 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476
|
 Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 11:16 am Post subject: The Left: demagogues, paranoids, liars, incompetents |
 |
|
| sparky wrote: | | I just don't believe we should have let the neocons sucker us into carrying out their agenda, and that includes conquering a country without WMD's ... Thanks to them, the world considers the US a greater threat to world peace than Al Qaeda. Boy, Bush screwed up and pissed away the world's goodwill after 9/11 and the very things we require to combat islamofascism are greatly impaired: allied cooperation, intelligence, and support of locals in the field. |
The derangement of the Left is becoming clear to ordinary Americans. Unfortunately for the Left, facts are stubborn things. The miracle of the DOD-research-sired internet in locating and publishing those facts makes the Goebbels-like "Big Lies" of the past much more difficult.
In fact, on the "Bush Lied!!!!" on WMD canard, a search brings up the following quotes. These quotes show the Left as one (or more) of the following:
1. Demagogues
2. Paranoid schizophrenics
3. Common liars
4. Incompetents
It's hard to think of any other characterizations of the "Bush Lied!!!!" canard. And the list below does not include the myriad U.N. resolutions and political statements on the Iraq WMD issue dating back to the first Gulf War in the early 1990's.
Would you buy a used Nuke from such a dictator?
=========================
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"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." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let us not forget Senator Kerry's very words as recorded in the Congressional record of November 9, 1997;
"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
'[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value."
(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
"[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
Congressional Record – Senate November 9, 1997 S12254 to S12256
His speech to the Senate may be read in it's entirety here;
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S12254&dbname=1997_record |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No WMD" ? Quotes from David Kay....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99151,00.html
snips from FOX News Sunday, Oct. 5, 2003 with Tony Snow.
SNOW: Let's take a quick look at some of the headlines from this week characterizing your report. I want to get your reaction to them. Here we see The New York Times: "No Illicit Arms." The Washington Post: "No Banned Weapons." The Los Angeles Times: "No Illicit Iraqi Arms." USA Today: "No Illegal Weapons." Is that what you found?
KAY: Well, we certainly found that — have not yet found illicit arms. But that's not the only thing the report says. In fact, I'm sort of amazed at what was powerful information about both their intent and their actual activities that were not known and were hidden from U.N. inspectors seems not to have made it to the press. This is information that, had it been available last year, would have been headline news.
-------------
KAY: Well, the rocket propellants are really an interesting story I'm surprised no one has picked up on. We have Iraqis now telling us that they continued, until 2001 or early 2002, to be capable of mixing and preparing Scud missile fuel.
Scud missile fuel is only useful in Scud missiles, no other class of missiles that Iraq has. And yet Iraq declared that it got rid of all of its Scud missiles in the early 1990s. Why would you continue to produce Scud missile fuel if you didn't have Scuds? We're looking for the Scuds.
SNOW: In speaking to reporters the other day, you also said that you were examining the possible cross-border transportation of arms into Syria, Jordan and Iran. Now, the Jordanian government has said, absolutely not true. Do you still think it's possible that arms could have made their way into Jordan?
KAY: Well, we're still examining what moved where. We have multiple reports from Iraqis of moving material. We do know that documents were taken to Jordan, because we're engaged in negotiations with someone who is in Jordan to recover those documents. I have no personal knowledge that weapons were moved into Jordan.
------------
SNOW: How about Syria? I've heard talk of convoys making their way out of Iraq into Syria in the weeks before the war. What have you heard?
KAY: We've heard the same reports. Actually, we have probably more specific evidence on that, on dates, times...
SNOW: I would suspect you know more than I do on that.
KAY: ... and routes taken. The difficulty we have is proving what was in the convoys, and that's where we're stymied right now.
-------------------
SNOW: But how about in other weapons? Has anything else come across? Because one of the things you document is a very thorough program of trying to destroy evidence in the wake of the U.S. and British invasion.
KAY: We have discovered documentary evidence that relates to various terrorist connections, and what happens, Tony, when we do that, is we immediately turn it over. I have an FBI rep who's on the Iraq Survey Group. We turn it over to those people whose professional business is investigating those ties.
===============
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml
Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief By Con Coughlin (Filed: 5/01/2004)
KAY: "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
Former chief U.S. inspector faults intelligence agencies
KAY: "There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved," Kay said. But, he said, "the Syrian government there has shown absolutely no interest in helping us resolve this issue." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I just don't believe we should have let the neocons sucker us into carrying out their agenda, and that includes conquering a country without WMD's ... Thanks to them, the world considers the US a greater threat to world peace than Al Qaeda. Boy, Bush screwed up and pissed away the world's goodwill after 9/11 and the very things we require to combat islamofascism are greatly impaired: allied cooperation, intelligence, and support of locals in the field. |
I think that the Democrats learned their lesson about trusting Bush when he claims to have intelligence about WMD's or Nigerian yellow cake Uranium. As for those Democrats who suspected or believed that Saddam had WMD's, they didn't lead the nation into war prematurely and without international cooperation and they wouldn't have.
