UN experts - WMD material removed from I raq

“Sarge:

Is there anything that might make you become a guerilla fighter? Not a terrorist, per se, but a guerilla, attacking military installations and the like?”

“i didnt call anybody on this board intrusive

putting words in my mouth

typical”

“the religious right is nothing if not known for sticking their noses into other ppls biz - c!b!

i didnt call anybody on this board intrusive

putting words in my mouth

typical - c!b!

Unless you think there are no religious right on this board, you just lied.

If you don't think there are religious right on this board, you're clueless.

Which is it?”

“Sarge - I said Bush misled and I said I thought the Bush administration came close to saying what you said they didn't. I did acknowledge one of the quotes I dumped wasn't what I thought it was when taken in context, the others stood up quite well. You agreed that Bush people portrayed Saddam as an imminent threat to all Americans because of WMDs - that's all I've claimed they said in that department.

Sarge - the terrorists are blood thirsty beasts. There is no excuse for attacking civilians. I have said that in the past. Here, it is preaching to the choir. No one, except Spock/USA/thebackpacker has suggested otherwise. When he has suggested otherwise, I've taken him to task.

I said it quite clearly, terrorists are responsible for the terrorism they perpetrate.

Let's say there is hoodlum in town who has gotten in fights with a lot of people in town. If my brother goes off, gets drunk and flirts with this hoodlum's wife and that hoodlum comes back and shoots up my brother's house, and kills some of the folks in his house - that hoodlum is my enemy, no doubt about it. And, I will stand with my brother. The fact that he has a habit of getting drunk and flirting with other men's wives can't change that - and it does not compare with what the hoodlum has done. Still, when the time is right, I will suggest to my brother that he is best off not getting drunk and flirting with married women.

So, I repeat what I said. The US has done a lot of things to piss off much of the Moslem world, especially the Jihadis. Some of it was righteous, some of it thoroughly legit, some of it dead wrong in my opinion.

I note, also, that you highlight my calling a claim "willfully blind," but keep attacking my honesty. I've even stood up for you (I admit, that for all I know you would have preferred I didn't) when unfairly attacked.”

“If what you say is true, why can't you write a post criticizing the terrorists? I bet even if you did you'd find a way to say they're "victims". - Sarge

I said it quite clearly, terrorists are responsible for the terrorism they perpetrate.
...
So, I repeat what I said. The US has done a lot of things to piss off much of the Moslem world, especially the Jihadis. Some of it was righteous, some of it thoroughly legit, some of it dead wrong in my opinion.
- pedxing

That's what I thought.”

“but keep attacking my honesty - pedxing

Be specific.”

“Saege - there's no justification for the terrorists - they should be hunted down, killed, shot in the back of the head if they pose a risk, or brought to justice.

The SAS had the right idea when they shot the bombers on Gibraltar.

That doesn't mean there's not a better way to handle things.”

“Y2 - Be specific. Should we negotiate with them?”

“oooooohh sarge thinks hes clever and got me in a trap. check and checkmate, huh?

i didnt call you intrusive. thats something that you inferred. i cant help that. would it help if i re-worded and said "some" or "alot" or "most", or "half", so that you dont feel slighted?”

“Hmm. I thought you were the one who criticized generalizing the other day.

Must have been somebody else.”

“What is it with the word specific today Sarge - we have to spell it all out for you so you'll understand?”

“Sarge: "You pretend as if you're open minded on here" is an attack on my honesty.”

“like you dont CONSTANTLY generalize, rather, over-generalize about liberals. gimme a break”

“Sarge - once there is a cease fire, then you should maybe negotiate. You can also negotiate to undermine support, as should be done with the insurgency in Iraq - as Rumsfeld said America is doing.

Sarge - go do one of your searches. Name me a single terrorist movement which has been defeated by military means alone.”

“Sarge: "You pretend as if you're open minded on here" is an attack on my honesty." - pedxing

That's true. You are not open minded, but you put on a show as if you are. That can be interpreted as lying.”

“Y2 - LOL! You want to negotiate with the terrorists!

Dude, I'm serious, do you have ANY idea how ridiculous that is!?

Rumsfeld isn't negotiating with them, no matter what he says. Yes, HE LIED! LOL! He's being diplomatic to show we're trying everything ... But if you think for ONE SECOND he or anybody else at the table thinks the negotiations will actually work ... LOL!

Oh boy Y2, you take the cake.”

“Interesting that you know how my brain works. Judging with how you seemed to read the article you started this thread with, I am not all that certain that you have gleaned deep and accurate insights from written text.”

“Sarge - go do one of your searches. Name me a single terrorist movement which has been defeated by military means alone. - Y2

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20053621.asp

Be sure to read past the headline. It's intelligence and military might that pervailed.”

“Ignoring my question.


Typical.”

“Sarge, I say again - go do one of your searches. Name me a single terrorist movement which has been defeated by military means alone.”

