If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   A British think tank has released a report saying the U.S.-led war on terror has been a disaster. Also reports the sky is blue and fire burns   (breitbart.com) divider line 252
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4131 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Oct 2007 at 2:19 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-10-08 03:38:09 AM  
The Bruce Dickinson

Despite the jokes, Wikipedia is generally a pretty good repository of accurate information. And as I said, it generally does a pretty good job of having its sources quoted. So here, I'll retrieve them for you myself:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65275.htm

This one quotes it in context about halfway down the article:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html
 
2007-10-08 03:40:45 AM  
SemperLieSuckah:
None of those operations were covert. If they were covert you wouldn't know about them. They likely included a lot of clandestine operations.

We know about some of them, ie. Iran/Contra

And spare me the Global Communist Conspiracy. Vietnam never was and never would be a threat to the US! EVER! Just like Iraq, but now the battle cry is Global IslamoFascism!

Oooooh, be afraid!



 
2007-10-08 03:42:56 AM  
TorqueToad: Yeah, it was obviously a disaster since there have been ZERO attacks on US soil in six years since it started.

so the spanish bombings, the tube bombings in london, the suicide bombings which happen every day in iraq and the bombings in afghanistan, the rise of the radicals in the islamic party in turkey and the unrest amongst muslim populations around the world which has resulted because of our mangled wrrr on trrr is ok, coz as long as no saudis have hijacked a plane and hit a building in the US?

i'm sure the relatives of the spanish train and london tube bombings are deeply comforted by your steady handed assessment of our successful policy.
 
2007-10-08 03:45:52 AM  
Zhousa No, I'm saying that Eisenhower spoke out about a very real potential problem. It is true that groups in the MIC were trying to get a stranglehold on the government while he was a general and presdent. He stated that he fears for the government when he is no longer president because basically civilian presidents won't know how to deal with the MIC. However, we have the GAO and the press constantly up their asses these days in a fashion unlike back then.

Ultimately, if a claim about some group trying to gain hegemony in our government is made, it must be backed up by evidence. There is no evidence of this, only the occasional bad accounting, bad apple junior executive, and spurious reports by reactionary groups.

I gotta to bed. This has been decent conversation for the most part though. I'll comment on anything left in the morning.
 
2007-10-08 03:49:20 AM  
from the 2nd source...

"He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters."

Belief is hearsay. To look at AQ as some autonomous entity is silly, AQ is now a cause celebre thanks to Bush.

As for the State Department source, well considering how accurate their "facts" have been, I hardly find them credible.

There is nothing to be gained by remaining in Iraq, at least not for us.
 
2007-10-08 03:49:43 AM  
Whiny leftist douchebags released a report? Lets all pay attention to it!
 
2007-10-08 03:54:09 AM  
The Bruce Dickenson covert means without the government's knowledge, it is essentially someone going rogue or just operating without permission. Reagan KNEW what was going on in the Iran-Contra deal which makes it clandestine. Clandestine means that it is not known to the public, ie: it is classified. Overt means it is completely open to everyone.

Vietnam was not the threat, thinking that the Vietnam War was about Vietnam attacking us is to miss the point completely. The two major communist governments of the world were following an aggressive expansionist policy and actively threatening to take over the world. No shiat, out loud stating "We are going to crush western civilization." The Cold War was a motherfarker of a chess match. Stopping communist expansionism is the reason we made so many deals with so many devils in the middle east leading to the wars we have today.

And yes, "global islamofascism" is a real aspiration of al-Qaeda. They want to establish the Caliphate, this is their stated goal. It's real, and the reason you don't have to worry about it is all this horrible U.S. military action everyone keeps crying about.
 
2007-10-08 03:55:13 AM  
Detroit_Bob: Whiny leftist douchebags released a report? Lets all pay attention to it!

This is for you, douchebag

farm2.static.flickr.com

ps: please refund our wasted tax money.
 