As a result, they wouldn't have put us in the position of being considered more dangerous than Iran or Syria.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2994924.stm
Have we learned our lesson about the importance of international cooperation? I don't think so. The propaganda machine still has too many people unaware that Saddam didn't have WMD's or that there was no Bin Ladin link.
Boy, Bush screwed up and pissed away the world's goodwill after 9/11 and the very things we require to combat islamofascism are greatly impaired: allied cooperation, intelligence, and support of locals in the field. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="sparky"][quote]As a result, they wouldn't have put us in the position of being considered more dangerous than Iran or Syria.
quote]
Depends on who is doing the considering. Might be good to be thought of that way. Might not. Depends on what you mean by "dangerous". I'm sure certain countries or individuals have considered the U.S. "dangerous" for more that 50 years. More so than Iran and Syria? I should hope so.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: |
Have we learned our lesson about the importance of international cooperation? I don't think so. |
Just curious Sparky. Given that we prepared to go to war in WWII expecting only the Commonwealth and China to be our allies, would you have spoke against fighting the Japanese and Germans since we didn't have international cooperation?
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
The vast majority of Europe that had been conquered by Hitler supported us in our efforts. I say this because I don't consider the occupation governments installed by Hitler in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium, Poland, Holland, etc... to be legitimate. Neither did the citizens of those countries.
And the world generally did not oppose our involvement in WWII. The world does oppose our involvement in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Depends on who is doing the considering. Might be good to be thought of that way. Might not. Depends on what you mean by "dangerous". I'm sure certain countries or individuals have considered the U.S. "dangerous" for more that 50 years. More so than Iran and Syria? I should hope so. |
Lots of blahblah there, Capro. The BBC poll included 11 nations. There's no "depends" about it. Read about it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2994924.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since we've moved to this point about Europe during WW2, here are comments from a timely article written in a major magazine titled, American Are Losing The Victory...;
The upshot was that just seven months after the end of hostilities, things are a complete and deteriorating mess. Here are some of the more depressing details. A soldier says, "We've lost the peace. We can't make it stick."
The writer observes, "Never has American prestige in Europe (search) been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops." The French warn that, "our policy is producing results opposite too those we planned." Meanwhile, some troops are tired of talk about grants to the war-torn nation. Says one, "Let them pay for it. It's their fault."
And finally, this: "A great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease... The time has come for our own future security, to give the best we have to the world instead of the worst."
Sound familiar? The author of the piece: John Dos Passos. The source: Life Magazine. The date: January 7, 1946.
http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | The vast majority of Europe that had been conquered by Hitler supported us in our efforts. I say this because I don't consider the occupation governments installed by Hitler in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium, Poland, Holland, etc... to be legitimate. Neither did the citizens of those countries. |
So, I take it that you think the majority of those nations took part in resistance movements? Or that the resistance movements had more participation than the SS formations raised in those countries?
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diogenes
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 6:44 pm Post subject: WWII vs GulfII |
|
|
| Greenhat wrote: | | sparky wrote: |
Have we learned our lesson about the importance of international cooperation? I don't think so. |
Just curious Sparky. Given that we prepared to go to war in WWII expecting only the Commonwealth and China to be our allies, would you have spoke against fighting the Japanese and Germans since we didn't have international cooperation? |
All these comparisons with WWII are missing a key point, which is that we're not fighting WWII. We're fighting terrorists.
The threats in WWII were bombers and subs and tanks, and the infrastructure for creating and distributing those threats were the factories, refineries, airfields, roads and rails controlled by the enemy. The threats now are maniacs with box knifes and airline tickets, or teenagers with backpacks filled with nails and explosives. The infrastructure for delivering the threats is our own roads and airlines, and the very personal liberties that Americans make taken for granted for 200 years. We can add metal detectors and watchlists, but the bottom line is that we will never win this war solely by eliminating the enemies ability to deliver threats.
What we need to attack is the infrastructure for creating the threats, which consists mainly of chaos, extremism, despair, and hatred. That's why we need allies, and local support, and why Iraq is a strategic fiasco in the war on terror. We haven't hurt the enemy---we're rebuilding his base. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