“Interesting that you know how my brain works. - pedxing

I know this. You were clearly wrong about Bush lying and provided NO evidence of it, yet won't admit you were wrong. I don't have to know how your brain works to know you're not open minded.”

“Y2 - LOL! You want to negotiate with the terrorists!

Dude, I'm serious, do you have ANY idea how ridiculous that is!?

Rumsfeld isn't negotiating with them, no matter what he says. Yes, HE LIED! LOL! He's being diplomatic to show we're trying everything ... But if you think for ONE SECOND he or anybody else at the table thinks the negotiations will actually work ... LOL!

Oh boy Y2, you take the cake.”
Sarge
11:47:56 AM
7/08/05


sarge the Iraqi's and US military did meet with the insurgents, unless your not calling the insurgents terrorists

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5476743.html

U.S. held secret talks with insurgents in Iraq, paper says
Thomas Wagner, Associated Press
June 26, 2005 TALKS0627

LONDON — U.S. officials recently met secretly with Iraqi insurgent commanders at a summer villa north of Baghdad to try to negotiate an end to the bloodshed, a British newspaper reported today.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, asked about the report, suggested that meetings between Iraqi officials and insurgents "go on all the time'' and said "we facilitate those from time to time.''

The insurgent commanders "apparently came face to face'' with four American officials during meetings on June 3 and June 13 at a summer villa near Balad, about 25 miles north of Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, The Sunday Times newspaper in London said.

The report, which quoted unidentified Iraqis whose groups were purportedly involved in the meetings, said the insurgents at the first meeting included the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, which claimed responsibility for suicide bombings in Iraq and an attack that killed 22 people in the dining hall of a U.S. base at Mosul last Christmas.

Two others were Mohammed's Army and the Islamic Army in Iraq, which in August reportedly killed Italian journalist Enzo Baldoni, the newspaper said.

One American at the talks introduced himself as a Pentagon representative and declared himself ready to "find ways of stopping the bloodshed on both sides and to listen to demands and grievances,'' The Sunday Times said.

The official indicated that the results of the talks would be relayed to his superiors in Washington, the newspaper said.

Rumsfeld sought to play down the report, saying the Shiite-dominated government was reaching out to the disaffected Sunni minority — believed to be the driving force behind Iraq's insurgency — and the Americans were helping them.

"The Iraqis have a sovereign government. They will decide what their relationships with various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those from time to time,'' he said on "Fox News Sunday.''

"My understanding is some London paper reported this and everyone is chasing it. I would not make a big deal out of it. Meetings go on frequently with people,'' Rumsfeld said.

Discussing the report on ABC's "This Week,'' the defense secretary said: "I get reports on dozens of meetings. If you're asking: 'Are the Iraqis — whose country it is — reaching out to the Sunnis?' Yes, they are.''

"Are our people involved in helping them? Sure. We talk to people all the time,'' he added.

The U.S. officials tried to gather information about the structure, leadership and operations of the insurgent groups, which irritated some members, who had been told the talks would consider their main demand, a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the newspaper said.

During the June 13 talks, the U.S. officials demanded that two other insurgent groups, the 1920 Revolution and the Majhadeen Shoura Council, cut ties with the country's most-feared insurgent group, al-Qaida in Iraq, according to the report.

A senior U.S. official said earlier this month that American authorities have negotiated with key Sunni leaders, who are in turn talking with insurgents and trying to persuade them to lay down their arms. The official, who did not give his name so as not to undercut the new government's authority, did not name the Sunni leaders engaged in dialogue.

Iraq's former electricity minister, Ayham al-Samarie, has told The Associated Press that two insurgent groups — the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Army of Mujahedeen — were willing to negotiate with the Iraqi government, possibly opening a new political front in the country.

Al-Samarie, a Sunni Muslim, said he had established contact with the groups which account for a large part of the Sunni insurgents and were responsible for attacks against Iraqis and foreigners, including assassinations and kidnappings.

A senior Shiite legislator, Hummam Hammoudi, also told AP recently that the Iraqi government had opened indirect channels of communication with some insurgent groups.

The contacts were "becoming more promising and they give us reason to continue,'' Hammoudi said, without providing details.

U.S. and Iraqi officials also are considering amnesty for their enemies as they look for ways to end the country's rampant insurgency and isolate extremists wanting to start a civil war.”

“I realize that Ewker. That's why I said "He's being diplomatic to show we're trying everything" and I also said "or anybody else around the table". Maybe you thought I was talking about the dinner table.

I was saying they're bogus negotations.
last edited: 7/08/05 12:05:22 PM”

““Sarge, I say again - go do one of your searches. Name me a single terrorist movement which has been defeated by military means alone.”

Ya search engine not finding anything huh Sarge?”

“did you guys already know that Italy will start pulling out troops in Sept?”

“Sarge - go do one of your searches. Name me a single terrorist movement which has been defeated by military means alone. - Y2

Y2 - Please tell me where I said terrorists will EVER be defeated. I have only claimed they can be thwarted. I've even said as much on this board before.”