2007-10-08 03:59:55 AM  
The Bruce Dickenson What is left in Iraq for us is not having to go back in in 5 years to stop the genocide of Sunni vs. Shia. Iraq is a clusterfark of people who hate eachother and it's surrounded by governments who hate eachother that cannot wait for us to leave so they can get at eachothers' necks. Iran is the most pro-active, not even waiting for us to get out before putting down roots. Right now we have a moral obligation to bring that region under control instead of letting it slip to complete regional armageddon over Sunni/Shia grudge matches.
 
2007-10-08 04:04:39 AM  
TorqueToad: Yeah, it was obviously a disaster since there have been ZERO attacks on US soil in six years since it started.

Ah, I see. So the "global war on terror" is declared a success despite the fact that the number of global terror attacks has increased, because one country that rarely ever experienced terror attacks on its home soil still rarely ever experiences terror attacks on its own soil. Interesting logic.
 
2007-10-08 04:04:55 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: The Bruce Dickinson No, we're in Iraq because for whatever reason, the president and the rest of the western world was convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. And while unpopular to say, he may HAVE had WMDs that were smuggled out just prior to the invasion. This is pretty plausible, especially considering the recent comments of the Spanish government. Christopher Hitchens wrote an excellent article about it a while back, and Chris Hitchens is hardly a reactionary neocon fool.


Christopher Hitchens is an apologist fool for the Iraqi war and has been from day one. I don't believe that the US government really believed Saddam had WMD's, or they wouldn't not have attacked the way they did. They wouldn't have attacked until they were sure they knew where such WMD's were located and had a plan to disable them. They would have allowed Saddam to flee the country with his 10 million as he had offered, as it would made it less likely for him to use such weapon.

No, I'm pretty sure that we invaded because the US was pretty sure Iraq had no functioning WMD program. Without a WMD, there isn't a real threat to the troops and thus Saddam becomes an easy target.

I also find it hard to believe that Saddam would ever decide not to use functioning WMD's on an invasion force had he actually had access to them. The fact that the US wasn't hit by WMD, and furthermore we found no evidence of structures to produce WMD's is as much proof that they didn't exist as your going to get.

Sure, we did find a few out of date chemical shells that we gave Iraq when they were at war with Iran, but nothing existed to show even a hint of a weapons program past when the first gulf war. No facilities, no material and no real personnel.

I just don't believe that the White house seriously believed Saddam really had WMD's. I think they purposefully fluffed the evidence to justify the occupation. I also don't believe that Saddam would actually send his WMD's into another country, before the invasion. If he had him, he would have used them.
 
2007-10-08 04:13:07 AM  
The Bruce Dickinson: Well, he was a Republican.

The last real Republican.

/referring to Eisenhower
 
2007-10-08 04:18:16 AM  
Zhousa Saddam had MONTHS of stall time to clean up, and I don't think we should wait until a regime has a functioning WMD before we take it from them.

And Chris Hitchens is no appologist fool, he's just a realist.

Saddam wanted to take $1 billion AND his plans for WMDs into exile. Something tells me there's something in that sentence indicating that he had WMD's or the intent to make them.

Either way, personally if we had said we were going in simply to topple Hussein, I would have been all for it.

Ok, NOW I'm going to bed.
 
2007-10-08 04:22:53 AM  
www.pambanana.com

Film at 11
 
2007-10-08 04:26:03 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: Zhousa Saddam had MONTHS of stall time to clean up, and I don't think we should wait until a regime has a functioning WMD before we take it from them.

And Chris Hitchens is no appologist fool, he's just a realist.

Saddam wanted to take $1 billion AND his plans for WMDs into exile. Something tells me there's something in that sentence indicating that he had WMD's or the intent to make them.

Either way, personally if we had said we were going in simply to topple Hussein, I would have been all for it.

Ok, NOW I'm going to bed.


yeah, im sure he was going to take his secret wmd plans to his island lair where he could plan and plot to take the entire world hostage.

you're comments are consistently uneducated and asshattish.
 
