News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq

[spuriousmonkey]

Jaap de hoop (the hope) Scheffer.

He was kicked out of Dutch politics and send to the Nato to be quiet. And now we can hear him talk again.

tsk tsk

 

[The Devil Inside]

i just read an article about him.

haha!!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.

Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception.

They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq.

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

olala!

Saddam was a anti-terrorist. And then Iraq got invaded by dumb americans.

And now it is a breeding place and training site for terrorist.

Well done!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5326790.stm

Baghdad violence 'not declining'

Sectarian and insurgent killings in Baghdad are undiminished
The Iraqi ministry of health says more than 1,500 people were killed in attacks in Baghdad last month.

The figure is far higher than previously thought, and only slightly lower than July's figure.

US military and Iraqi officials had previously said a major new security operation in Baghdad had dramatically reduced the number of killings.

Not that this will stop the americans from sticking their heads in the sand of course.

Afghanistan is acting up. Iraq can't be controlled. Saddam was a force in the ME that actually opposed the extremist.

What a major fuckup.

 

[dsdsds]

A parallelsource:

It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

It seems the best strategy would have been to stay & finish the job in Afghanistan while making an alliance with Saddam. Also Saddam Hussein and the Sunnis would continue to keep an eye on Iran and balance the Shia. Iran Is much stronger today because of shia uprising in Iraq.

 

[Baron Max]

Spurious, it's always interesting to me that you'll believe one government report, but not some other one! Surely you have some magic method of determining which is "correct" and which isn't, right? Or ...ooooh, ...is it just your own bias picking the ones that match your opinions?

And of all things, you pick a report that comes out ...ooooh, just prior to the elections??? ....LOL!

Baron Max

 

[The Devil Inside]

1. he has you on ignore.
2. your post had no actual content.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

More news from the other colony (afghanistan):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5329670.stm

Afghan clashes 'kill 40 Taleban'

British soldiers are in the forefront of the fight against the Taleban
Nato-led forces in Afghanistan say they have killed 40 more Taleban rebels in an ongoing offensive in the south.

Now wait a sec. Offensive? I thought the war had ended there.

Nato says more than 40 Taleban were killed by air strikes and artillery barrages overnight. One Nato soldier also died in combat.

Airstrikes and artillery barrages? Are they sure they meant 'killed 40 taliban' and not 'killed 40 civilians'?

There has been a series of suicide bombings across Afghanistan, but such a large explosion in the centre of Kabul was unusual.

Nothing stops a suicide bomber better than an airstrike or an artillery barrage!

 

[Baron Max]

Are they sure they meant 'killed 40 taliban' and not 'killed 40 civilians'?

How can one tell the difference? Please advise. (The question also applies to such forces as those in Iraq or Hezbollah or the PLO (and similar Palestinian groups)

Nothing stops a suicide bomber better than an airstrike or an artillery barrage!

Oh, that's very, very true ....if the bombs or artillery shells land right on the suicide bombers head!

Baron Max

 

[hypewaders]

On the contrary, such a barrage would be to assist in a hypothetical suicide bomber's sick mission. The monkey's irony went over your head yet again.

 

[Baron Max]

On the contrary, such a barrage would be to assist in a hypothetical suicide bomber's sick mission.

No, it wouldn't ....if they caught him outside in the open and not close to his target.

The monkey's irony went over your head yet again.

No, I didn't. But then I'm also not so sure it would be called "irony", either.

Baron Max

 

[spuriousmonkey]

From Dutch newspaper on Afghanistan.

The highest ranking military leader (Colonel Arie Vermei) of the Dutch forces in South afghanistan is very pessimistic on teh chances of a successful mission to 'rebuild' afghanistan. A mission the dutch military was send to accomplish there.

He called it a mop-up operation with the tap wide open.

From pakistan there is a continuous influx of new Taliban rebels.

The pakistani government is incapable of keeping the border with afghanistan closed. Approximately 40% of the Taliban, especially those who are in charge, form the core of taliban resistance. These men arrive well-trained directly from Pakistan. They are accompagnied by local similar-minded people.

