190,000 Weapons Vanished

Headhunter, if only the reasons the US was in Iraq were actually noble.

Sure, it’s going to be spun that way of course, but your reasons are purely in your own best interests, which does not make them “noble”.

Note, I’m not claiming that country should not look after it’s best interests, but don’t equate what you want for your own betterment as nobility.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I remember JTF posting this story a long time ago. He’s ahead of the curve on this one.[/quote]

It is bizarre that this is suddenly “front page”.

My thought was that maybe something even worse was happening?

Turkey ‘launches incursion into Iraq’
According to a security official, about 350 Turkish commandos crossed the Iraqi border on Sunday. The operation came after Turkish artillery bombarded villages near the Iraqi-Turkish border overnight. …
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=18566§ionid=351020204

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
However, I’ll bet you a nickel she won’t want to be seen as soft = stay.

Your problem’s right here. The US doesn’t seem to think with its brains in this war. All I hear are emotive calls of how “the enemy” might perceive you as weak and how you’re “bringing democracy” to the region. If you were rational for a second, you’d realize that ego is the only thing keeping you in Iraq. You talk about “the message a withdrawal will send to the terrorists” when in fact, there isn’t much you can do to discourage those already indoctrinated. The best you can hope for, is to limit the supply of future terrorists. And from the looks of it, you’re doing the exact opposite.

And how about sticking to the topic of the thread for once? Do you think you can do that?[/quote]

lixy,

First of all, objective observers are going to give the U.S. credit for free and uncoerced elections x 3. Further, they are going to give the U.S. credit for not using one dime of Iraqi oil money to fund reconstruction.

What you and the rest of the radicals think CANNOT and won’t be what dictates the U.S.'s foreign policy. We are aware that when we say, "boo, "you will respond “yea.”

Further, you always leave iran out of your post-Iraq pullout fantasy.

Imagine you are correct. Imagine al qaeda doesn’t get a massive recruitment boost from our running away. (You are, of course, completely wrong. The victory in Iraq would legitimize both the organization and the tactics employed).

What would iran do?

They would feel emboldened.

As you are aware, there is a low level shooting war going on between iran and the U.S. in Iraq. The a-thing would also feel emboldened. He backed down the U.S. They ran from iran. It would strengthen him and his standing with the clerics immeasurably.

I have to admit, lixy, I consider you a guilty pleasure. Most malignant people I completely ignore (vroom (sp?), pookie, jtf, limbic, etc.) You are a pus pimple, yet, I cannot stop myself from responding to you.

I try to get over you. However, I’m addicted.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:

lixy,

I have to admit, lixy, I consider you a guilty pleasure. Most malignant people I completely ignore (vroom (sp?), pookie, jtf, limbic, etc.)

I try to get over you. However, I’m addicted.

JeffR[/quote]

Lixy is to be your medicine Jeffie. You chose this. To him you will confess.

This is a very good sign for your return to health. Noteworthy progress from your last sleep session. Soon you will glimpse the extent of your brainwashing at the hands of the conservatives. I will support you in that moment.

Courage, o’little one.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
What would iran do?

They would feel emboldened.

As you are aware, there is a low level shooting war going on between iran and the U.S. in Iraq. The a-thing would also feel emboldened. He backed down the U.S. They ran from iran. It would strengthen him and his standing with the clerics immeasurably. [/quote]

Your problem’s right there. You’re not thinking with your brains about the issue. You’re responding emotionally and that’s exactly what Bush and his “WMDs” and “mushroom clouds” wants you to do.

Out-of-proportion nationalism and patriotism can be very dangerous. In fact, used properly those concepts can be abused in the same way a religion is. Case in point; all that flag waving that got you numb enough to swallow the “Iraq-is-a-threat” speech.

Should I be the one teaching you about sticks and stones…?

Fuck Ben Laden. He may “claim” victory in Iraq, but why should you care? Terrorists that attack you are not camel riders waving swords in the name of Allah. They’re college graduates and have no need for a country to regroup or train in. Making a bomb is not that hard for anyone with a good chemistry background and a working internet connection.

And now I realize that by the “a-thing” you mean Ahmadinejad not Al-Qaeda. No matter…

Fuck Iran. Ahmadinejad is gone is two years time anyway. Iran will never invade Iraq for fear of international reprisals. They’re already taking enough heat as is. If they get to have friends in Baghdad so be it. You put Iraq is in Iran’s sphere of influence by removing Saddam, now live with it. Nothing you can do – short of installing a dictator – will change that.

