BROWSE NOW
100% free online dating, friendship, activity partners, chat, groups, social networking, parties, tagging, fun, matchmaking, free personals, forums and more!
Robbi, I got 100% on the fish test too. How do I join your fishing club? lol
I guess the Democrats will on the attack once again now that they yanked the Immigration Bill.
Petraus says he will give a fair and honest account of our progress in Sept.
For a very interestiing article about action in Iraq, log on to Military.com and click on the Gunships unleashed article. Really gives a good idea of what can be done and maybe will become the SOP. Appears as through it should be.
We need to show more sympathy for these people. They travel miles
in the heat, they risk their lives crossing a border, they don't get
paid enough wages, they do jobs that others won't do or are afraid
to do, they live in crowded conditions among a people
who speak a different language, they rarely see their families,
and they face adversity all day every day.
I'm not talking about illegal Mexicans, I'm talking about our troops.
Doesn't it seem strange that our politicians are willing to lavish all
kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our troops
and now many of the politicians are threatening to defund them?
Please pass this on. This is worth the short time it takes to read it.
Combat for Dummies
Advice taken from actual military sources -- with a warped sense of humor!
"Aim towards the enemy."
--Instruction printed on U.S. Rocket Launcher
"When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend."
--U.S. Marine Corps
"B-53 cluster bombing is very accurate. The bombs are guaranteed to hit the ground."
--USAF Ammo Troop
"If the enemy is in range, so are you."
--Infantry Journal
"A slipping gear could let your M203 grenade launcher fire when you least expect it.
That would make you quite unpopular with what's left of your unit."
--Army's magazine of prevention maintenance
"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed."
--U.S. Air Force manual
"Try to look unimportant; the enemy may be low on ammo."
--Infantry Journal
"Tracers work both ways."
--U.S. Army Ordnance
"Five-second fuses only last three seconds."
--Infantry Journal
"Bravery is being the only one who knows you're afraid."
--David Hackworth
"If your attack is going too well, you're walking into an ambush."
--Infantry Journal
"No combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection."
--Joe Gay
"Any ship can be a minesweeper -- once."
--Anonymous
"Never tell the platoon sergeant you have nothing to do."
--Unknown Marine Recruit
"Don't draw the enemy's fire; it irritates the people around you."
--Infantry Journal
"If you see a bomb technician running, try to at least keep up with him."
--USAF Ammo Troop
>
> This is from a colorful writer from the 3rd Marine Air Wing based at
> MCAS Miramar. This guy could write for TV.
>
>"There I was at six thousand feet over central Iraq, two hundred eighty
> knots and we're dropping faster than Paris Hilton's panties. It's a
> typical September evening in the Persian Gulf; hotter than a rectal
> thermometer. But that's neither here nor there. The night is moonless
>over Baghdad
> tonight, and blacker than a Steven King novel. But its 2006, folks, and
> I'm sporting the latest in night-combat technology - namely,
> hand-me-down night vision goggles (NVGs) thrown out by the fighter boys.
>
>"Additionally, my 1962 Lockheed C-130E Hercules is equipped with an
> obsolete, yet, semi-effective missile warning system (MWS). The MWS
> conveniently makes a nice soothing tone in your headset just before the
> missile explodes into your airplane. Who says you can't polish a turd?
>
>"At any rate, the NVGs are illuminating Baghdad International Airport
> like the Las Vegas Strip during a Mike Tyson fight. These NVGs are the
> cat's ass. But I've digressed. The preferred method of approach tonight
> is the random shallow. This tactical maneuver allows the pilot to
> ingress the landing zone in an unpredictable manner, thus exploiting the
> supposedly secured perimeter of the airfield in an attempt to avoid
> enemy surface-to-air-missiles and small arms fire. Personally, I
> wouldn't bet my pink ass on that theory but the approach is fun as hell
> and that's the real reason we fly it. We get a visual on the runway at
> three miles out, drop down to one thousand feet above the ground, still
> maint aining two hundred eighty knots. Now the fun starts.
>
>"It's pilot appreciation time as I descend the mighty Herc to six
> hundred feet and smoothly, yet very deliberately, yank into a sixty
> degree left bank turning the aircraft ninety degrees offset from runway
> heading. As soon as we roll out of the turn, I reverse turn to the right
> a full two hundred seventy degrees in order to roll out aligned with the
> runway. Some aeronautical genius coined this maneuver the "Ninety /
> Two-Seventy." Chopping the power during the turn, I pull back on the
> yoke just to the point my nether regions start to sag, bleeding off
> energy in order to configure the pig for landing. "Flaps Fifty! Landing
> Gear Down!, Before Landing Checklist!" I look over at the copilot and
> he's shaking like a cat shitting on a sheet of ice. Looking further back
> at the navigator, and even through the Nags, I can clearly see the wet
> spot spreading around his crotch. Finally, I glance at my steely eyed
> flight engineer. His eyebrows rise in unison as a grin forms on his
> face. I can tell he's thinking the same thing I am ... "Where do we find
> such fine young men?" "Flaps One Hundred!" I bark at the shaking cat.
> Now it's all aim-point and airspeed. Aviation 101, with the exception
> there are no lights, I'm on NVGs its Baghdad, and now tracers are
> starting to crisscross the black sky. Naturally, and not at all
> surprisingly, I grease the Goodyear's on brick-one of runway 33 left,
> bring the throttles to ground idle and then force the props to full
> reverse pitch. Tonight, the sound of freedom is my four Hamilton
> Standard propellers chewing through the thick, putrid, Baghdad air. The
> huge, one hundred forty-thousand pound, lumbering whisper pig comes to a
> lurching stop in less than two thousand feet. Let's see a Viper do that!
>
>"We exit the runway to a welcoming committee of government issued Army
> grunts. It's time to download their beans and bullets and letters from
> their sweethearts, look for war booty, and of course, urinate on
> Saddam's home. Walking down the crew entry steps with my lowest-bidder,
> Beretta 92F, 9 millimeter strapped smartly to my side, look around and
> thank God, not Allah I'm an American and I'm on the winning team. Then I
> thank God I'm not in the Army.
>
>"Knowing once again I've cheated death, I ask myself, "What in the hell
> am I doing in this mess?" Is it Duty, Honor, and Country? You bet your
> ass. Or could it possibly be for the glory, the swag, and not to
> mention, chicks dig the Air Medal. There's probably some truth there
> too. But now is not the time to derive the complexities of the superior,
> cerebral properties of the human portion of the aviator-man-machine
> model. It is however, time to get out of this hole. Hey copilot how's
> 'bout the 'Before Starting Engines Checklist."