In pakistan they are armed and supplied with communication equipment and transport. "as long as pakistan does not close the border we can't do our job". "We capture a lot of taliban or disable them, but new warriors keep coming."

This story confirms the notion that the Dutch mission in afghanistan is not there to rebuild the nation as was intended but are strictly on a war mission currently, which is confirmed by the military Union.

Link in Dutch:
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/49998881/_Missie_is_dweilen_met_de_kraan_open_.html?p=9,1

 

[Baron Max]

From Dutch newspaper on Afghanistan.

The highest ranking military leader (Colonel Arie Vermei) of the Dutch forces in South afghanistan.....

That's just one man's opinion ...nothing more, nothing less. Why would you immediately believe his opinion over and above some others' opinions?

Could it be that his opinion says what you want to believe? His opinion speaks to your own biased opinion ....even though you don't know jack-shit about what's really happening in Afghanistan (other than the opinions that you read from others who probably don't know jack-shit!)?

Tell me, Spurious, and please tell me honestly .....why do you believe this report versus any of the other, more optimistic reports? Please ....I'm trying to learn how to sort through all of the bullshit myself.

Baron Max

 

[spuriousmonkey]

That's just one man's opinion ...nothing more, nothing less. Why would you immediately believe his opinion over and above some others' opinions?

Could it be that his opinion says what you want to believe? His opinion speaks to your own biased opinion ....even though you don't know jack-shit about what's really happening in Afghanistan (other than the opinions that you read from others who probably don't know jack-shit!)?

Tell me, Spurious, and please tell me honestly .....why do you believe this report versus any of the other, more optimistic reports? Please ....I'm trying to learn how to sort through all of the bullshit myself.

Baron Max

Because he is in charge there? Because the military leadership has been reluctant to admit to this, despite there being reports earlier already from other sources. And now the man who actually leads the Dutch forces there confirms these notions.

Why would he lie?

In fact why do you question everything that goes against your narrowminded views? Even if there is nothing to question.

Please show us the optimistic reports. I demand them. You said they exist. we want to see them.

 

[Baron Max]

All of that might be true, Spurious, but it's still one man's opinion ...nothing more, nothing less. That you believe his opinion above and beyond the opinion of others is more tell of you and your own bias than of his.

Think about it. Why do you believe anything about anything?

Baron Max

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Show that the report is wrong.

 

[Baron Max]

Show that the report is wrong.

I didn't say it was wrong, Spurious, I just said it, like most reports, is just one man's opinion. You can believe it if you want to, but in doing so, all it shows is your own gullibility, not anything about the truth or dishonesty of the report.

Baron Max

 

[Roman]

didn't say it was wrong, Spurious, I just said it, like most reports, is just one man's opinion. You can believe it if you want to, but in doing so, all it shows is your own gullibility, not anything about the truth or dishonesty of the report.

Unless you show otherwise, or provide evidence otherwise, we have no reason to distrust the report.

 

[Baron Max]

..., we have no reason to distrust the report.

Then by that logic, you don't have any reason to distrust any other reports, either. Yet you always seem to distrust reports that favor the USA, don't you!

People, you included, believe only what you want to believe ....regardless of the evidence or substantiation.

Baron Max

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Roman is an american.


This report was done by one of the favourite allies of the USA. Why are you so skeptical of a report done by the highest official in afghanistan by the favourite ally of the USA. What is so anti-USA of this report that you distrust it?

It reports a problem. Is it that problems in foreign policy do not exist if the American government denies problems?

Why are you so biased?

 

[Destroyer]

I didn't say it was wrong, Spurious, I just said it, like most reports, is just one man's opinion. You can believe it if you want to, but in doing so, all it shows is your own gullibility, not anything about the truth or dishonesty of the report.

Thats all well and good. But do you apply that logic to what Bush and his administration says? When Georgie boy told you Iraq had WMD did you believe him? Or did it just show up your own gullibility,?