You realize that your country is very strained by this war, and it’s not getting much better despite the surge. Protect your borders instead of torturing your troops and alienating the Iraqis even further.

[quote]I have to admit, lixy, I consider you a guilty pleasure. Most malignant people I completely ignore (vroom (sp?), pookie, jtf, limbic, etc.) You are a pus pimple, yet, I cannot stop myself from responding to you.

I try to get over you. However, I’m addicted.[/quote]

Dude, I do chicks only.

[quote]kroby wrote:
JTF: let me get this straight. Neocons (a militant strand of liberal democrat in support for forced global change into liberal democracy and capitalism) aka the neo-Jacobins are running the show. The Zionists are getting just what they want: arabs killing arabs.

If this is so evident, why hasn’t the arab world united in peace to thwart “them?”[/quote]

I’m not totally sure I know what your getting at. The “them” will make this war go on forever, or as long as they can get away with it. The Arab world can unite in peace but its still the “third party” thats perpetuating the war. You can’t tell me the 200,000 missing UNREGISTERED small arms was just a ‘mistake’ – they were purchased by the US and delivered through illegal arms dealers.

Here is another perfect example – why do they keep making Iran out to be the major problem in Iraq when its actually our ally, Saudi Arabia causing the majority of problems?

Saudis’ role in Iraq insurgency outlined
July 15, 2007
Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says…

The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3818698,full.story

So this story less than two weeks later makes absolutely NO SENSE what-so-ever in context to the previous one…

Official: $20 billion arms sale to Saudis in the works
July 28, 2007

…unless of course you look at the first story from a completely different perspective.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…howcome the US military is giving away [russian/chinese] AK-47’s anyway? Or am i missing something?[/quote]

From a practical standpoint, more readily available ammo and parts.

But more likely they didn’t want to have to explain how insurgents got all those US registered M4’s from Iran.

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
What would iran do?

They would feel emboldened.

As you are aware, there is a low level shooting war going on between iran and the U.S. in Iraq. The a-thing would also feel emboldened. He backed down the U.S. They ran from iran. It would strengthen him and his standing with the clerics immeasurably.

Your problem’s right there. You’re not thinking with your brains about the issue. You’re responding emotionally and that’s exactly what Bush and his “WMDs” and “mushroom clouds” wants you to do.

Out-of-proportion nationalism and patriotism can be very dangerous. In fact, used properly those concepts can be abused in the same way a religion is. Case in point; all that flag waving that got you numb enough to swallow the “Iraq-is-a-threat” speech.

Should I be the one teaching you about sticks and stones…?

Fuck Ben Laden. He may “claim” victory in Iraq, but why should you care? Terrorists that attack you are not camel riders waving swords in the name of Allah. They’re college graduates and have no need for a country to regroup or train in. Making a bomb is not that hard for anyone with a good chemistry background and a working internet connection.

And now I realize that by the “a-thing” you mean Ahmadinejad not Al-Qaeda. No matter…

Fuck Iran. Ahmadinejad is gone is two years time anyway. Iran will never invade Iraq for fear of international reprisals. They’re already taking enough heat as is. If they get to have friends in Baghdad so be it. You put Iraq is in Iran’s sphere of influence by removing Saddam, now live with it. Nothing you can do – short of installing a dictator – will change that.

You realize that your country is very strained by this war, and it’s not getting much better despite the surge. Protect your borders instead of torturing your troops and alienating the Iraqis even further.

I have to admit, lixy, I consider you a guilty pleasure. Most malignant people I completely ignore (vroom (sp?), pookie, jtf, limbic, etc.) You are a pus pimple, yet, I cannot stop myself from responding to you.

I try to get over you. However, I’m addicted.

Dude, I do chicks only.[/quote]

lixy,

Quick question: Are the suicide bombers mainly college graduates?

Who do the “college graduates” (what a horrible thing to say about colleges) recruit?

Who would be more likely to be influenced by an al qaeda/iran win?

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Quick question: Are the suicide bombers mainly college graduates? [/quote]

I don’t know about the exact proportions, but I do know a lot of the attacks on American and British soil were perpetrated by people that doesn’t fit the “dumb-Taliban-sword-waving” mold. A lot of them are doctors, engineers, and certainly not products of an Afghan Madrassa.

I don’t get your question.

Man, oh man. Fox did some irreparable damage to your ability to identify BS.