>
>"God, I love this job! Semper Fi
>
>"It's pilot appreciation time as I descend the mighty Herc to six
> hundred feet and smoothly, yet very deliberately, yank into a sixty
> degree left bank turning the aircraft ninety degrees offset from runway
> heading. As soon as we roll out of the turn, I reverse turn to the right
> a full two hundred seventy degrees in order to roll out aligned with the
> runway. Some aeronautical genius coined this maneuver the "Ninety /
> Two-Seventy." Chopping the power during the turn, I pull back on the
> yoke just to the point my nether regions start to sag, bleeding off
> energy in order to configure the pig for landing. "Flaps Fifty! Landing
> Gear Down!, Before Landing Checklist!" I look over at the copilot and
> he's shaking like a cat shitting on a sheet of ice. Looking further back
> at the navigator, and even through the Nags, I can clearly see the wet
> spot spreading around his crotch. Finally, I glance at my steely eyed
> flight engineer. His eyebrows rise in unison as a grin forms on his
> face. I can tell he's thinking the same thing I am ... "Where do we find
> such fine young men?" "Flaps One Hundred!" I bark at the shaking cat.
> Now it's all aim-point and airspeed. Aviation 101, with the exception
> there are no lights, I'm on NVGs its Baghdad, and now tracers are
> starting to crisscross the black sky. Naturally, and not at all
> surprisingly, I grease the Goodyear's on brick-one of runway 33 left,
> bring the throttles to ground idle and then force the props to full
> reverse pitch. Tonight, the sound of freedom is my four Hamilton
> Standard propellers chewing through the thick, putrid, Baghdad air. The
> huge, one hundred forty-thousand pound, lumbering whisper pig comes to a
> lurching stop in less than two thousand feet. Let's see a Viper do that!
>
>"We exit the runway to a welcoming committee of government issued Army
> grunts. It's time to download their beans and bullets and letters from
> their sweethearts, look for war booty, and of course, urinate on
> Saddam's home. Walking down the crew entry steps with my lowest-bidder,
> Beretta 92F, 9 millimeter strapped smartly to my side, look around and
> thank God, not Allah I'm an American and I'm on the winning team. Then I
> thank God I'm not in the Army.
>
>"Knowing once again I've cheated death, I ask myself, "What in the hell
> am I doing in this mess?" Is it Duty, Honor, and Country? You bet your
> ass. Or could it possibly be for the glory, the swag, and not to
> mention, chicks dig the Air Medal. There's probably some truth there
> too. But now is not the time to derive the complexities of the superior,
> cerebral properties of the human portion of the aviator-man-machine
> model. It is however, time to get out of this hole. Hey copilot how's
> 'bout the 'Before Starting Engines Checklist."
>
>"God, I love this job! Semper Fi
>
>
>
> grunts. It's time to download their beans and bullets and letters from
> their sweethearts, look for war booty, and of course, urinate on
> Saddam's home. Walking down the crew entry steps with my lowest-bidder,
> Beretta 92F, 9 millimeter strapped smartly to my side, look around and
> thank God, not Allah I'm an American and I'm on the winning team. Then I
> thank God I'm not in the Army.
>
>"Knowing once again I've cheated death, I ask myself, "What in the hell
> am I doing in this mess?" Is it Duty, Honor, and Country? You bet your
> ass. Or could it possibly be for the glory, the swag, and not to
> mention, chicks dig the Air Medal. There's probably some truth there
> too. But now is not the time to derive the complexities of the superior,
> cerebral properties of the human portion of the aviator-man-machine
> model. It is however, time to get out of this hole. Hey copilot how's
> 'bout the 'Before Starting Engines Checklist."
>
>"God, I love this job! Semper Fi
>
>
When I was in Berlin no offensive fighter aircraft were allowed... so they did airshow manuvers with C130's. Funny as hell watching those big beasts perform the air acrobatics as described in your dialog there.
But you know... the reason C130's date back to 1962 is because you just can't improve on perfection. They're still going strong. I can imagine that the exact same C130's I saw in Berlin are now working their asses off in Iraq.
Thanks Chief.....
I actually heard it is illegal in War to use tear gas....someone on TV said it. While we fight people wit sofisticated ieds....I'd laff but it is not funny.
There is a Book Titled "The Middle East Explained"
"Enchantingly beautiful, the Middle East is like a mysteriously veiled woman, yet fortunately for us her raven eyes are visible, a window to her soul. Umm Idduniya, the "Mother of the World," the Middle East is at the center of each of us, whether we recognize it or not.
Yet, for political reasons I suspect, our national leaders appear to believe the average American is unwilling to understand the true extent of America’s role there. For example, the U.S. Administration refuses to utter the "O" word. Any discussion of oil or oil politics is absolutely forbidden. In the process, we are being told precious little of America’s true Mideast equities and the strategic power of this oil…perhaps because our leaders fear we are not yet ready for the truth?
I resent the premise. Therefore, from well-placed sources what follows are the 24 KEY QUESTIONS Americans should be asking about our role and purpose in the Middle East, and the seldom explored answers.
What are the Six Principal Reasons the United States invaded Iraq? Chapter 1 leaps at that question with both feet. What specific threats are Muslim fanatics making against America? Why isn’t the media accurately reporting those threats? That question illuminated in Chapter 5.
Why is it impossible to understand the strategic importance of the region without considering the "China Card"? How does China magnify the threat rushing at us from the Islamic Republic of Iran? And finally: What is the endgame? How do we finish terrorism once and for all?
Obviously the stakes are high. But there is hope, a hope shining from the eyes of a half-a-billion young Muslims from Marrakech to Bangladesh. America and the world’s long-term security, peace, and prosperity are now riveted firmly to the future of the Middle East. Success is in our hands. God help us if we fail."
About the Author
Richard Robison is President of The Mideast Source, Inc. mideastsource. com
Obviously the stakes are high. But there is hope, a hope shining from the eyes of a half-a-billion young Muslims from Marrakech to Bangladesh. America and the world’s long-term security, peace, and prosperity are now riveted firmly to the future of the Middle East. Success is in our hands. God help us if we fail."
About the Author
Richard Robison is President of The Mideast Source, Inc. mideastsource. com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Another Sunday and I'll watch this week at war....seeing the faces of the fallen tears my heart out...I despise those mother Fukers in the middle east.
I'd ride a bike, walk or get a horse is need be to beat those bastards.
I did some checking...during WW2 our defense budget was 34% of our GDP , its now at approx 4%.
I get the feeling that most of America thought we had a easy win hands down. Well we did drive to Baghdad in 19 days....5 yrs later there is still fighting. It is increasing apparent that to win this war we are going to have to go in for the long haul. As hard as that is to swallow, its the truth and not what America wants to hear.
I'm not sure either had we went in with more force that these slippery bastards wouldnt have us over a barrel anyway. They have the luxury of time but what is most puzzling is where the hell their funding comes from.
