FYI in 06 we had 13,101,026 hits
Wow! So the hundred or so 4um members are either really addicted to this site or there are quite a few lurkers stumbling onto the site from time to time.
christine never took away my ROTFLOL! privleges. I agreed to reduce the usage of the term to see if she was right ... that 4umers would become more civil to me if I did. So far it looks like christine was wrong.
I guess you missed my point. Unless you think the strategy in the entire middle east should be pull out. Abandon any allies in the region.
Furter proof of your stupidity, as if it were needed.
You actually want to claim the US has "allies" instead of nations using us?
What a dimwit.
Address the issue, which is the WOT is supposed to result in fewer terrorists, not more.
Did the war against Germany result in fewer German soldiers ... before we won? Did the war against Vietnam result in fewer North Vietnamese soldiers? Did the cold war result in smaller Soviet forces ... before we won?
Were we "winning" when the number of German, and Soviet soldiers was increasing, numbskull spammer?
"DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.
Don't bother to read your own blurbs, do you...
Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.
Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in statistics — Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Ba’athist regime (51%) while the Shi’ites (66%) preferred the Maliki government.
And your claim that "thousands dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control" is dubious to put it mildly.
On the contrary. That was the claim of many of those now on your side of the Iraq war debate. It was a claim based on experts in epidemiology at the UN and WHO. It was a claim blessed by none other than the Lancet
You have no shame, do you, to quote the Lancet.
Well first of all, he wasn't "protected by the United States Air Force".
He was.
Second, there was no more guarantee that bombing the camps in Northern Iraq would kill al-Zarqawi than there was that bombing bin Laden's camps would kill bin Laden.
Bush also refused to send in Special Forces.
Right under the nose of the American occupation, Zarqawi actually did kill thousands including many Americans, and not just "plot" to do it as you allege.
But eventually they found and killed him.
After he had done what he set out to do, and after getting tens of thousands of new followers as the result of the invasion.
Were it up to you, he'd still be running around free ... plotting, planning and murdering. Perhaps tens of thousands.
Bullshit.
I notice that you didn't deny my assertion that you'd NOT have bombed al- Zarqawi's camps if it had been up to you.
I don't need to reply to your arm-waving, off-topic hypotheticals.
Your comments about "What would you have done about Zarqawi" are absolutely and totally irrelevant
On the contrary ... they've exposed who you are AGAviator.
Dream on. You've been soundly whacked over Bush not doing anything about Zarqawi for years, and you've been whacked about Zarqawi not killing people when Saddam was in power.
So what's your response? Wave your arm and declare yourself a winnner. That exposes you for who you are.
I notice you haven't denied my assertion that you'd NOT have bombed the camps in Northern Iraq, if you'd have been President at the time.
I don't reply to your off-topic hypotheticals.
That we should just abandon all allies there
We have no allies, and only a fool would maintain otherwise.
And I notice that you don't deny my assertion that you don't think the WOT is real. You think it is just as phony as what the many links I've provided say about al-Zarqawi. Right? Folks should know that too.
I don't need to. And your pretend "folks" should know that you're engaging in one of your patented off-topic sideshows.
Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists. If you think so, you don't know the meaning of the term "safe haven". There is no place in Iraq where they can go that we won't strike if we find out about them. A far cry from the days of Saddam, when terrorists were even operating in Baghdad under the nose of Saddam to attack us.
More people are dying of terrorists in Iraq than have ever died when Saddam ruled Iraq. Terrorists expect to be killed themselves. The fact that more are being killed is irrelevant. Terrorism has increased and is increasing.
Make up your mind. Is it sectarian violence or al-Qaeda terrorists who are responsible for the killing of most innocent Iraqis? Or would you claim its us?
All of the above are contributing factors to the unnecessary deaths in Iraq. The exact numbers are irrelevant.
What's the problem, AGAviator? Don't you know who his source is?
It's irrelvant, like most of your comments.
A US diplomat was murdered by al-Zarqawi when Saddam was still in power. And al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad at the time.
One US diplomat. And says who?
Fuck you and do your own research, troll.
Thanks for demonstrating once again how 4umers debate
Interactions with you are not debate. They're about you taking things off topic, spamming, and demanding more and more and more proof whenever you get impeached.
And about you thinking people are stupid enough that you can throw your non- answers at them and not get called on it.
So...Fuck you, troll.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
I haven't insulted anyone while on this site. I've been most courteous. Just like now.
Your spam, and non-answers scream at people saying they're stupid.
