Iraq Revisited

[CptSternn]

You should know about defeated - just look at the american military in Iraq - they are the best example to date.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Sternn, is this really how you get your rocks off? By posting unfounded bullshit on a site on the internet? Because if so, doll, that's just sad.

[CptSternn]

Unfounded? So you think america is winning in Iraq? Please, do explain...

[CptSternn]

From the deja vu file...

1999 war games foresaw problems in Iraq

http://news.**********/s/ap/20061105...huBHNlYwNtdHM-

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of
Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.

In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."

There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:

_"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."

_"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."

_"
Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."

_"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."

_"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."

_"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."


Who would have thought a detailed well thought-out training simulation might actually be spot on with real-life results?

[CptSternn]

Looks like even the poodle is now turning his back on bush...

Storm over Blair 'Iraq disaster' remarks

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ies&eref=yahoo

CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair provoked a storm Saturday after apparently admitting that the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain was "a disaster."

Blair gave the surprise assessment of his decision to go to war in an interview with David Frost on Al-Jazeera's new English-language channel.

British opposition MPs seized on the comment as evidence that Blair has finally accepted that his strategy in the Middle Eastern state had failed.

British newspapers carried the story on their front pages Saturday

"Iraq invasion a disaster, Blair admits on Arab TV," was the headline in the Daily Telegraph.

"PM Tony Blair last night sensationally admitted the Iraq War fallout has become 'disastrous,' reported Britain's biggest selling daily, The Sun.

Blair's remarks came after former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said he feared his country was on the verge of disintegration -- a situation he said he never anticipated.

"It's really quite alarming and dangerous, where Iraq is now. It's quite frightening," he told CNN.

"Iraq is slipping continuously into a chaotic level of violence. "To be honest, this is not something that I could have imagined when we fought Saddam's regime."

*snip*

Well at least one world leader is starting to tell the truth. I wonder how long before his country runs away? Actually, I'm wondering how long before america runs away?

[CptSternn]

Kissinger: Victory in Iraq no longer possible

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ies&eref=yahoo

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. victory in Iraq is no longer possible under the conditions the Bush administration hopes to achieve, but a quick withdrawal of American troops would have "disastrous consequences," former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said Sunday.

*snip*

Heh - kissinger should know - he was the man who was there when they lost Vietnam. Now he, formerly a man who supported the Iraq war and has been called by Woodward in his latest book on of the sculptors of the current strategy. Now, like in Vietnam, his strategy went all pear shaped and he is telling yet another president 'umm...yeah, the whole war was a bad idea and we need to get out'

Can anyone say 'salted peanuts'?

[CptSternn]

Wow, I have so many new articles I don't know which ones to post.

Do I really need to post any? I will refrain from now. Seriously, when I started this thread before it was cleared the first time and even at the beginning of this second posting of this very thread people still argued america was winning that life was better that money was going to 'build schools' and life for the average Iraqi was way better than prior to the invasion. It was also argued they HAD found WMD's and that america had 'broken the backs of the insurgents'.

And here we are today. Looks like well, I was right on pretty much all counts.

A further prediction ye can quote me on here...

Ol gw will get his 25,000 more troops. It will take six months for them to get ready, 3 months to be deployed, and about 6 months before they start to claim there are some positive results. Then, in about 5 months after that they will say it was a dismal failure - right around the time of the elections when bush is leaving office.

bush will leave, and pass off the problem of Iraq to the next guy. He will then gloat that he invaded Iraq and wasn't the democrat president who pulled the troops out like a coward.

Just like nixon. He is trying to stall so he isn't the one who has to pull out the troops and admit to being a failure. If he can keep them there long enough to get out of office, he in his own little warped mind can say he was a success and did the right thing invading, and it was the guy after him who screwed it up and had to pull out.

You can quote me on that. Thats the REAL Iraq policy. Hold out long enough to drop the problems squarely in the lap of the next guy. He and the other republicans know the american people are fed up with the war and blame republicans. This will drive the next presidential election. They know the democrats will take it as well. The republicans hope to drop this mess in their lap, and blame the democrats for not fixing it, then also when the budget deficit reaches critical mass about the same time the republicans can also shift the blame to the democrats as they will be in control of the congress and presidency.

The republicans are going to balloon the budget even more now, and try and stall the democrats from making any changes until the new democrat president comes in. Then they can blame all the current problems caused by bush on the democrat president and democratic congress.

But I digress. Anyone still think the war in Iraq is going well? The thing I find funny, that the bush administration is willing to back policy that justifies killing of the former leader based on his previous crimes.

So Sadaam was executed because he had 140 conspirators who tried to kill him executed.