If we could cut their logistics it stands to reason we would end this thing. Unless the want to revert to throwing rocks.
Celebratory gunfire erupted across Baghdad on Sunday when Iraq's soccer team won the Asian Cup 1-0 against defending champion Saudi Arabia. Stray bullets killed four people and wounded 17 others in the capital, an official with the Iraqi interior Ministry said.
- - - - - - - - -
The war doesn't produce enough killing. Do we really expect these idiots to govern themselves sensibly?
Well God Speed to your son, Robbie Last nite I saw a well informed correspondent on Charlie Rose and he had some interesting comments on the war. The progress in Anbar Province has been going good because mainly the Sunni's have joined forces and heres a little known factget a pen and paper idiot REP HUNTER, coz I know youll not hear nor read this anywhere in your gun digest or how to kill squirrels...25, 000 Sunni fighters have been biometrically logged into the DOD to make sure if they turn back against the US , we can identify them.
He also stated that the weapons from Iran that are penetrating our armored vehicles are not being trsaced to anyone directly but its being assumed they are Republic guard. I Dont know why we dont make the link and do some house cleaning in Iran
The Major problem is that Baghdad is going to be the problem because the alliances are so shakey and that its the Iraqi gov't who is waisting the chances given to them and time is of the essence now. Patreus has done a good job so far and now the pollitics of the US are going to be heating up even more.
He also confirmed what I said all along that any type of withdraw is going to be precarious and that we need to make sure of these new alliances because as we know...or at least most of us do ....unless they re too busy character asssinating someone else that these alliances can change quickly.
Ultimately, the story remains the same, we put a fist into a hornets nest thats been there for over a thousand yrs and whatever the outcome we are going to have to live with it...and its a good thing Hunter Rep is not over there or hed be too busy acting like an asshole to do any fighting and we'd lose for sure.
Losing control of the Region, will probably bring on even more violence and if oil gets cut off. look for 10 dollar a gallon of gas.
Heres some friendly advice ok. You already made an ass out of yourself in one forum...let it die there coz for one...you really are stupid...we can see this much...I guess you didnt read my post i opened against Sean Penn when that asshole spoke out agaisnt Bush...but obviously you have been to his seminars so...its your choice...remain stupid or get a life.
and PS..try not to get the facts of whats going on and the squirrels running into your head confused with the same. Or if you wanna keep going I enjoy embaracing Schadenfreude. <---- look it up dummy
Answer - because they know to do so is complete BULLSHIT, they know it is not "Bush's" war, and they know that the conflict in Iraq is very necessary for the security of the United States.
It's enlightening to see these waffle headed lying bastards actually approach the truth for a change.
All of the previous talking out of their asses about how the US needs to get out of Iraq immediately might catch up to them if they keep talking shit about it. (Much like the rest of their pre-election bullshit has caught up with them.)
I like to get the real news and for the most part CNN does ok but he just wuill never give the US troops or strategy it props.
Hmmmmm Hunter. stop swallowing the tobacco juice dude really....how can I put this so even you might understand....YOU attacked me first nah nah!!! is that the klinds sh*t you get or do you need to be reminded that when you attack sdomeone , you should know what to expect in return...if you thought I was humbly going away...you made a bad mistake...if you were in my presence and said it you probably be wearing false teeth right now...so , take inventory...decide if you really want to widen the rhetoric...I must warn you however...I'll even say pleae...ok?
Dont make me really use some vile things...I already did something I wished I hadnt but you provoked me....I'll try to hold my manhood together...why dont you do the same.
Bush may go down in history as having the most fortitude, balls, and greatest leadership abilities, of any president EVER because he can stand up for himself, his beliefs, and the good of the USA, all in the face of overwhelming adversity.
Formerly outspoken anti-war democrats are now beginning to realize the purpose and necessity of the Iraq war, though few of them will admit it.
Now if he could convince me on this "North American Union" thing......
So much for that weapon of mass destruction, huh?
Saddam's sons weren't looking in the best of shape last time they were seen either.
So much for those weapons of mass destruction too.
There are some real important questions for history to ask, one being how Paul Bremmer , who had all of 8 days experience in the Pentagon was chosen and put in charge of Iraq and why we dismissed a whole Army , with no other means of supporting themselves when in fact many mid level Iraqi soldiers came to the Admin. and told them "Dont do this, we are with you for the most part"
This isnt Bush Bashing, this is asking real intelligent an important questions and its key to understanding why its taken so long to quell a war in which Bush thought was all but over.
Charlie Rose is a PBS late nite host, he funds his shows wholly by himaself with no Agenda. Last nite he had a guest with a new movie doc coming. Titled "No End In Sight". check it out at
noendinsightmovie . com/
Anyone who really wants to see where we went wrong and to confrim what Bush has said now about Iraq.....if we dont succeeed in Iraq, we will essentially be going BACK to SEPT 10th, with terrorists from all over the region having billions of petro Dollars funding them.
TRhe expose isnt an indictment as much as a cautionary tale for future warfare. Is there any doubt we will be at war in the future? How we do it bettwer be g-d dam better than this WAR>!!!!!
Kinda makes killing off saddam a waste of time and resources doesnt it tck?
and do not forget they lost in Vietnam and Korea. is USA capable of winning some war? no!
the thing that cracks me up is those pussies called Delta Force, Rangers, Navy Seals, etc you know, they are even more known because of some silly movies, as they are really bad at fighting, being poorly trained and lacking of valour and courage.
The problem with these yanks is that all they know is what they watch on television.
Hollywood has done a great job on convincing these mindless pussies that they are are some sort of superpower.Its to bad for the yanks that the taliban and the iraqis havent see the same tv shows.
Lets not forget the accomplishments of these pussies,we should always remember how they fought for our freedom in Granada.....lol
Uh... WHO killed them?
Are you STUPID? You really don't know how they died? LOL, what a DUNCE..!
Lying about sex is an impeachable offence; lying the nation into war apparently is not.
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep.
You mentioned previously you may believe it was someone here... are you okay?
I think its sad on your part that you would expect me or anyone to respect you and then make bullshit comments like the one you just made...
all i can say to you dude is grow up and learn how to pee standing up instead of sitting down
*shouldnt* should be *shouldn't*
ahhhhh the *intellecualism* runs deep in here....
So Toy, you dont like being grouped with Hotfootballer and Hunter? Or, perhaps you just dont like people in general?
I dont ask you to be my friend but its really boring reading those diatribes. I suppose I am guilty of the same but I do bring what I feel is an objective view, one thatr I come to perceive is mine and mine alone, not Micheal Moores and certainly not Ann Coulters.