What is there for Al-Qaeda or Iran to win in Iraq? Chances for an Islamist organization made up primarily of foreigners to even be tolerated by a free Iraqi people, let alone exert real influence over their government, are inexistent. Iran shares borders with Iraq, and as long as there will be a substantial Shi’ite population in Iraq, Tehran is bound to have influence over Baghdad, the same way Baghdad has influence over Tehran. They’re within each other’s sphere of influence. If anything, Iran has been protecting the Shi’tes of the region who have been persecuted by the Saudis, Kuwaitis and most notably, by Saddam Hussein. Who knows what those murderous Saudis are gonna do with the 20 billions worth of weapons that you recently decided to sell to them? They certainly don’t like the idea of the Shi’ites in their country joining forces with the Iraqi Shi’ites and follow the Iranian revolution example.

Iraq is not a fucking cake. You don’t win it or lose it. You either continue digging the hole you’re in (which is expanding by the day), or you get a ladder and get out before you cause all hell to break lose (hell being an appropriate description of Iraq nowadays).

On a side note, it seems the July US death toll was a mere statistical outlier (maybe related to that punctual surge). The numbers are climbing again this month.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/07/ap3996269.html

How can you claim to be “support[ing] the troops”? You’re keeping them away from their loved ones, exhausting them by the extended tours of duty, and increasing the chances that they get shot or maimed . In my book, that’s the opposite of support. Give those kids a chance to protect THEIR country for heaven’s sake.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
kroby wrote:
JTF: let me get this straight. Neocons (a militant strand of liberal democrat in support for forced global change into liberal democracy and capitalism) aka the neo-Jacobins are running the show. The Zionists are getting just what they want: arabs killing arabs.

If this is so evident, why hasn’t the arab world united in peace to thwart “them?”

I’m not totally sure I know what your getting at. The “them” will make this war go on forever, or as long as they can get away with it. The Arab world can unite in peace but its still the “third party” thats perpetuating the war. You can’t tell me the 200,000 missing UNREGISTERED small arms was just a ‘mistake’ – they were purchased by the US and delivered through illegal arms dealers.

Here is another perfect example – why do they keep making Iran out to be the major problem in Iraq when its actually our ally, Saudi Arabia causing the majority of problems?

Saudis’ role in Iraq insurgency outlined
July 15, 2007
Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says…

The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3818698,full.story

So this story less than two weeks later makes absolutely NO SENSE what-so-ever in context to the previous one…

Official: $20 billion arms sale to Saudis in the works
July 28, 2007

…unless of course you look at the first story from a completely different perspective.[/quote]

Same as Cambodia and Afghanistan '79-89 they are “creating” the killing fields playground they need to ensure their future employment.

[quote]lixy wrote:
How can you claim to be “support[ing] the troops”? You’re keeping them away from their loved ones, exhausting them by the extended tours of duty, and increasing the chances that they get shot or maimed . In my book, that’s the opposite of support. Give those kids a chance to protect THEIR country for heaven’s sake.[/quote]

sounds like something “Tokyo Rose” might have said.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
sounds like something “Tokyo Rose” might have said.[/quote]

Now you’re being just ridiculous. What you’re doing in Iraq has nothing to do with your national security. In fact, at the peak of its power, Iraq couldn’t have hurt you one tiny bit.

It’s one thing to go after an imperialist army. It’s a totally different thing to invade a harmless country based on made-up “threats”.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
sounds like something “Tokyo Rose” might have said.

Now you’re being just ridiculous. What you’re doing in Iraq has nothing to do with your national security. In fact, at the peak of its power, Iraq couldn’t have hurt you one tiny bit.

It’s one thing to go after an imperialist army. It’s a totally different thing to invade a harmless country based on made-up “threats”.[/quote]

What harmless country are you talking about?

[quote]lixy wrote:

Now you’re being just ridiculous. What you’re doing in Iraq has nothing to do with your national security. In fact, at the peak of its power, Iraq couldn’t have hurt you one tiny bit.

It’s one thing to go after an imperialist army. It’s a totally different thing to invade a harmless country based on made-up “threats”.[/quote]

This is why Lixy will never be taken seriously. No matter how much evidence is put in front of him, he clings to an ideological conclusion that makes him happy.

Plenty of (relevant) entities thought Iraq was a threat to international security - and there is a paper trail to prove it. But such information interferes with Lixy’s trust-fund radical fantasy, so it is all ignored in favor of staying angry at the boogeymen.