2007-10-08 04:30:14 AM  
SemperLieSuckah:
And yes, "global islamofascism" is a real aspiration of al-Qaeda. They want to establish the Caliphate, this is their stated goal. It's real, and the reason you don't have to worry about it is all this horrible U.S. military action everyone keeps crying about.


And PNAC seeks Global Democratization as their stated goal. I see little difference. Just because a group of nut jobs want something crazy, it doesn't mean that it will or could happen.

I have meet alot of muslims, Iraqi, Iranian, Malaysian...and not one of them professes to seek these ambitions you speak of. They see these fanatics much as we see our own fanatics.

Face it, it is a tiny minority of thugs that are pissed off at the US and the UN for good reason. There is no global islamofascist movement about, you're just sipping the kool-aid without question. Over a million Iranians demonstrated on Sept. 12, 2001 to protest the attacks of 9/11. I find it hard to believe that was some kind of state sponsered farce...

If you wish to cower in fear from some rag tag bunch of Islamo-Hippies, then go for it. I grew up with the spectre of TOTAL FARKING ANNHIALATION at the hands of Russia, who they told us HATED EVERYONE OF US. Years later, I have met numerous Russians my age that grew up envious of the USA, not hateful or bitter.

The line we are fed by our overlords is generally BS. History proves this to be true.
 
2007-10-08 04:33:41 AM  
ianfer

Pretty much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414. html

Perhaps you should get stop making asshattish comments and get educated.
 
2007-10-08 04:36:50 AM  
SemperLieSuckah - And Chris Hitchens is no appologist fool, he's just a realist.

Not only is Hitchens an apologist fool, he's a drunk apologist fool who has manipulated the US media into giving him lots of money by saying outrageous things, which he spends on booze.
 
2007-10-08 04:37:33 AM  
Of course Iraq had WMDs. We still have the reciept!

Did they have functional WMDs in March of 2003? NO, according to UNSCOM. Did they pose a threat to the USA? Hell no!

Where's Reagan to ask us...Do you feel safer than you did 4 years ago?

Hell No!

If this Admin. is really hell bent on crushing AQ, then why the FARK UP with Afghanistan/Pakistan?

In the words of G.W. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
 
2007-10-08 04:46:26 AM  
binnster: TorqueToad: Yeah, it was obviously a disaster since there have been ZERO attacks on US soil in six years since it started.

Ah, I see. So the "global war on terror" is declared a success despite the fact that the number of global terror attacks has increased, because one country that rarely ever experienced terror attacks on its home soil still rarely ever experiences terror attacks on its own soil. Interesting logic.


Yeah, that one county that rarely has any attacks on it's own soil has gone six years continuing to be a not attacked on it's own soil since 9/11 nation. All the while being the single largest, bloated, lest protected nation that is right in the cross hairs of the Al-Qeada tape of the month club. Halp uS Jon Kery... oh wait....

*sob* Osmam used to call more often, he used to send planes. *sob* Now that dirty user just sits in a cave, and sends tapes. *sob* Why wont he let us know he still cares. *sob*

While it's hard to prove a negative:

Maybe Richard Dawson can explain it, or for you make that Max Bygraves.

We asked a 100 people with a pulse,
Top one answer is on the board,

Name how many attacks by Al-Qaeda in the US since 9/11?

Survey says: 0

That's good for 100%

/I know you folks have Family Feud er, Family Fortunes.
 
2007-10-08 04:49:07 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414. html

nice broken link there, redneck. you sure edumicated me.

found a pic of you and your family...


farm2.static.flickr.com
 
2007-10-08 04:50:15 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: And yes, "global islamofascism" is a real aspiration of al-Qaeda. They want to establish the Caliphate, this is their stated goal. It's real, and the reason you don't have to worry about it is all this horrible U.S. military action everyone keeps crying about.

