Anybody see the Saudi Princes on 20/20 last night?

[ljb]

Just curious as these are the dudes we are sacrificing young Americans to protect. (Save from that evil Saddam).

[Tom]

Earth to Ljb.....Sadaam has been caught. NO ONE is protecting anyone from him anymore.
Do you think things would be better if we left him in power?
Never mind, I forgot...you don't answer direct questions. No good answers so you move on to a new minor event and build it up as world-shattering.
D'oh!

[ljb]

From Tom,
Earth to Ljb.....Sadaam has been caught.
Then why the hell are we still in Iraq? No WMDs, No Nukes, No threat but, lottsa oil? :rolleyes:

[wes]

Then why the hell are (WE) still in Iraq.....

ljb, you do not know where the hell you are.



wes

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
From Tom,
Earth to Ljb.....Sadaam has been caught.
Then why the hell are we still in Iraq? No WMDs, No Nukes, No threat but, lottsa oil? :rolleyes:

There are many, many reasons why we are there. Establishing a nice, big military presence in the Middle East for starters.

[Tom]

Building a democracy. Establishing freedom for an oppressed people. Fighting terrorists in THIER backyard instead of ours.
Did you see they held elections in Afghanistan, L.....even let women vote.
BTW, found another mass grave the other day. Women, hands tied behind their backs, bullet to the head. Children clutching toys, shot to hell.
So take your cute little comments about us not doing anything good over ther and stick them up your arse. You will never get it, but here is a clue.....Sadaam was the WMD! And not matter what phony stats you put up there, tens of thousands of people are alive today and fighting for a chance at a life thanks to what we did there. No thanks whatsoever to you and your boy, that scum-bucket frankenstein Kerry.

[JustRalph]

I heard an interesting comment by Chris Hitchens tonight. He said that many believe that Saddam was very ill and that he was about to turn the country over to his son. The son was considered to be the "real killer" and that he had planned on killing all the kurds once he took over. Remember, this is the guy who fed people into a wood chipper when they pissed him off.

I had yet to hear anyone speculate on Uday and Qusay (sp) taking over soon.........interesting theory either way. We may have prevented an even larger blood bath than we found last year.

[kingfin66]

Originally posted by Tom
Sadaam was the WMD!

Now that is a spin I have not heard before. I'm putting that in my pipe, smoking it, holding the smoke in my lungs for full effect, and...still not getting it.

[CapperLou]

Pace Advantage has it right:

As I wrote on another thread of this type a few weeks back--a long time friend of mine who recently retired from the government told me that we went to and are in Iraq for

"Strategic Military Purposes" based on the present and future. They in the State Department and the Pentagon know exactly what is going on (but of course will NEVER talk about anything publicly) and that is the answer. If and when we ever have to move into Iran or Syria it's all set.

He also mentioned when I talked to him about a few things two weeks ago that the one of the reasons---there are many of course--that oil prices are at an all time high is because the Saudi's--being as greedy and talking out of both sides of their mouth's are not sleeping very well these days and he and others in the government believe they want to cash in more than ever right now because they are so scared of what is coming. The old saying--what goes around comes around--and they certainly brought about this mess and they realize it now and frankly do not know what to do.

Yeah, Ask Uncle Sam to help us--but Uncle Sam has wised up to you connivers although He will not say so publicly. What a time and what a world we are living in today---everything has to be politically correct when it comes to public statements about people or countries or regions.

All the best,

CapperLou

P.S. WMD--somebody was right before on thread--it was Sadam--that was the politically correct way for us to get on the
ground in the middle of the area on the borders of Iran, Syria, &
Saudi Arabia. Do you get it now? If you think these camel jockies
are fooling us Americans--I would suggest you go back to college
and re-study the history of that part of world.

Have a good day guys!!!!!

[Tom]

Originally posted by kingfin66
Now that is a spin I have not heard before. I'm putting that in my pipe, smoking it, holding the smoke in my lungs for full effect, and...still not getting it.


Hold it in longer...it will come to you!;)

[Tom]

Riddle me this:

What is between Iraq and Afghanistan?
Is Iran between a "a rock" amnd a hjard place? hehehe/

What is stategic about this lineup...West to East...


Turkey...Syria...Iraq....Iran...Afghanistan....

They can run, but they cannot hide. Soon, they will find it difficult to run. Lesson to be learned.....jihad is hell!

[Equineer]

Capperlou:
With respect and thanks for your friend's government service, the problem with going to war under false pretenses, or for the sake of a hidden agenda, is that it weakens rather than strengthens the integrity of national security in free democracies. While this has always been true, information is now exceedingly difficult contain, and worldwide dissemination is almost instantaneous.

What did your friend mean by secrets concerning "Strategic Military Purposes?" Your post suggests a more proper description would be secrets concerning "Strategic Policy Purposes." Secret policies are the most serious threat to any democracy. If policies are secret, elections have no purpose.

Oil Factoid:
An interesting fact about oil is that Russia will soon surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil exporter. This is predicted in early 2005 even if Russia's largest oil company fails to fully recover from bankruptcy woes... the slack has already been compensated for by investments in other Russian oil operations.

