PROGRESS in IRAQ...

[haterade]

look like you believe in global warming.

global warming is more understable than your incoherent babble

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

  squirming...

not babble...

buster got fired and can't satisfy his wife...troubles

he got toil and trouble...

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

bush know still know where to find good coke.

and we know you do not know how hypocritically degenerative you have become unknowingly even to buster. 

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

be back in a while...then your lesson will continue.

[kmpnj]

you analysis is lacking because it compares WWII to this "war on Terror"  In WWII we were fighting against nation states one of which was in the process of genocide.  Yes, i know Husssein technically commited genocide against the Kurds, but to waitover a decade to act on that is plain pretext.  WMD?  Ha!  I wont even address that bs.

Consder this, everythign this admin has said has proved to be false from global warming to mission accomplished to WMD to the insurgency is in its last throes.

WWII:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Nazism) that at its core was about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.

War on Terror:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Islamic fascism) that at its core is about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.


Yup, they're as different as night and day all right. 

[MusicMan]

you analysis is lacking because it compares WWII to this "war on Terror"  In WWII we were fighting against nation states one of which was in the process of genocide.  Yes, i know Husssein technically commited genocide against the Kurds, but to waitover a decade to act on that is plain pretext.  WMD?  Ha!  I wont even address that bs.

Consder this, everythign this admin has said has proved to be false from global warming to mission accomplished to WMD to the insurgency is in its last throes.

WWII:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Nazism) that at its core was about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.

War on Terror:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Islamic fascism) that at its core is about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.


Yup, they're as different as night and day all right. 

Do you hear what your saying?  War on Terror=War in Iraq.  Their completely different things.  Saddam was an enemy of Osama.  Your definition of the "war on Terror" is wrong.

[kmpnj]

you analysis is lacking because it compares WWII to this "war on Terror"  In WWII we were fighting against nation states one of which was in the process of genocide.  Yes, i know Husssein technically commited genocide against the Kurds, but to waitover a decade to act on that is plain pretext.  WMD?  Ha!  I wont even address that bs.

Consder this, everythign this admin has said has proved to be false from global warming to mission accomplished to WMD to the insurgency is in its last throes.

WWII:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Nazism) that at its core was about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.

War on Terror:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Islamic fascism) that at its core is about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.


Yup, they're as different as night and day all right. 

Do you hear what your saying?  War on Terror=War in Iraq.  Their completely different things.  Saddam was an enemy of Osama.  Your definition of the "war on Terror" is wrong.

Actually, that's not at all true.  It has been established through review of documents seized from the Iraqi intelligence Service that Iraq provided material support to the terrorist organization Abu Sayyef, which as we all know is a splinter group of Al Qaeda located in the Phillipines and headed by bin Laden's brother in law. 

So, following your logic, the Iraqi Intelligence Service provided material support to a terrorist organization headed by bin Laden, despite bin Laden and Hussein being enemies? How exactly does that work? 

In addition, Saddam Hussein aided Al Qaeda by broadcasting anti-government radio messages into Saudi Arabia.  Would Hussein do this for his enemy?

Here's the thing, it is almost always the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  If Saddam could aid bin Laden in his quest to bring down the Saudi royal family and damage the United States, you really don't think he would do it?  When has Saddam exhibited that level of restraint, when he gassed the Kurds?  Or was it when he slaughtered the Shiites in the south (with helicopter gunships) after the Gulf War in 1991?

To believe that Saddam wouldn't aid Al Qaeda in hurting either the Saudi royal family or the United States, because of some kind of convaluted principled stance, is the height of naivete. 

[Fidelio]

you analysis is lacking because it compares WWII to this "war on Terror"  In WWII we were fighting against nation states one of which was in the process of genocide.  Yes, i know Husssein technically commited genocide against the Kurds, but to waitover a decade to act on that is plain pretext.  WMD?  Ha!  I wont even address that bs.

Consder this, everythign this admin has said has proved to be false from global warming to mission accomplished to WMD to the insurgency is in its last throes.

WWII:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Nazism) that at its core was about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.

War on Terror:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Islamic fascism) that at its core is about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.


Yup, they're as different as night and day all right. 

Do you hear what your saying?  War on Terror=War in Iraq.  Their completely different things.  Saddam was an enemy of Osama.  Your definition of the "war on Terror" is wrong.