Bush sat over 180 deaths while he was governor. So far, the civillian death toll in Iraq in in the hundreds of thousands, much larger than anything Sadaam was ever accused of. When bush leaves office does that mean the american government now supports the same policy of trying the former leader for deaths occuring under his watch and supports the use of the death penalty in such proceedings?

[nuksaa]

Anyone still think the war in Iraq is going well?

Yes. Not as perfect as desired; but then again I have been saying there wasn't a magic wand to make it all right.

As far a 6 months to get ready, a majority of the troops already are ready now.

The thing I find funny, that the bush administration is willing to back policy that justifies killing of the former leader based on his previous crimes.

Trial conducted by the Iraqi government, execution conducted by the Iraqi government, and a majority of the UN "recognised that Iraq was a sovereign country, and therefore like any other sovereign country was entitled to reach its own decision on matters such as the death penalty", including the PM of Ireland.

So Sadaam was executed because he had 140 conspirators who tried to kill him executed.

Taht was the first conviction. There were numerous trials to follow dealing with more murders. However, the Iraqi judicial system doesn't wait for all subsequent trials to be completed if the appeal fails.

Just like nixon.

Or did you mean 'like Johnson'. Fact: The US completed the withdrawal of troops in 1973.

[Budweiser69]

wow. i've seen legitimate aruguments on al-jazeera against saddam's trial and execution, but this is the first time i've read over ba'athist propaganda coming from a caucasian. heh. continue to propagate the internet with arab nationalist spin, my brother! those 13 year old conspirators deserved to die! but saddam didn't!

[Frankenscott]

In the time since we re-invaded Iraq there have been roughly 170,000 people killed in traffic accidents on the roads in the USA ...For a little perspective

[CptSternn]

Obermann had an even better stat in one of his news pieces - over 200,000 americans have been killed in america by guns since 9/11, but yet not one piece of legislation has been passed or even one discussion has been had about how to stop the gun violence in america.

[Frankenscott]

How can you stop violence with legislation?

Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. ~ Krusty

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Obermann had an even better stat in one of his news pieces - over 200,000 americans have been killed in america by guns since 9/11, but yet not one piece of legislation has been passed or even one discussion has been had about how to stop the gun violence in america.

Does Obermann's statistics breakdown how many of these deaths were due to illegally purchased/stolen weapons vs legally purchased weapons by individuals who attended the weapons safety classes mandated by several state legislatures. Not every gun law or gun control initiative is required to be set by the federal government.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

...or even one discussion has been had about how to stop the gun violence in america.

How do you know this? Just because no one has made a decision on what exactly to do about this incredibly controversial issue does not mean that it's being ignored...

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Binkie

First article is out of date. Never the less, here's one comparative of the actual outputs and figures in pre-war Iraq vs. 2004 conditions:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0319/p01s03-woiq.html

Pre-war unemployment: 50-60%
2004: 45% (28% as of 2005)

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/feature/Mar/060319oif.html

"The U.S. Embassy and the Government of Iraq continue to address the issue of Iraqi unemployment, today, about 1.5 million Iraqis are employed under reconstruction efforts, working on schools, clinic, roads and numerous other infrastructure projects, and the overall national unemployment dropped in 2005 to 28% (as reported by COSIT) or 12-18% (as estimated by MNF-I)."

Pre-war health budget: 16 million
2004: 120 million

Pre-war portable water supply: 13 million liters per day
2004: 22 million liters per day

Pre-war electrical peak: 4,400 megawatts
2004: 4,200

Electrical actually went on to improve that year to average 5,000 megawatts, as cited by the Defense Department HERE.

"Electricity production in the country averages about 5,000 megawatts, a total that services an estimated 15 million Iraqi homes and exceeds the pre-war level of 4,400 megawatts, officials said."



Second article has the guy talking about electricity in Baghdad. While they don't enjoy 20 hours of electricity anymore, other parts of the country now see more when they used to see only one hour or less. The electrical distribution has been evenly divided amongst Iraqis, where it once was not. Power output for the entire country is higher than it was pre-war.

If you don't believe me, scroll up a little on that same Wiki article you cited, Sternn. You'll find this:

"On July 28, 2005, Iraq's Electricity Minister announced that Iraq's electricity supply had risen to above pre-war levels."

Can also be confirmed here:

http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/a...article623.htm

"Iraq electricity surpasses pre-war levels

July 28, 2005

Iraq's electricity supply has risen above pre-war levels to 5,350 megawatts (MW) despite sabotage, boosted by hydroelectric power and more imports from Iran, Syria and Turkey, the minister in charge said on Thursday.