You could be Micheal Moore of mingles
I don't Tote water for no-one!!!!
It has nothing to do with people in general.
I am not Mike Moore.
I am not interested in your friendship nor am i interested in your approval of any of my postings in here.I was merely clearing the air as a courtesy to someone i met a long time ago.
What you do and who you tote water for is not my concern.
I read some of your posts and i dont agree with you.
If you think I can watch you say that ALL of this is Americas fault and not own up to the terror created by unreasonable people...people so set on destruction that there is no amount of appeasing nor persuasion that I can see to satisfy it, so eradication is the form of removing this disease , really.
That is by any means by the way....so, you can take that as an independent opinion or one that others hold I dont care really. and as far as friends, and you in particular....no offense but your presence outside of your monkey biz with whomever in NH was.....unremarkable and shall remain such.
He is a totally unique asshole, among assholes. He's proud of that distinction, lol.
kindly go f.uck yourslef you chicken-necked sack of shit...
I love it when he starts making STUPID typos, it means his old gnarly hands are shaking in rage
They downgrade the place to something hardly worth the free admission.
You on the other hand scorpio give me the impression that you are trying to put some substance into the forums.I just dont happen to agree with your viewpoints.
As for the everything being americas fault,well guess what scorpio,in relation to iraq,it is all americas fault...
There was no WMDs in iraq and that was the initial reason for invading that country...Your boss lied to you!
Everyone knows that,why not just admit that you were wrong.
This type of lame transparent fake psycho-babble cameljockey thinking bullshit worked on him so he tries it with others. This is the mentality and methodology of terrorist sympathizers.
(Like... 'your' boss lied to you Scorpio... I mean you do work for the president right? No? You don't work for the president? Welllll gosh... then toy of a man must be full of shit, lol, as usual. It's cool though, toy tried to tell me earlier that I killed Saddam Hussein, lol.)
And yes... sadly.. there once was a day where toy of a man slung his bullshit freely here in Mingles. Then some people and myself illustrated that toy of a man was full of shit, and his whole platform quickly collapsed, lol.
and so how easily the spanish coward forgets how the US won ww2 in wich we helped free spain.we shoulda bombed the crap outa spain because they conspired with the nazis. oh and ballsucker, if you think SOG's are a bunch of pussys, then try going out and beat them, when yer blown to bits without ever seeing one them, then, well not you but yer family will know just how good US SOG's are.
"The U.S. military blamed al-Qaida in Iraq, and an American commander called the assault an ``act of ethnic cleansing.''
The victims of Tuesday night's coordinated attack by four suicide bombers were Yazidis, a small Kurdish-speaking sect that has been targeted by Muslim extremists who consider its members to be blasphemers." the Guardian dot co dot UK
Toyman, do you even know about this religion? Go to wikipedia and read about it. I remember reading it some time back its a group you cant convert to , cant marry into....you must be born in it. So what is the threat to Islam?????
Let me see you call like it is and while you are at that...please tell me how this is Americas doing and why we should not exterminate them from the planet
You might think my means are extreme, you might also look to really what war is...unfortunately, the College Generals and Rumsfeld mico-management did not fall inline with the goal of war really.
I have no military experience to speak of, only self education and if you read what Sherman said about Total War, why he burnt every logistical thing on his march to the Ocean, you might understand why I say what I say.
Some could argue it was really Grants theme but Sherman carried it out. You could look to any number of Wars and not find one so screwed up in its prosecution and ironically, its at this point in time , when Bush is lamer than lame that the War is going better. Just when the left wants to pull out...
So...what do we say to Iraq...hmmm sorry...right cause-wrong country......hmmm...right place wrong time?
When in doubt....win the G-d dam WAR!!!!
Aaasaah, ok I'll go back to my last briefing of the pentagon and my last interview with the president.....lmao...let me check my notes...I'm sure your question was rhetorical, it certainly can't be misconstrued as intelligent?????...
I will just say I neither have the energy nor the disire to go into an ongoing name calling World Wrestling Federation name calling event here.
You need not apologize to me however, I will extend to you, coz I'm such a big person my sincere hopes for a fruitful life, and for your kid. Get on board or stand mute, please. Or not!
I gave you an opportunity to have a civilized discussion with me in this forum.It would appear that you chose to squander that away.
I can see now that the intention of this forum was for you to rubberstamp US policy in iraq and re-post information that you gleaned from CNN and other pro-american news agencies.
I actually feel sympathy towards you as you have made it quite clear that you just dont have what it takes to discuss this subject.
I have been a muslim for 50 years.I wont be looking it up on the wikipedia.I doubt very much that you ever read anything about islam and you are way off base in what you THINK you know.
The means you suggest as solutions to the problem harbor on insanity.Nuke em and let god sort them out is not a solution,it only creates the next wave of hostilities.
There is no doubt in my mind who the losers of this war will be...americans!
Only a f.ucking idiot would take a picture of himself with a small child and post in on a personals website.
You should be ashamed of yourself for exposing a likeness of her to all the freaks and pedophiles out there so that they may do with it as they please.
You are a fool!
Shame on you Scorpio... such opportunity you had right at your fingertips and you squandered it away.
You could have agreed with toy of a man and declared toy of a man's intelligence supreme (he requires that of his disciples), and then you would have been in the good graces of toy of a man.
Instead... you choose to think for yourself and express your own opinion(s). 50 years of Muslim brainwashing has made toy of a man adamantly opposed to such individual thought. Now toy of a man perceives you as a threat to his way of thinking and he may group you along with me, Cristo, Brook, and others.
Welcome to sanity, lol.
(Toyman, you are such a pompous self-admiring asswipe. I get a real laugh out of your ego-inflating posts. Do you masturbate in front of a picture of yourself, or Allah?)
I still own you!
I think its cute the way you follow me around here,spreading your gossip and lies.
You arent much different than a stray dog,always getting kicked in the head and licking your asshole at every opportunity...lol
you need some new material!!!
ISLAM is making sure that any normal day includes that!!!!
You are a disgrace to your Religion to even speak the name of your religion in the same sentence without even condeming mindless murder. you fully know those Murders had the Allah Akbar attached to them. Qoute me one person here who would condone one killing in the name of Christ.??? I won't.
Only EVIL brings men together for such things as we see over there.
There is also a captured video too. Its of your Sharia Court System-A public beheading. Not unlike the ones where a man had his head sliced of with a knife.
This for no other reason do I advocate extermination. I will deal with the guilt of some collateral damage on my conscience to get rid of cancer. I dont relish the thought as you so think. I don't rubber stamp the WAR. Lets just wrap all my views up on the war in two sentences...
One should NOT ask an 80 plus year old man to take a country to war in this Modern Age. Namely Rumsfeld.
TWO. Go to war with all your dogs or dont go at all.