Actually, that's not at all true.  It has been established through review of documents seized from the Iraqi intelligence Service that Iraq provided material support to the terrorist organization Abu Sayyef, which as we all know is a splinter group of Al Qaeda located in the Phillipines and headed by bin Laden's brother in law. 

So, following your logic, the Iraqi Intelligence Service provided material support to a terrorist organization headed by bin Laden, despite bin Laden and Hussein being enemies? How exactly does that work? 

In addition, Saddam Hussein aided Al Qaeda by broadcasting anti-government radio messages into Saudi Arabia.  Would Hussein do this for his enemy?

Here's the thing, it is almost always the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  If Saddam could aid bin Laden in his quest to bring down the Saudi royal family and damage the United States, you really don't think he would do it?  When has Saddam exhibited that level of restraint, when he gassed the Kurds?  Or was it when he slaughtered the Shiites in the south (with helicopter gunships) after the Gulf War in 1991?

To believe that Saddam wouldn't aid Al Qaeda in hurting either the Saudi royal family or the United States, because of some kind of convaluted principled stance, is the height of naivete. 

Saddam Hussein is a Ba'athist, the Qutubist/Takfeeri Al-Qaeeda see him as an apostate who should be overthrown.     

[kmpnj]

you analysis is lacking because it compares WWII to this "war on Terror"  In WWII we were fighting against nation states one of which was in the process of genocide.  Yes, i know Husssein technically commited genocide against the Kurds, but to waitover a decade to act on that is plain pretext.  WMD?  Ha!  I wont even address that bs.

Consder this, everythign this admin has said has proved to be false from global warming to mission accomplished to WMD to the insurgency is in its last throes.

WWII:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Nazism) that at its core was about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.

War on Terror:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Islamic fascism) that at its core is about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.


Yup, they're as different as night and day all right. 

Do you hear what your saying?  War on Terror=War in Iraq.  Their completely different things.  Saddam was an enemy of Osama.  Your definition of the "war on Terror" is wrong.

Actually, that's not at all true.  It has been established through review of documents seized from the Iraqi intelligence Service that Iraq provided material support to the terrorist organization Abu Sayyef, which as we all know is a splinter group of Al Qaeda located in the Phillipines and headed by bin Laden's brother in law. 

So, following your logic, the Iraqi Intelligence Service provided material support to a terrorist organization headed by bin Laden, despite bin Laden and Hussein being enemies? How exactly does that work? 

In addition, Saddam Hussein aided Al Qaeda by broadcasting anti-government radio messages into Saudi Arabia.  Would Hussein do this for his enemy?

Here's the thing, it is almost always the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  If Saddam could aid bin Laden in his quest to bring down the Saudi royal family and damage the United States, you really don't think he would do it?  When has Saddam exhibited that level of restraint, when he gassed the Kurds?  Or was it when he slaughtered the Shiites in the south (with helicopter gunships) after the Gulf War in 1991?

To believe that Saddam wouldn't aid Al Qaeda in hurting either the Saudi royal family or the United States, because of some kind of convaluted principled stance, is the height of naivete. 

Saddam Hussein is a Ba'athist, the Qutubist/Takfeeri Al-Qaeeda see him as an apostate who should be overthrown.     

Yes, but again who is the bigger satan in their eyes?  The ba'athists or the Americans who prop up the Jews and Saudi Royal family?  Again, the fact remains that internal Iraqi documents show material support from the former Iraqi regime to Abu Sayyef, which is a documented Al Qaeda splinter group headed by bin Laden's brother-in-law.  Sorry to be the one to destroy your world view with facts, but facts are funny that way.

[TrojanChispas]

you analysis is lacking because it compares WWII to this "war on Terror"  In WWII we were fighting against nation states one of which was in the process of genocide.  Yes, i know Husssein technically commited genocide against the Kurds, but to waitover a decade to act on that is plain pretext.  WMD?  Ha!  I wont even address that bs.

Consder this, everythign this admin has said has proved to be false from global warming to mission accomplished to WMD to the insurgency is in its last throes.

WWII:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Nazism) that at its core was about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.

War on Terror:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Islamic fascism) that at its core is about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.


Yup, they're as different as night and day all right. 

A. One group is a state actor, another is entrenched and indeterminable in size, shape and has a variety of methods.

B. US knew the Nazis were bombing and taking over Europe for a real real long time, and before Pearl Harbor the Brits were already on their knees.  It seems the US was prepared for a Nazi Europe to me.