"Now electricity has reached a record after we broke 5,350 megawatts a few days ago for the first time since the war," Electricity Minister Mohsen Shalash told Reuters.

Iraq's emergency moves had eased electricity shortage during summer when temperatures can rise above 50 degrees centigrade (122 Fahrenheit), Shalash said in an interview in Amman during a stopover on his way to Iraq."

That report came just days before the statement you cited was made. Kinda contradictory, eh?

From USAID:

"2. Expanding Access to Electricity: In 2002, Baghdad had access to electricity 24 hours a day; the rest of Iraq was limited to 3-6 hours.

* Currently, all 18 governorates receive nearly 14 hours of electricity daily, an incredible improvement for a country emerging from decades of conflict and little investment.
* USAID efforts have added 1,400 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity to the national electrical grid, expanding access to 4.2 million Iraqis throughout most of Iraq. "



Third article is based on statistics from 2004 and doesn't compare anything against pre-war stats. I don't see any 90% figures anywhere in this article either. It also states that 3 out of 4 Iraqis even HAVE electricity (whereas the other one-fourth also have electricity, but have no problems with it). So 25% somehow translates into 90..... how?

From USAID:

"3. Providing Potable Water: Many parts of Iraq had no access to or provision of clean potable water. Indeed many of Iraq's waterways were contaminated with refuse and sewage.

* Over 4 million Iraqis who had no clean drinking water in 2002 now have safe, potable water piped to their homes following USAID efforts to refurbish water treatment plants in 15 cities.
* USAID is also providing plant-level operations and maintenance (O&M) training at major water and wastewater plants nationwide to ensure that these plants remain functioning."



Last article, Wiki also had some stuff to say about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_Iraq

"After (with some international support) overthrowing the previous Iraqi government, the US has sent aid to restore electric service knocked out during combat. The Associated Press says that electrical power generation and distribution, curtailed due to combat operations and sabotage, has been restored to above prewar levels."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1378209

"Facts & Figures: Average Amount of Electricity Generated (Megawatts):

Pre-War (Estimates):

Nationwide: 3,958

Baghdad: 2,500

January 2005:

Nationwide: 3,289

Baghdad: 985

September 2005:

Nationwide: 4,247

Baghdad: NA (last available April 2005: 854)

Source: Brookings Institution, Iraq Index."

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed...n/20060124.htm

"As a result, not only are more schools being rebuilt and health clinics reopened but water and sanitation services also are gradually improving, irrigation canals are operating at prewar levels, and almost 90 percent of the demand for household fuels for cooking and heating is being met."

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/watsan.html

"USAID has rehabilitated sewage treatment plants, expanding access to sewage treatment to over 5.1 million urban Iraqis, processing 315.3 million gallons daily. Over 2.4 million Iraqis who had no clean drinking water in 2002 now have access to safe, potable water following USAID efforts to refurbish and expand 19 water treatment plants in five cities. By 2006, water treatment service will be provided to over 3.3 million Iraqis. Providing clean water and efficient sewage treatment has greatly improved sanitation and contributed to a decrease in waterborne disease. USAID is also providing plant-level operations and maintenance (O&M) training at major water and wastewater plants nationwide to ensure that these plants remain functioning."

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/feature/Mar/060319oif.html

"Before March 2003, only 5.5 million of Iraq's 25 million citizens had access to a safe and stable water supply. Iraq's cities suffered from inadequate sewage systems, today nineteen potable water treatment facilities have been built or rehabilitated, providing a standard level of service to about 2.7 million more Iraqis."

http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=1044

"By October 2003, U.S. government efforts rehabilitated electric power capacity to produce peak capacity of 4,518 MW, greater than the pre-war level of 4,400 MW. Peak production reached 5,365 MW in August 2004 and a peak of 5,389 MW in July 2005."

So there you go.

Wow, remember this post? When you claimed Iraq was going SO GOOD and that they were BETTER OFF NOW THAN BEFORE THE WAR due to the USAID (readin: bush administration) figures?

Turns out, all that was PROPOGANDA spewed by the bush admin and now we look back and see also posted here by BINKIE. I'm going through the Iraq thread now to bring up all the good posts involving how well the war is going and the 'proof' you posted to prove it...

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

Does Obermann's statistics breakdown how many of these deaths were due to illegally purchased/stolen weapons vs legally purchased weapons by individuals who attended the weapons safety classes mandated by several state legislatures. Not every gun law or gun control initiative is required to be set by the federal government.

True, but does that matter? The point being made is not which guns could be prevents by what means, the point is NO ONE has looked into the matter no given any advise on how to fix said deaths, while every other piece of legislation passed by the previous republican congress had 'terrorism' tied in with it.

a couple thousand die and everyone wants to pass new far out legislation. It's pointed out hundreds of thousand are dead and are still dying and because its not a selling issue right now no one cares.