Iraq was far from harmless, and 15 out of 16 UNSC countries signed on to that, and the NIE confirmed it for the US.

Lest Lixy’s deliberate attempts at misinformation go unaddressed, a brief history via a Wiki blurb:

[i]On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq’s December 7 report (unedited version): “During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.” By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq’s level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[1] [2]. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and by mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix’s March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.[/i]

Hmm. If Iraq was never a threat at any level, why would the UNSC insist on weapons inspections? Why would we demand documentation of Iraq’s disarmament if no one thought Iraq was a threat?

And why would the UN demand that Iraq “disarm or face serious consequences” if no one thought Iraq was a threat?

As has been repeated over and over, the disagreement came over what to do about an Iraq that was seen as a threat and refusing to comply with UN Resolutions - military action? More sanctions? More inspections? - the debate over whether Iraq was a threat or not was settled before Resolution 1441. But as time moves along, however, Lixy hopes everyone conveniently forgets this - it would help his radical agenda if we all did.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Plenty of (relevant) entities thought Iraq was a threat to international security - and there is a paper trail to prove it. But such information interferes with Lixy’s trust-fund radical fantasy, so it is all ignored in favor of staying angry at the boogeymen.[/quote]

In the context GKhan was alluding to, Iraq was harmless. I stand by that. The best 2003 Iraqi army could have achieved would be get their ass whooped by the Israelis or Iranians. Heck, even without US support, the Saudis would have put a honorable fight.

Bottomline, comparing a devastated Iraq that’s been under embargo for over a decade to WWII Japan is absolutely ludicrous.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Bottomline, comparing a devastated Iraq that’s been under embargo for over a decade to WWII Japan is absolutely ludicrous.[/quote]

I never made the comparison. I was comparing your text to the bs the Japanese used to broadcast to our troops. You can read into it what you would like. It sounded like a sympathetic propaganda speech to me. That’s all.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I never made the comparison. I was comparing your text to the bs the Japanese used to broadcast to our troops. You can read into it what you would like. It sounded like a sympathetic propaganda speech to me. That’s all. [/quote]

It’s got nothing to do with propaganda. The Iraq war killed countless innocent Iraqis and thousands Americans. It also exacerbated terrorism, not only in the region, but throughout the world.

You are delusional if you believe your armed forces’ engagement in Iraq is making your country safer. I have the impression that you don’t believe any of that BS yourself. You’re post was just a knee-jerk reaction to a criticism directed at your country.

Now tell me, do you think the hundreds of thousands of Americans stationed in a desert on the other side of the globe are helping the safety of the Americans?

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Plenty of (relevant) entities thought Iraq was a threat to international security - and there is a paper trail to prove it. But such information interferes with Lixy’s trust-fund radical fantasy, so it is all ignored in favor of staying angry at the boogeymen.

In the context GKhan was alluding to, Iraq was harmless. I stand by that. The best 2003 Iraqi army could have achieved would be get their ass whooped by the Israelis or Iranians. Heck, even without US support, the Saudis would have put a honorable fight.

Bottomline, comparing a devastated Iraq that’s been under embargo for over a decade to WWII Japan is absolutely ludicrous.[/quote]

We should have lifted the sanctions let them rebuild, attack someone AGAIN and then have to fight them.

[quote]lixy wrote:

In the context GKhan was alluding to, Iraq was harmless. I stand by that. The best 2003 Iraqi army could have achieved would be get their ass whooped by the Israelis or Iranians. Heck, even without US support, the Saudis would have put a honorable fight.

Bottomline, comparing a devastated Iraq that’s been under embargo for over a decade to WWII Japan is absolutely ludicrous.[/quote]

Now, as usual, you are trying to weasel out of it, like you always do.

Iraq was either viewed as a threat or it wasn’t. You have said over and over and over that Iraq was most certainly not a threat and everyone knew that - that is your launching point to then go off and explain how the US started the war with its “imperialist” ambitions, etc.

After all, if Iraq was actually viewed as a threat by the relevant entities, your “evil Bush invading Iraq for (oil, territory, on behalf of Israel)” would collapse under its own silly weight.

No matter what context you claim to be applying now - the shifting sands of Lixy! - you have stated that no one believed Iraq was a threat. But you know different. It hurts when rational information points you in a different direction than your pre-determined ideological outcome, no? Don’t worry - it is all part of growing up.