Interestingly enough, I can't think of a better way to give Al-Qaeda the power to accomplish their goals then to occupy Muslim countries and make it appear that we are a threat. Fortunately, even with our help, Al-Qaeda is no position to even come close to achieving such goals, especially since most Muslims in the world hate them. It's only too bad that we are competing with Al-Qaeda in certain places for being the most hated group in the region.

I think we can take a lesson from the Crusades here. When the European powers conquered a sizeable chunk of Muslim land in the middle east, it didn't work out in the long run. After a couple hundred years, Muslims became more organized and resistant to foreign occupation until Europeans were finally pushed out. Yet at the same time, Muslims gained almost nothing of European culture. Why should they? Europeans were the invaders after all. The end result was just the beginning of hostility between East and West over some holy sites and a futile attempt to change the balance of power between Christians and Muslims. Heck, even the cult of the Assassins (the equivalent of Al-Qaeda) was only destroyed by the Mongol invasion later on.

Yet somehow we think the same Muslims who withstood hundreds of years of occupation by Western powers are going to somehow change for the better by a few years of occupation by the US. If that doesn't spell naivety, I don't know what does. Saddam is dead, no WMD's exist and nothing we are going to do is going to serious improve the situation in Iraq. Its time to pull out.
 
2007-10-08 04:50:34 AM  
The Bruce Dickenson

Well, let's see. The Iranians are currently under an oppressive theocratic regime that supports Shia terror groups. We just toppled the Taliban who is still around and kicking and trying to reclaim their territory.

The fact is the minority has guns and the will to use them. Most Russians didn't want Stalin, most Iraqis didn't want Saddam. But if they're willing to kill annd those nice muslims you know aren't, guess which side gets historically subjugated. Yeah, the side without guns and extremist ideologies.


As for the Bush comment I have not seen that. But bin Laden is the new Arafat. He's just a talking head with no real control at this point. We are being merciful t Musharraf and not invading his country to go afte al-Qaeda. Mainly because we don't want him to be toppled and a government come to power that wants to attack India. Sound about right Biological Ali?

I believe your statement about UNSCOM is apocryphal, go here: http://www.slate.com/id/2162157/pagenum/all/

and read the response to question 3.

Ok, I'm really really really going to bed now.

Dogbeast Like any good British writer, he likes his scotch.
 
2007-10-08 04:57:21 AM  
Remove the space (new window), ianfer. Sorry, sometimes copy/paste does weird things... but I was sure you were smart enough to figure out what %20 means in a URL...

You are a truely graceful person.
 
2007-10-08 04:59:53 AM  
SemperLieSuckah - Like any good British writer, he likes his scotch.

He's just a drunk Ann Coulter but obviously he's got you fooled, so more power to him.
 
2007-10-08 05:02:38 AM  
And ianfer This is me:

i65.photobucket.com

Sorry, my family couldn't make it.
 
2007-10-08 05:05:05 AM  
Dogbeast... Hmmm... "Godless", and "God is Not Great", yeah, basically the same book...
 
2007-10-08 05:09:07 AM  
SemperLieSuckah - Hmmm... "Godless", and "God is Not Great", yeah, basically the same book...

I'm surprised you didn't mention that Coulter has blonde hair, while Hitchens is a brunette. 'Cos that would have really reinforced your 'they're different' assertions.

Like you say, it's time you went to bed.
 
2007-10-08 05:10:00 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: And ianfer This is me:


Dude, is that where they filmed the Moon landings?
 
2007-10-08 05:14:16 AM  
hmm, I was looking for a quote from when the British had Iraq as a colony, something about bringing freedom to all of Iraq, but I can't find it. I guess I'll have to settle for this one for now from Rudyard Kipling.

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.

Anyway, we've and the other western powers have been messing with the Middle East for the longest time, and our involvement almost always ends up making things worst. I just don't how things will magically turn out differently this time.
 
2007-10-08 05:14:17 AM  
The only thing they have in common is support for the invasion of Iraq. Hitchens justifies his position, Coulter is just a Republican call girl. But hey, keep generalizing. I'm just a redneck breeder with a third grade education and a pick-m-up truck I guess...
 