Toy of a man, do you always read, comprehend, consider, and compose a response to, things you find boring? Or is what I write actually enticing so you can't help but reply?
Either someone is bored and they move on, or.... they read & respond if interested.
Can't have it both ways here (like you do in your sex life, lol).
Screw Muhammed in the ass some more when you're bored. By communicating with people here you shame Muhammed.
Do you make Slat? I dont recall you doing it in NH...do you attend Jumar prayer on Friday afternoons?
I dont recall you cleansing your feet and hands before meals in NH.
No Practicing Muslim would drink alcohol. that isn't a shot at you...I been going to 12 step programs for yrs. just not for booze.
I wont go into other areas of what I witnessed but you make the claim you are a Muslim but I could claim to be a peach tree if I dont bring forth peaches, I am just a BShooter no?
Unless you prescribe to DesCartes I think, therefore I am. Your works show your faith, we Christians have that part down at least.
Which Muslims would you like to speak about.
New World , 1 per centers, Farrakhan's Fruit of Islam? Why the Sunnis and Shiites split over the blood line of Muhammad? Maybe we can talk about the fifth Muhammad buried in Morocco where prayers are said around the clock since his internment there....I am far from ignorant on the subject, you can take that to the bank.
I've also read where Hell for a Muslim is not permanent, that its reserved for the most wicked, kinda like catholic purgatory...is this so? Or was that site urban legend.???<---that question is not rhetorical. It begs to be answered .
Toyman...the best thing I can say about you in fairness to you because I am fair. You and Jump caught a whole lot of Lobster for NH....I mean I never saw that much just being thrown at me.
If you made as many prayers in the middle of the night making your 'salat' as I heard in the finer institutions that NJ has to offer, you might actually be Muslim but there was no indication you practiced.
From all indicators you are best suited for inciting others and BTW, your attempts to cut me out from a pack to either bring me to your cause or question my own....its feeble and very transparent. But lets play along for a bit more.
But lets play along like I dont know....you be the Guru and i'll be the empty head.... Show me the way home...hahahahaha I locked with approx 2000 muslims for over x amount of time, maybe I need one more session...
Aaaaaallaaahu akbar.....;0)Sorry, I cant help myself...I dont have specific reason for mocking Islam except when people make a mockery of themselves.
Toyman truly does mock the Islamic religion and he mocks Muhammed in claiming to be Muslim.
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
That is the short list of blunders made in the past. For 20 yrs Saddam had used biological and chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. In both cases the US either turned a blind eye or assisted with procurment.
Biological and Chemical Weapons are WMD's but people like to focus on Nuclear only.
At what point does a weapon become a WMD. A hand grenade can kill a group, an artillery shell many, a bomb can kill alot, Chemicals can kill thousands and Biological can wipe out most of a region. So where is the theshold ???
youtube. com/ watch?v=49VBs4IjPSA
Richardson said he will remove all troops and when we are gone and there is no more target for the insurgency, they will turn on each other. Isn't the call for ending the War because we effectively have done nothing but create a civil war?
He also went on to say he will (and this is really funny) extract troops through Turkey. I doubt it. I dont think they want the terror cells inside that country being called upon to strike infidels on Islamic soil. Do they make this sh*t up on the fly or what? I'm surprised they didn't site the Iraq study group and suggest we get some more help from Iran and Syria. Especially since Iran has been so helpful.
Back in feb the Democrats had a resolution so timely as it concerned events only 100 yrs old.
" WASHINGTON — Turkey was so alarmed by a proposed House resolution calling the mass slaughter of Armenians by Turks during World War I a "genocide" that it dispatched its foreign minister to persuade American Jewish leaders to lobby against it."By ELI LAKE Staff Reporter of the Sun February 22, 2007
so secular they got the Jews to lobby for them.!!!!
This push to force Turkey to admit to genocide during world war freaking one. Perhaps one of the most important allies in the region and this Democratic resolution is important...why? after 100 yrs?
Turkey has been a good ally of the USA and we certainly don't want to drive a wedge between us and them now.
So why, after nearly a century, do the Democrats want to point out the genocide of the Armenians? We don't talk about Sheridan expounding the official policy of the Grant administration: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" just a couple of generations earlier.
Will the Democrats also propose to return all of the Dakotas west of the Missouri to the Sioux as agreed by treaty?
I'm certain that she'll be delighted, too. *l*
Some of the people here have married more than one. So sit down and shut up.
(Just kidding, of course, lol.)
Haditha Video Doctored by Investigators
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 1:25 PM
Author: Phil Brennan
Article Font Size
A video taped from a Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle – purported to show the action that took place in Haditha when 24 Iraqi civilians and insurgents were killed – was heavily edited by government investigators, a NewsMax investigation reveals.
The reason, according to an inside source: to avoid showing anything that exonerates the Marines who were accused of murdering the victims.
Four Marines originally faced murder charges stemming from the Haditha incident. Charges against three of them have since been dropped, but Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich is still facing a court martial.
NewsMax can reveal that the video – which was broadcast by CNN – was a small, carefully edited part of what the Scan Eagle transmitted during its daylong surveillance flight over the battle scene on Nov. 19, 2005. And shockingly, the approximately one hour of edited footage was the only Scan Eagle footage provided to the Marines’ defense teams by the prosecution.
According to CNN, “The video appears to show that, throughout that day, Marines engaged in fierce firefights and called in air strikes to level buildings - often with no definitive idea of who was inside."
Had the entire video been shown it would have revealed that the Marines knew exactly “who was inside” - insurgents were clearly shown entering the target buildings before the structures were bombed. If CNN had been able “to review the whole video, they would see that we did indeed have a definitive idea of who was inside,’" an intelligence officer told NewsMax.
The insurgents’ car parked outside the buildings “was packed to the gills with weapons, and we had just witnessed them complete an ambush on our ambulance,” the officer said. “We saw them enter the house, clapping each other on the back and congratulating themselves.”
The Marine intelligence officer who monitored the Scan Eagle’s video transmissions throughout the day told NewsMax that there was continuous video feed from the Scan Eagle for 8 to 10 hours. Yet barely an hour of it was provided to the Marines' defense teams by the prosecution or the Naval Criminal Investigation Service.
“Someone, under the supervision of NCIS, screened this video feed, and made the conscious decision to preserve only four segments of approximately 15 minutes each – according to the defense attorneys who received it upon discovery release,” our intelligence source confided.
“This 8 to 10 hours, viewed in its entirety, shows men in black, with weapons, fleeing the neighborhood of houses 1, 2, 3 and 4 [the area where the civilians and eight of the insurgents were killed]. It follows their route as they meet up with other insurgents throughout the city. It clearly demonstrates the magnitude of the insurgents’ organization, skill, and timing in attacking Marines.”