So don't play coy with me, boy.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
Post a link to what you claim. You may just be making it up same as Rokke made up his "health physicist" credential.
Oh I see - now you want to smear me, not just DR. Rokke. Well, I can't say I'm surprised - so much for your promise to be polite and civil. Ahem. There goes yet another promise to christine and freedom4um posters. Drum roll - are there any promises left from the list you gave us in February that you have not broken yet - zero, I'll bet.
See post my #145 on this thread for instructions on how to obtain copies of Dr. Rokke's military records and letter of introduction to Captains Armstrong, Brannon, Carter who served on Operation Desert Shield - 3 different Med Grps. Toodles, boozer.
I'm not the one claiming that outside of its members, 4um just has a "pretend" audience.
You are not 4um, spambot.
You have a *pretend* audience.
Have I made myself clear?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
Strawman. Is that all 4umers have in their debate toolkit?
Split hairs over definitions.
Spam non-answers repeatedly, post after post.
Call the other person or his source a liar.
Demand additional proof.
Change the subject.
That's all you have.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
"Four years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, nearly 9 of 10 Iraqis say they live in fear that the violence ravaging their country will strike themselves and the people with whom they live. Just 5% say they worry "hardly at all" about the safety of those in their household..."
There was very little trust in U.S. and British troops. By a ratio of more than 4-to-1 — 82%-to-18% — Iraqis surveyed said they had little confidence in coalition forces.
So you cite a poll that says that 49% of Iraqis - less than a majority and the majority of them Shiites - say they prefer Maliki - who is *supposed* to be independent of American control.
That means 51% of Iraqis - more than a majority - say Maliki is either worse, just as bad, or refused to answer.
And that means things are getting better to a 'botspammer.
Meanwhile, 90% of Iraqis say they live in fear of their safety, and by 4 to 1 they don't trust either US or British forces.
You've been whacked again, troll.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
Oh I see - now you want to smear me, not just DR. Rokke.
Smear Rokke? No, just tell the whole story. Smear you? No, I just wanted you to post a link to the material you were claiming about his military career so we could know where you got it. I'm sorry if I offended you by suggesting the link might not exist. Maybe you should just have cited Wikipedia to begin with?
Well, I can't say I'm surprised - so much for your promise to be polite and civil. Ahem. There goes yet another promise to christine and freedom4um posters. Drum roll - are there any promises left from the list you gave us in February that you have not broken yet - zero, I'll bet.
Why don't you just post a link to my promise so readers can make their own judgment regarding my civility and politeness ... in the face of what has decidedly not been civil or polite behavior by most 4umers.
Poll respondents also said they've seen little progress on reconstruction as a result of billions of dollars in U.S. aid spent since the March 2003 invasion.
By a 2-1 margin, Iraqis called those efforts "ineffective."
The lack of security and basic utilities have made daily life more difficult. "I don't attend the college regularly for security reasons," says Ibrahim Mahdi Al Husaini, 19, a Sunni student. "There is no electricity, so how can I study?"
He is uncertain whether he'll be able to finish his studies and unsure whether he can manage to leave Iraq.
"Overall I am depressed all the time," he said.
About 33% saw "effective" reconstruction efforts, while 67% — 15 percentage points higher than in a similar ABC News survey taken in November 2005 — called them "ineffective."
Nearly one in 10 said they hadn't seen any reconstruction efforts
begun."
You were saying?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
And even if that were true, are you aware that 43% means 57% - a majority - believes otherwise?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
"Iraqis by 43%-36% said life was better than before the invasion."
Where?
And even if that were true,
Don't you believe your own poll?
are you aware that 43% means 57% - a majority - believes otherwise?
This is from the poll your source cited:
***********
2. Compared to the time before the war in spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?
3/5/07 NET Better 43% Much Better 14% Somewhat Better 29% Same 22% NET Worse 36% Somewhat Worse 28% Much Worse 8% No Opinion 0
11/22/05 NET Better 51% Much Better 21% Somewhat Better 31% Same 19% NET Worse 29% Somewhat Worse 19% Much Worse 10% No Opinion 1%
2/28/04 NET Better 56% Much Better 22% Somewhat Better 35% Same 23% NET Worse 19% Somewhat Worse 13% Much Worse 6% No Opinion 2%
*************
Now the interesting thing about the above is that you were still against the war back in 2/28/04 when 59% of the populace said things were better and only 19% said things were worse than during Saddam. Leading one to wonder if you really do care about what the Iraqis think.