2007-10-08 05:14:26 AM  
SemperLieSuckah

I find you to be an enigma...

Thanks for your service! My son said Iraq sucked, except for along the rivers...
 
2007-10-08 05:15:21 AM  
How many dead Americans does it take to fill a (civilian) Hummer's/Escalade's gas tank?

Unfortunately, thats not a joke.
 
2007-10-08 05:16:35 AM  
nmemkha: How many dead Americans does it take to fill a (civilian) Hummer's/Escalade's gas tank?

Unfortunately, thats not a joke.


Then what is it exactly?

Some random thought without meaning?
 
2007-10-08 05:16:59 AM  
The Bruce Dickenson You'd be surprised how often that question gets asked.

No, that is a few miles west of the town of ar-Rutbah in al-Anbar province. That was one of my first foot patrols... talk about nervous.
 
2007-10-08 05:18:53 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: The Bruce Dickenson You'd be surprised how often that question gets asked.

No, that is a few miles west of the town of ar-Rutbah in al-Anbar province. That was one of my first foot patrols... talk about nervous.


NO FARKING shiat! They got some big ass spiders over there! I'd be nervous to.

Here's hoping you won't have to return to that fecal hole...
 
2007-10-08 05:20:19 AM  
The Bruce Dickinson: nmemkha: How many dead Americans does it take to fill a (civilian) Hummer's/Escalade's gas tank?

Unfortunately, thats not a joke.

Then what is it exactly?


Sad
 
2007-10-08 05:22:14 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: Anyone else's spidey senses going off that this is probably just a peacenik "think tank"? Like a hippy drum circle version of the American Enterprise Institute?

While not going "positively swimmingly", the GWOT is HARDLY a disaster. Now Iraq, THAT is a disaster. Afghanistan? Pretty freaking good for a counter-insurgency conflict.

Their "solution" for resolving the GWOT seems to be "sit on your hands and it will allllll go away..."



Whereas the GWOT solution is to keep the war going as long as possible, milking the taxpayers like cows.

How do we accomplish this? Simple: Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, Extraordinary Rendition, bombing wedding parties, ruinous sanctions, Egyption torture chambers, funding Salafists, keeping the public nervous with scary news stories.

This should help provide the necessary enemies for some time to come.
 
2007-10-08 05:22:38 AM  
I'm out of the Marines now, but I'm joining the 19th SFG in the California National Guard soon. I'm not a yellow elephant (not an elephant at all actually), unlike some of the College Republicans I see at school. Douchebags.

OK, I swear to god, bed time.
 
2007-10-08 05:24:38 AM  
cameroncrazy1984: Afternoon_Delight: 'Professor of peace studies'.

You're right, education is stupid. Let's just go with our gut feelings.


www.blavish.com

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2007-10-08 05:24:55 AM  
nmemkha: The Bruce Dickinson: nmemkha: How many dead Americans does it take to fill a (civilian) Hummer's/Escalade's gas tank?

Unfortunately, thats not a joke.

Then what is it exactly?

Sad


I still don't get it...

I believe the word is non sequitur...
 
2007-10-08 05:27:28 AM  
Whereas the GWOT solution is to keep the war going as long as possible, milking the taxpayers like cows.

How do we accomplish this? Simple: Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, Extraordinary Rendition, bombing wedding parties, ruinous sanctions, Egyption torture chambers, funding Salafists, keeping the public nervous with scary news stories.

This should help provide the necessary enemies for some time to come.


Wow, that's just one massive string f non-seqiturs.. Maybe I should come back with "Freedom, apple pie, voting, fireworks, George Bush, funding secular education, beheadings of women in soccer stadiums for being raped as part of pre-game." It makes about as much of an intelligible statement.
 
2007-10-08 05:29:06 AM  
same word, high five.
 
2007-10-08 05:31:46 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: Whereas the GWOT solution is to keep the war going as long as possible, milking the taxpayers like cows.