The video, he recalled, “shows them parking, exiting the vehicle, and entering the housing complex. It shows Marines assaulting the building, insurgents fleeing out the back of the building, and Marines falling back from the assault as the insurgents defend the house.”
Finally, the intelligence officer revealed, the full, undoctored Scan Eagle video “shows an insurgent, at the end of the day, under continuous observation from the air and under continuous pursuit and fire, emerge from a family's home holding their children hostage, in order to protect himself from further air strikes.”
The deliberate editing of the video to show the defendants in the worst possible light, the Marine intelligence expert told NewsMax, “should have the defense screaming prosecutorial and NCIS misconduct.”
The media have focused on the killing of five young men who arrived in the midst of the insurgent ambush in a white car, usually described as a taxi, and were gunned down by Wuterich and/or Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz. Dela Cruz was one of the Marines originally accused of murdering civilians before charges were dropped when he agreed to testify against his fellow Marines.
Those media have generally sought to portray the Haditha ambush as a massacre by Marines on a rampage, and the media’s bias has been on display as recently as Friday when major newspapers largely ignored a key development in Frank Wuterich’s Article 32 hearing.
As reported by Nat Helms – who is covering the hearing for NewsMax as well as for the "Defend our Marines" Web site – the prosecution’s star witness all but collapsed on the witness stand after a withering cross-examination.
Wrote Helms: “During four hours of cross examination by defense attorney Lt. Col. Colby C. Vokey, Dela Cruz was unable to clearly explain his previous testimony. At one point he simply stopped talking and stared into the distance, seemingly at a loss for words. At other times he simply rambled on until he was ordered to quit talking.”
Richard Thompson is president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a legal advocacy group that has represented Marine Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani, who was charged with failing to fully investigate and report Iraqi civilian deaths in Haditha. Thompson wrote:
“The government has spared no expense seeking to find wrongdoing on the part of our hard-fighting Marines. They should spend like resources investigating … allegations of investigatory misconduct.”
the officer said. “We saw them enter the house, clapping each other on the back and congratulating themselves.”
The Marine intelligence officer who monitored the Scan Eagle’s video transmissions throughout the day told NewsMax that there was continuous video feed from the Scan Eagle for 8 to 10 hours. Yet barely an hour of it was provided to the Marines' defense teams by the prosecution or the Naval Criminal Investigation Service.
“Someone, under the supervision of NCIS, screened this video feed, and made the conscious decision to preserve only four segments of approximately 15 minutes each – according to the defense attorneys who received it upon discovery release,” our intelligence source confided.
“This 8 to 10 hours, viewed in its entirety, shows men in black, with weapons, fleeing the neighborhood of houses 1, 2, 3 and 4 [the area where the civilians and eight of the insurgents were killed]. It follows their route as they meet up with other insurgents throughout the city. It clearly demonstrates the magnitude of the insurgents’ organization, skill, and timing in attacking Marines.”
The video, he recalled, “shows them parking, exiting the vehicle, and entering the housing complex. It shows Marines assaulting the building, insurgents fleeing out the back of the building, and Marines falling back from the assault as the insurgents defend the house.”
Finally, the intelligence officer revealed, the full, undoctored Scan Eagle video “shows an insurgent, at the end of the day, under continuous observation from the air and under continuous pursuit and fire, emerge from a family's home holding their children hostage, in order to protect himself from further air strikes.”
The deliberate editing of the video to show the defendants in the worst possible light, the Marine intelligence expert told NewsMax, “should have the defense screaming prosecutorial and NCIS misconduct.”
The media have focused on the killing of five young men who arrived in the midst of the insurgent ambush in a white car, usually described as a taxi, and were gunned down by Wuterich and/or Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz. Dela Cruz was one of the Marines originally accused of murdering civilians before charges were dropped when he agreed to testify against his fellow Marines.
Those media have generally sought to portray the Haditha ambush as a massacre by Marines on a rampage, and the media’s bias has been on display as recently as Friday when major newspapers largely ignored a key development in Frank Wuterich’s Article 32 hearing.
As reported by Nat Helms – who is covering the hearing for NewsMax as well as for the "Defend our Marines" Web site – the prosecution’s star witness all but collapsed on the witness stand after a withering cross-examination.
Wrote Helms: “During four hours of cross examination by defense attorney Lt. Col. Colby C. Vokey, Dela Cruz was unable to clearly explain his previous testimony. At one point he simply stopped talking and stared into the distance, seemingly at a loss for words. At other times he simply rambled on until he was ordered to quit talking.”
Richard Thompson is president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a legal advocacy group that has represented Marine Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani, who was charged with failing to fully investigate and report Iraqi civilian deaths in Haditha. Thompson wrote:
“The government has spared no expense seeking to find wrongdoing on the part of our hard-fighting Marines. They should spend like resources investigating … allegations of investigatory misconduct.”
Those media have generally sought to portray the Haditha ambush as a massacre by Marines on a rampage, and the media’s bias has been on display as recently as Friday when major newspapers largely ignored a key development in Frank Wuterich’s Article 32 hearing.
As reported by Nat Helms – who is covering the hearing for NewsMax as well as for the "Defend our Marines" Web site – the prosecution’s star witness all but collapsed on the witness stand after a withering cross-examination.
Wrote Helms: “During four hours of cross examination by defense attorney Lt. Col. Colby C. Vokey, Dela Cruz was unable to clearly explain his previous testimony. At one point he simply stopped talking and stared into the distance, seemingly at a loss for words. At other times he simply rambled on until he was ordered to quit talking.”
Richard Thompson is president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a legal advocacy group that has represented Marine Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani, who was charged with failing to fully investigate and report Iraqi civilian deaths in Haditha. Thompson wrote:
“The government has spared no expense seeking to find wrongdoing on the part of our hard-fighting Marines. They should spend like resources investigating … allegations of investigatory misconduct.”
The Democrats are heralding this announcement as a victory for their anti-war efforts.
(Uh.... hasn't the plan all along been to withdrawl troops when the new Iraq governemnt can support itself? Gee... those crafty hard working (dense, easily duped) Democrats have scored a sure victory..! Most of their voters will be proud of this 'victory', lol.)
When you figure that roughly 50% of people don't vote & don't care, this 36% rating is actually a roughly 75% approval rating from all of the people.
(Disclaimers: Survey results and analysis may vary by +/- 2%. Although Cimm would say this finding is a 'fact', surveys rarely produce factual information.)
Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for 500million ($1billion).
The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.'
Let's watch and see how many dim-wit brain-dead fools suggest that the U.S. should have taken this route.
My son is headed home.....due in NC Nov 3rd or there abouts!! He's gonna get to meet his new 7 week old daughter......