[CptSternn]

...to follow up with the previous post there...

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070131...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Investigators: Millions in Iraq aid wasted

[i]WASHINGTON - The U.S. government wasted tens of millions of dollars in
Iraq reconstruction aid, including scores of unaccounted-for weapons and a never-used camp for housing police trainers with an Olympic-size swimming pool, investigators say.

The quarterly audit by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, is the latest to paint a grim picture of waste, fraud and frustration in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has cost taxpayers more than $300 billion and left the region near civil war.

"The security situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, hindering progress in all reconstruction sectors and threatening the overall reconstruction effort," according to the 579-page report, which was being released Wednesday....[/b]



AND...

http://news.**********/s/nm/20070131...ltBHNlYwM3MTY-

U.S. commander urges lower expectations in Iraq


I would post more, but those are the best two today. I mean, I used to have to scour the Yahoo/AP/Reuters for these kinds of articles as they hid them in the back pages, but now - every day has another brilliant, and dare I say accurate, account of whats going on - not the tripe the bush admin has been throwing out there even before he went to war.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Wow, remember this post? When you claimed Iraq was going SO GOOD and that they were BETTER OFF NOW THAN BEFORE THE WAR due to the USAID (readin: bush administration) figures?

Turns out, all that was PROPOGANDA spewed by the bush admin and now we look back and see also posted here by BINKIE. I'm going through the Iraq thread now to bring up all the good posts involving how well the war is going and the 'proof' you posted to prove it...

I'm looking through this little post you made here, Sternn, but I'm not seeing any information that negates the statistics I cited two years ago. Hmm... so what was your point again? Are you saying the stats are wrong or...? Did I miss something here?

[CptSternn]

Since your going to play thick and act like the Iraq rebuilding effort is going great I'll help you out with some REAL numbers here...

Here is a report from congress...

Iraq is Worse Off Than Before the War Began, GAO Reports

WASHINGTON - In a few key areas - electricity, the judicial system and overall security - the Iraq that America handed back to its residents Monday is worse off than before the war began last year, according to calculations in a new General Accounting Office report released Tuesday.

The 105-page report by Congress' investigative arm offers a bleak assessment of Iraq after 14 months of U.S. military occupation. Among its findings:

-In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.

-Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations.

-The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.

-The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.

-The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0629-10.htm


OR This one...

Electricity Levels in Baghdad at All Time Lows

BAGHDAD, Oct. 23, 2006 — Everybody knows the bad news: In September, the lights were on in Baghdad for around four hours a day. One study has October’s levels so far at 2.4, the lowest since the invasion.

A lot of Iraqi public opinion runs on rumors, and those with their ears pricked will tell you that after three-plus years and billions of reconstruction dollars, there’s a sneaking suspicion out in town that the U.S., who’s been putting men in orbit for four decades, could have had Baghdad twinkling like Times Square years ago if they wanted to. The conspiracy theory goes that the Americans have, insidiously, chosen not to. That they’re keeping Iraqis down, man. Either that, or we just don’t care.

So the big question at a recent Iraqi media roundtable on electricity, hosted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Gulf Regional Division, was -- translated roughly from the Arabic -- “It’s been three years and $4 billion. What gives?”

http://www.defendamerica.mil/article...102306sj1.html

OR

Iraqis cope with life without lights

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0210/p01s03-woiq.html

U.S. Faces Iraq 'Reconstruction Gap'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_business

The federal official overseeing spending to rebuild Iraq told Congress yesterday that the U.S. government faces a multibillion-dollar "reconstruction gap" that separates its plans from what it can afford.

Stuart W. Bowen Jr., special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said administration promises to use $18 billion Congress allocated to rebuild water, electricity, health and oil networks to prewar levels or better are running into cold reality. "We are going to provide something less than that," he said.

Investigators with Bowen's office reported over the summer that various rebuilding programs had been scaled back or scrapped, mainly because of increased security costs. A hearing yesterday by a House Government Reform subcommittee, however, was the most comprehensive look at the issue...

OR

raq worse off than before war

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/news2...efore_war.html

As the third anniversary of the war approaches, the $21 billion the United States has allocated for reconstruction of Iraq has yet to lift the war-torn nation from ruin.

Power outages are the norm; in fact, there's less electricity available than before the war began. Fewer people have clean water and sanitation systems. And fuel production isn't at pre-war levels, either...