How do we accomplish this? Simple: Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, Extraordinary Rendition, bombing wedding parties, ruinous sanctions, Egyption torture chambers, funding Salafists, keeping the public nervous with scary news stories.

This should help provide the necessary enemies for some time to come.

Wow, that's just one massive string f non-seqiturs.. Maybe I should come back with "Freedom, apple pie, voting, fireworks, George Bush, funding secular education, beheadings of women in soccer stadiums for being raped as part of pre-game." It makes about as much of an intelligible statement.


Alas, I wish they were non-sequiturs. Instead, they represent either

1. Strategic stupidity of an epic scale, in which heavy handed military and diplomatic tactics serve to inflame civilian populations, swelling the enemy's recruits; OR

2. A cynical attempt to replace an out-of-date paradigm (i.e., The Cold War) with the "newest model", the GWOT to guarantee that the funding for a bloated military apparatus continues apace.

Trenchant enough?
 
2007-10-08 05:38:45 AM  
1) Becaus, yeah, you know... we're waaaay worse than they are. The reason these things are big deals is because we hold ourselves to higher standards. I could give a fark what some douchebag terrorist things of being dragged around on a leash after he comes from an organization that beheads people regularly for being of an opposite religion. An if we just walk away, the problem wll be solved because we're the problem, right? Not extremist megalomaniac ideologies. Maybe if we prostrate ourselves we can appease them into not trying to kill us.


#2 = makes no sense. Cold war? Bloated military? What?
 
2007-10-08 05:43:00 AM  
SemperLieSuckah

repeat after me...


Must not press F5...
 
2007-10-08 05:51:49 AM  
Daneel Olivaw:

Yeah, that one county that rarely has any attacks on it's own soil has gone six years continuing to be a not attacked on it's own soil since 9/11 nation. All the while being the single largest, bloated, lest protected nation that is right in the cross hairs of the Al-Qeada tape of the month club. Halp uS Jon Kery... oh wait....

*sob* Osmam used to call more often, he used to send planes. *sob* Now that dirty user just sits in a cave, and sends tapes. *sob* Why wont he let us know he still cares. *sob*

While it's hard to prove a negative:

Maybe Richard Dawson can explain it, or for you make that Max Bygraves.

We asked a 100 people with a pulse,
Top one answer is on the board,

Name how many attacks by Al-Qaeda in the US since 9/11?

Survey says: 0

That's good for 100%

/I know you folks have Family Feud er, Family Fortunes.



Nice mish-mash of nonsense there chief. I think it's way past your bedtime.
 
2007-10-08 05:52:43 AM  
SemperLieSuckah

And ianfer This is me:

i65.photobucket.com

Sorry, my family couldn't make it.


Holy crap dude! You got deployed to Mars!
 
2007-10-08 05:57:15 AM  
exaltare: Actually, it's not. Peace studies is basically a multidisciplinary social sciences study for conflict resolution. The guy holds a BsC, PhD, DIC ARCS, MIBiol. It's likely that those degrees are in several social sciences, but I can't dig up his CV, so I couldn't actually say. At any rate, assuming my UK degrees are up to par, a professor for peace studies with degrees in say, sociology, political science, and some other social science, with the most terminal of those degrees being honor-level from the Imperial College, and a chartered biologist, teaching peace studies? I'd pay attention.

hippie.

/kidding
 
2007-10-08 05:59:38 AM  
punistation: picture

I find it interesting how you think "libruls" are right. Right about what. That there's a war? It used to be, that when you were at were, troops stayed in war until the war was done. And wars lasted pretty long. Our troops aren't even complaining. The "libruls" are the ones complaining. The troops want to be thought of as heroes and you treat them like idiots while they fight for your prissy, lazy asses. You want the war to fail, because if the war fails, Bush fails; you hate the war because president Bush started it. Even though you and most "libruls" like Rosie O'Donnell admit to not understanding anything about warfare. Thats pretty much all the "libruls" were right about.
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report