God Bless the troops....!!
Trevor got married? HE HAD SEX??????
AND YOU'RE A GRANDMOTHER?!?!?!?!
Jo'baby - do the grandmother of the month for Penthouse please!
p.s. I TOLD you you'll never have to worry about your son - he was in the BEST of prayer circles!
oh yeah -
HugsNstuff
(my bad, sorry)
HugsNstuff...
Thanks everyone for the good wishes and prayers.....
Hopefully any potential military altercation can be averted diplomatically, but anyone with even an ounce of common sense will know that Iran cannot be allowed nuclear weapons capabilities under any circumstances.
Especially with Iran openly threatening the destruction of Israel.
If Iran is that anxious to basically commit national suicide by attacking Israel, I cannot see a down side there. Israel could have things wrapped up in a few months, and who knows, perhaps become a new 'oil nation' with the newly annexed territory. They might even be willing to give up a few more square miles to Palenstine.
Iran is clearly not responsible enough.
I believe that when Hillary Clinton becomes president she will carry on the tradition of keeping countries like Iran in line through military action. If they don't comply - pound them into submission (or get Israel to do it).
For the good of the entire world I find it redeeming that the U.S.A. would volunteer to be the overseeing entity regarding what countries get nuclear capabilities. We truly are a benevolent nation of do-gooders.
Three cheers for the red, white, and blue! Here, here!
Mikey's viewpoints are always fresh and unbiased, lol!
My thoughts go out to you and JoJet, and all the other mothers over there. It's never easy
Asked at a town-hall meeting to characterize the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, Giuliani said they have done an admirable job.
"Do I think the mission overall in Iraq is the correct one, I think without a doubt it is," the former New York mayor said at Insight Technologies, which makes tactical weapon lights and laser systems for the military.
"And I think the Democrats are going to change their minds about it again," Giuliani said, noting that Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards voted as senators for the initial invasion in 2003.
Edwards, who is no longer in the Senate, since has apologized for his vote. Clinton has not apologized, but has said she would not have voted for the measure authorizing use of force if she had known then what she knows now.
"I think they're going to change their minds. I think the verdict of history is going to be that it was the right decision," Giuliani said.
He argued that had the U.S. not invaded Iraq, it would now be facing two dangerous countries trying to become nuclear powersIraq and Iran.
Anti-Iraq war people should not be blamed for short term thinking and ignoring the 'big picture', as some of these people do not possess the mentality for such a complex outlook. Fortunately for us all we have government leadership to guide these folks through rough times.
Long term results (as a result of long term strategic thinking) will illustrate that the correct decisions were made in the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein.
How dull and dimwitted is that kind of thinking, lol?
Charlie Rose had two contributors to the book on the other night at:
charlierose. com/shows/2007/12/24/2/a-discussion-about-counterinsurgency#comment
The political debates are NOT addressing the issue and total approach of COIN and it most likely will go misunderstood. If the Iraqi Gov't fails to get off the dime it will not be that this strategy failed. In fact, this strategy has been a success and done what it has set out to do for the most part and give them breathing space. Some of the tenants are hard to grapple with like some times less armour is more protection and not shooting back is better when being shot at.
Listen to the interview, its sounds a bit esoteric but in fact its not. The book is not a prescriptive as much as descriptive.
Alot of the Bush approach in the beginning to Iraq was flat out wrong. We did not know enough about the cultural ways and rituals and tribal customs and how they change from Province to Province to foresee all the safe havens that Al Qaeda would find and its these safe havens we took away and the success that has ensued. But for how long if the Govt doesn't not follow?
I wish the best for your kids and give many thanks. I am trying my best to influence the right vote for the person I feel has the idea on matter.
One last point on the Admin. I am not anti Bush however there is a mortal sin in my view when asking our youth to go off to war and sacrifice and that is spending our treasury here like its endless. Its unforgivable to take a 5 trillion debt and roll it into over 10 trillion . The American People should have been asked to ration something much like in the second world war. In fact, In that war there was NO budgeting the war from out national budget. America was asked to buy bonds. All theses practices are sound. Ask the youth to sacrifice and we should too, then we might think twice or three times before we send them or prosecute more judisciously.
Popular vote has never been part of the equation before, popular vote is not part of the equation now, and popular vote should NEVER be part of the equation. We elect leadership based partially on popular vote AND more upon the electoral college, the elected leadership then decides on the most appropriate course of action for the country (often times in direct opposition to popular vore).
I laugh inwardly every time I hear a phrase such as, "Yeah, but what really matters is what the people want, right?" Uh.... NO, lol. If that were the case there would be NO taxes. Someone once said that popular vote is dangerous simply because all of the white people in any chosen neighborhood would overwhelmingly vote to keep blacks out of the neighborhood just so property values would remain higher (regardless of if it is true or not).
Personally I feel better now, knowing that Saddam and his sons aren't wreaking havoc on the Iraqi people, simply for their own pleasure and purpose. And furthermore I feel better now knowing that Saddam and his sons aren't providing a breeding ground for terrorist attacks against the U.S.A. - and, the U.S.A. has delivered a STRONG message to any countries thinking of doing that.
Merry Christmas to the troops!
I dont know if what I was speaking to was a matter of public opinion but you are right on that point. Sound logical thinking and response to inquiry in response to questioning is the least the Admin ould have provided many months ago. For example, when the whole subject of no WMD's was brought up Bush said, well it was still a good idea. But that was not the deal, and I am not stupid. We sanctioned over 100 tons of chemical weapons to that country, so why not tell America that ok, while we didnt find WMD in the purist sense that one Saddam was a Motherfkr and two had those weapons and we need to find those. Couch it in any manner they liked but instead we get the arrogant answer. Even still I supported the effort and the asue and when in doubt win the war.
Now we have an interlude of peace. Notice how McCain isnt trying to shine in his support for the effort? Its a very shaky peace that is emerging. Lets see Bush now twist the arm of that Gov't like he has of this.
And BTW, spending here like there is no tomorrow has nothing to do with popular opinion and it is not sound policy. If you have kids or grand kids, they are already in debt.
Bush has taken the Rep party that I have been a part to, one that says we dont want re-distribution of wealth and took a surplus of treasury and in effect redistributed it amongst Military Industrial Giants. Something Ike warned us against. That was a wider point I wanted to make. Have you noticed the number of elder Reps, who have some sense, that have said ENOUGH and are leaving Washington?
Then theres people who dont even understand what counterinsurgency is about like Hagel and he said of Bush and this policy that will be the most disastorous policy of the 21st century. If Iraq fails, most all of our past good victories go with it. Russia is encroaching as is China, which was evident a yr ago.