Or if you want to find some articles yourself...

http://www.google.ie/search?q=power+...ient=firefox-a

I could find more - a simple google search finds a dozen articles on the subject these days - ALL contradicting your statements and the bush administrations statements.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Since your going to play thick and act like the Iraq rebuilding effort is going great I'll help you out with some REAL numbers here...

Heh. Nothing you posted proved those stats wrong. You're taking a statement from me dated two years ago and arguing it without knowing what my current opinion is*.

By that logic, I should be posting 2004 Presidential election results based on your stern belief (pun intended) that Kerry was going to win by a wide margin.

I mean, are you THAT desperate to argue politics with me again that you need to go back in time just to dig up an ancient post?

(footnote: You'll never know what my current opinion is either because I don't discuss politics with you anymore for reasons that should be well known by now. Have a grand time arguing with a ghost)

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Binkie

Heh. Nothing you posted proved those stats wrong. You're taking a statement from me dated two years ago and arguing it without knowing what my current opinion is*.

So that mean your now against the war? Hah! After years of arguuing you are PRO WAR you now admit you were WRONG and have done a 180? All my posting must have had some effect, especially since you now no longer support the war.

I mean, are you THAT desperate to argue politics with me again that you need to go back in time just to dig up an ancient post?

Please check this thread AND pretty much every other one here. In EVERY post you fail to post ANY links OTHER than links to MY older posts from over a year ago. Whats that kettle? I'm black? Say it isn't so.

(footnote: You'll never know what my current opinion is either because I don't discuss politics with you anymore for reasons that should be well known by now. Have a grand time arguing with a ghost)

So basically you now support my point, but because you are so immature you now are just going to clam up in the corner and pout because I was right on the anti-war argument. Your now admitting defeat, and going to hide under a rock. Good luck with that.

<Nelson Voice> Hahah </Nelson Voice>

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

So that mean your now against the war? Hah! After years of arguuing you are PRO WAR you now admit you were WRONG and have done a 180? All my posting must have had some effect, especially since you now no longer support the war.

You'll never know what my position is. I make it clear on other sites, where peoplee here post as well, but not here with you. Make up whatever it is that you want to believe, Sternn, if it will help you sleep at night. Truth is: you don't know. Continue to act like you do though, cause it only makes you look more like the clown you are.

Please check this thread AND pretty much every other one here. In EVERY post you fail to post ANY links OTHER than links to MY older posts from over a year ago. Whats that kettle? I'm black? Say it isn't so.

To demonstrate that you contradict yourself and hence lie about yourself. You have failed to be able to demonstrate that you aren't a pathelogical liar with the information you volunteer on a daily basis. Meanwhile with these posts you're digging up, you've failed to prove those stats wrong. Your comparison is as weak and desperate as the fact that you're going back two years to bring up statistical data and suggest that it was somehow wrong just to provoke me into arguing politics with you.

So basically you now support my point, but because you are so immature you now are just going to clam up in the corner and pout because I was right on the anti-war argument. Your now admitting defeat, and going to hide under a rock. Good luck with that.

<Nelson Voice> Hahah </Nelson Voice>

Seriously, if this is what you need to tell yourself in order to sleep, be my guest. If you need to manufacture my ungiven opinions like you manufacture information in your arguements, go for it, slugger.

I'll reiterate that you don't know my position and I will never hint it here because I am not going to argue politics with you again. You've lied hundreds of times and manfucatured information. When you're absolutely corned with facts, you disregard the sources, but years later recognize them again. It's pathetic how you conduct yourself in debate and I'm not going to engage you in it anymore.

You believe what you want to, but it's become obvious that you don't really believe what you say half the time. You just run your mouth.

[Frankenscott]

oooooo.... BURN!

[CptSternn]

All I heard in that post was 'blah blah blah' yeah, looks like Sternn is right as you refuse to post anything relevant to the topci and once again go off on a diatribe about me personally and refuse to post on topic.

Funny thing though, I am now becoming a fan of the idea of letting americans stay there longer. Why? It's like this...

The damage is done. Iraq is broken. As long as the americans stay there its going to cost the average working joe in america money. The average person is now starting to feel the effects.

On top of that, the american military is in shambles. They couldn't invade anywhere in the state they are currently in.

The longer the us stays there the more damage they now do to their military machine.

Letting them stay there will keep them from going after Iran, and also will allow the american people to begin to fell the pain they have inflicted on Iraq, at least in a small degree.

So while america stays there, we don't have to worry about bush 'pre-emptively striking' any other sovern nations and americans will have to actually get up off their couches and do something if they want to effect change.

[Frankenscott]

The American people have no say as to what the NSA deems a worthy target. Why don't you have anything to say about the giant bullshit story that is the basis for the war against terror? IE: 9/11