“Sarge - so what you're saying about this administration and the Rumsfeld remarks is that you're happy to admit these guys lie whenever it suits them or what the see as America's interests?”

“Y2 - I'm saying Rumsfeld doesn't think the negotiations will work.”

“It's okay to negotiate with terrorists if the negotiations won't work.”

“Rumsfeld isn't negotiating with them, no matter what he says. Yes, HE LIED! LOL! He's being diplomatic to show we're trying everything ... But if you think for ONE SECOND he or anybody else at the table thinks the negotiations will actually work ... LOL!

Oh boy Y2, you take the cake.”
Sarge
11:47:56 AM
7/08/05

Sarge - You're also saying this Administration tells lies!”

“Glad you think so Phaedrus.”

“You know what's really funny, and typical and hypocritical about you libbies?

You guys #&%!$ and moan that Rumsfeld is too black and white, that he only tries things his ways - but as soon as he tries something out of the norm for him, you complain he's doing something even though it might not work, even if it's what you're asking them to do!!

typical”

“How many dingleberries can dance on the head of a pin?”

“Sarge - Where did I say Bush lied and what did I say he lied about?”

“LOL @ pedxing.

I was arguing this point with others, and you came into it and started presenting evidence that supported their stance. 'nuff said.”

“It wasn't until AFTER I showed you that those quotes were out of context until you denied saying Bush lied.

You're cracking me up.”

“This is funny. I argued that it was "close enough" to lying from the start. You accuse me of reading something into Bush and company's statements in accusing him of lying only to find yourself reading something into mine.”

“You're right. You and Bush are of the same mold.”

“Sarge... this is where I came in. “I don't think you'll find a quote before the war started where somebody from the administration said, in essence, "Saddam has stockpiles of (insert WMD type here) right now and he can use them at any moment against the U.S."

Sarge
4:44:00 PM
6/25/05
ignore this user

Is this close enough?

Rumsfeld 9/19/02: “[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20020919-secdef2.html

Cheney, 8/26/02: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
Cheney, 8/26/02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

GW Bush: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html”
pedxing
5:44:43 PM
6/29/05[i]”

“So now you're admitting you were supporting the contention he lied?

Well that's very manly of you. Glad you can finally admit it.”

“If you look at my posts, I repeatedly said he was misleading and like Clinton with the question of "what the meaning of is is" Bush may have avoiding telling an outright lie on the issue, but he and his pals were misleading.

I asked you "is this close enough" - for me it comes close enough. I did not assume that it was close enough for you, which is why I asked the question.”

“And you CONTINUED to debate the point for days.”

“If this ain't clear to you, you do have a very closed mind.”

“Yes, for me the point was clear they were being very misleading. They were scaring up this idea that Saddam's weapons were an imminent threat.”

“... or ... you are trying to manipulate history.”

“pedxing - They were an imminent threat until we took him out.”

“Imminent insofar as they might become a concern later... If they had existed.”

“Imminent in that if we didn't do something then, the next concern we'd have would be the dead bodies in America.

They existed. Those scientists he had working for him still might have been working on a new and improved peanut butter, but I don't think so.”

“They existed, but blinked out of existence in the wake of a vast arab-liberal conspiracy.

We know where the WMD are! They're in the area around baghdad and tikrit. North, east south and west somewhat.”

“Sarge you just get better and better.

You [the liberals] simply can't assign blame to the TERRORISTS. The people who TERRORIZE.


Do you think that a B-52 dropping bombs from 40,000 ft on innocent people inside a mud hut in Afghanistan is not terrorism? It happened and more than once. To listen to the spinmeisters it was just collateral damage but to the man who lost his wife and children it was terroristic murder.

Sarge you may not agree with it but reality to most of the world is what they see. You can say and feel one way about this sort of accident but what you think doesn't matter to the man on the ground who just got bombed. It happened and now someone who was a sideliner just had his mind made up for him which side he was on. That is how jihadists are made. We are doing that every time we bust down a door looking for so-called "terrorists" in Iraq and scare some three year old kid and his mother. They don't think their brother, father, son, husband etc is a terrorist. They think he's a freedom fighter trying to rid their country of people who go around busting down doors. We're causing more harm over there than we are doing good.

Face it dude, If you can't agree on the reasons we went into this fiasco then at least admit (1)we cannot control Iraq with the boots we have one the ground (2) we can't afford to put the boots on the ground that we need to control the country (3) the terrorists are getting more organized and coming into Iraq in greater numbers.

If you can do that then you have to admit that the Iraqi War is creating jihadists fasting than we can kill them. And once you admit that then the only conclusion you can come to is that we cannot win the war on terrorism by waging classical warfare. This is a guerilla war. We've been through it in 1898 in the Phillipines and in Viet Nam. Our civilian leaders in the DOD gained and obviously learned nothing. And you defending everything they do doesn't help any.
last edited: 7/08/05 4:03:35 PM”