Frustrated lesser thinking people blame it all on Bush (are they drunk, lol?), but anyone with an ounce of understanding can see that our government is working exactly as our government was intended to work. There is no one single person orchestrating the Iraq war - it is a government operation. The American people voted for their leaders, the leaders are leading.
Basically when the democrats said they were going to change everything when they got elected the last time - they lied, they were wrong. They said whatever they had to say to get elected. But they can't change the political leadership system.
When Bush says S-Chip is going to be too costly, they dont know how to go to the public. They dont know how to say, we can ensure that everyones kids has insurance and we'll fund it if necessary by lets say, revoking some bad foreign aid packages to countries to continually vote against us in the UN. That could get so much traction and reverberate with America but they dont know how to do that. I am not saying that is the answer just giving one example of how to play to peoples feelings and be a demagogue. Who wouldnt support insuring their kid???? Bush smacked it down and no one was able to override that. That speakas volumes of how America feels about its kids. We can send them to war and run up 11 trillion dollars but we cant spend a few billion, I'm sorry we cant afford that????? Bush cetainly doesnt seem like a lame duck doesn he....lol. I just hope nothing else happens for him to flex our muscles.
The Presidency is about more than just the War. His approach to ramming a bad immigration bill really pissed alot of reps off. Thank God for people like Senator Sessions who enumerated the legal language that would plague securing the border. Just two weeks ago I heard where some funding was pulled for the wall. Just goes to show what such mumbo jumbo gets ya. Securing the Border has to be a mandate. If not we will see even more flooding of illegals here just plopping down for the next amnesty bill.
President Bush got a bad break, I understnd that. And just as I am writing this Bhutto is all over the news. The War is edging closer to chaos with Russia and China increasingly flexing their muslces.
Of Course Bush is not in this alone but seriously, behind the scenes of the war were Rumsfeld who at every turn seem to glass over the press. I never understood much of what he said.
Even having said that, what alot of people never do say is this. had Bush not gone into Iraq, with all of Saddams posturing like he had Nukes, although he did not. He most certainly would have been trying to get them with Irans increasing threat. That is for sure. Plus, there was Nuclear technology on the black Market via A Q Khan of Pakistan. Son Saddam could have accessed some that way. To some extent this may have benn inevitable thanks in large part to prior administrations.
Ron Paul is not all that crazy when he says we should be extracting ourselves from the Middle East but that is like putting the Genie back in the bottle. He is right however that getting involved with the Mujadeen without realizing that someone could base an attack on us from there was not very good fore sight.
And that is the point whole point. That hindsight is 20/20 and anyone, even myself can be right when looking bak but only a few wisde people can look foreward and its those few that we need to lead. To that extent I think Bush has vision, Global Jihad is a War to fight but a local war with Iraq was one of choice, and in this theatre his vision has just become focused. This past yr with the new implementation, which is no garantee BTW.
There is one more point I would like to make for Bush. There was a story that I only heard once. A map of AlQaedas means of moving through Baghdad was found on Zarqawi. when he advocated the Surge, he took the abuse of the press and the Congress coz he had the intelligence. This should go to hisa credit that there was more to the plan than just add more men.
I have read only about 10 pages of "COIN" online and its not the final draft. Its a really easy read if you like to read online...and we both know you like to debate the issue. With youre military experince Thom, you most likely would find it interesting.
Bush said the addition of troops to Iraq over the past year has produced results, saying it has helped turn the country into a place where "hope is returning." He cited citizen cooperation against extremists, grass-roots political changes and lower violence levels.
Bush also commended Iraq's parliament for passing legislation reinstating thousands of former supporters of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to government jobs.
"It's an important step toward reconciliation," Bush said. "It's an important sign that the leaders of that country understand that they must work together to meet the aspirations of the Iraqi people."
- - - - - - - - - -
Bush may go down in history as one of the greatest presidents ever, maintaining his own convictions for the good of a nation, even in the face of overwhelming popular distain.
I think they should take the Nobel prize away from Al Gore and give it to President Bush.
U.S. deficient against Muslim insurgents, study says
The U.S. military is seriously deficient in meeting "the threat of Islamist insurgencies," says a Pentagon-commissioned study released Monday.
The Rand Corp. report characterizes "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world" as "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible." The Pentagon asked the nonprofit research organization to review strategies to thwart insurgents.
The United States should instead focus its priorities on improving "civil governance" and building "local security forces," according to the report, referring to those steps as "capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"Violent extremism in the Muslim world is the gravest national security threat the United States faces," said David C. Gompert, the report's lead author and a senior fellow at Rand. "Because this threat is likely to persist and could grow, it is important to understand the United States is currently not capable of adequately addressing the challenge."
The Pentagon did not respond to calls Monday from CNN seeking comment.
The report is titled "War by Other Means: Building Complete and Balanced Capabilities for Counterinsurgency."
It focused on the increase of about 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq over the past year -- the "surge" -- which supporters have credited for a decrease in insurgent attacks.
But "it would be a profound mistake to conclude from [the troop increase] that all the United States needs is more military force to defeat Islamist insurgencies," Gompert said. "One need only contemplate the precarious condition of Pakistan to realize the limitations of U.S. military power and the peril of relying upon it."
The study notes that U.S. military interventions can be risky as well as costly because of the tenacity of jihadists, "infected by religious extremism." It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail.
U.S. deficient against Muslim insurgents, study says
The U.S. military is seriously deficient in meeting "the threat of Islamist insurgencies," says a Pentagon-commissioned study released Monday.
The Rand Corp. report characterizes "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world" as "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible." The Pentagon asked the nonprofit research organization to review strategies to thwart insurgents.
The United States should instead focus its priorities on improving "civil governance" and building "local security forces," according to the report, referring to those steps as "capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"Violent extremism in the Muslim world is the gravest national security threat the United States faces," said David C. Gompert, the report's lead author and a senior fellow at Rand. "Because this threat is likely to persist and could grow, it is important to understand the United States is currently not capable of adequately addressing the challenge."
The Pentagon did not respond to calls Monday from CNN seeking comment.
The report is titled "War by Other Means: Building Complete and Balanced Capabilities for Counterinsurgency."
It focused on the increase of about 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq over the past year -- the "surge" -- which supporters have credited for a decrease in insurgent attacks.
But "it would be a profound mistake to conclude from [the troop increase] that all the United States needs is more military force to defeat Islamist insurgencies," Gompert said. "One need only contemplate the precarious condition of Pakistan to realize the limitations of U.S. military power and the peril of relying upon it."
The study notes that U.S. military interventions can be risky as well as costly because of the tenacity of jihadists, "infected by religious extremism." It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail.
(With all of her knowledge, dedication, and years of subject analysis it's gotta be true. We'll undoubtedly hear the wisdom of Sean Penn soon.)