The Military Presence Argument:
Saudi greed is motivated by fear. It is common knowledge that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait are prime targets for the Jihadists. Just like Saddam, the leaders in these nations are viewed as infidels... and moreover, as infidels who have also sold out to the West. Bin Laden, al-Zawahri, and al-Zarqawi have sworn to overthrow the current regimes in their homelands of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.

What I cannot follow is the argument that Iraq is a logical place for the U.S. to establish a military presence in the Middle East. Is this argument premised upon backing a puppet Iraqi regime that will need large numbers of American troops in order to rule?

We already support quasi-puppet Middle East regimes that depend on us for survival. Before the war, Saddam's regime caused the Iraqi infrastructure to lag far behind these other Arab countries... does it make sense to wreck what was there, then re-build a whole nation in order to station troops in the Middle East? Surely, someone must have suggested a better way to deploy troops... such as by diplomatically pressuring our quasi-puppet "friends" in the Middle East.

Iraq is also a poor logistical choice because Umm Qasr, the only seaport, is located in the southern most region and must be accessed via a narrow waterway. We currently pay a fortune in neighborhood "toll fees" to move supplies into Iraq.

Finally, if Iraq is meant to be a staging ground for invading Iran (or even Syria), why does the administration promise that there will be no draft? It was and is absurd to think we will be greeted as liberators in the Muslim world. Occupying Iran with our present all-volunteer military apparatus is wishful thinking by uninformed minds. Iran is one of the world's few representative theocracies... and would be more difficult to occupy than any other Muslim population in the Middle East.

[CapperLou]

A very good post indeed. Yes--I think he meant policy--having spent most of his years at state department.

And, I guess Iraq was the only choice--seeing that they wanted to ged rid of Sadam and you are right about the one seaport and high costs--but they are expecting oil profits at some point in future--a way off the way things are now.

I am just a horseplayer and business guy so I do not really know about all the reasons or insight into this stuff--as someone who has worked in state or defense.

The whole situation will eventually resolve itself, but it's going to take years. The Saudi Royal family is surely not sleeping as well as we are these days in the good ole USA. It's all coming and going to come back even more at them from the looks of it all.

Have to get back to my plays this afternoon.

All the best,

CapperLou

P.S. The draft is a puzzle to me--there is no way they can go in anywhere else without some kind of draft to maintain military at home.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Strategic+ geographic.
Presence+ foothold.
Secret+ you are not paying close attention to C-span.
______________
On November 6, 2003, President George W. Bush spoke before the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington D.C. In this significant new policy speech, the President laid out the overall plan, the “big picture” for the Middle East.



Bush set his remarks in the context of President Reagan’s declaration over twenty years ago “that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted.”



President Bush paralleled the Soviet tyranny with the current situation in the Middle East and the involvement of the United States in Iraq:



This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally posted by ljb
Just curious as these are the dudes we are sacrificing young Americans to protect. (Save from that evil Saddam).

Isnt this a joke!!

USA protecting these guys and running up a huge bill, Chickenshit Saudi's are afraid to face the middle East head on, They need the USA to protect them, They have more money and power if they really wanted to flex their muscles and built a decent military to protect their naton,Im tired of seeing your guys getting killed while the rest of the world watches and backstabs the USA.Was a good thing to get rid of Saddam and free the people...For what..now we have mass insurgents wanting to kill anything American.I say let them fight their own battles..Its now only about the oil that the Saudi's are afraid of losing.

[Tom]

I have always been in favor just taking the damn oil and telling anyone who doesn't like to do something about it. I maintain we have a right to Kuwati oil , along with Canada, becasue we won the first Gulf war anf they were instrumental in helping putting out the fires. The spoils of war, and all that.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally posted by Equineer
Capperlou:
With respect and thanks for your friend's government service, the problem with going to war under false pretenses, or for the sake of a hidden agenda, is that it weakens rather than strengthens the integrity of national security in free democracies. While this has always been true, information is now exceedingly difficult contain, and worldwide dissemination is almost instantaneous.

What did your friend mean by secrets concerning "Strategic Military Purposes?" Your post suggests a more proper description would be secrets concerning "Strategic Policy Purposes." Secret policies are the most serious threat to any democracy. If policies are secret, elections have no purpose.

Oil Factoid:
An interesting fact about oil is that Russia will soon surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil exporter. This is predicted in early 2005 even if Russia's largest oil company fails to fully recover from bankruptcy woes... the slack has already been compensated for by investments in other Russian oil operations.

The Military Presence Argument:
Saudi greed is motivated by fear. It is common knowledge that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait are prime targets for the Jihadists. Just like Saddam, the leaders in these nations are viewed as infidels... and moreover, as infidels who have also sold out to the West. Bin Laden, al-Zawahri, and al-Zarqawi have sworn to overthrow the current regimes in their homelands of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.

What I cannot follow is the argument that Iraq is a logical place for the U.S. to establish a military presence in the Middle East. Is this argument premised upon backing a puppet Iraqi regime that will need large numbers of American troops in order to rule?

We already support quasi-puppet Middle East regimes that depend on us for survival. Before the war, Saddam's regime caused the Iraqi infrastructure to lag far behind these other Arab countries... does it make sense to wreck what was there, then re-build a whole nation in order to station troops in the Middle East? Surely, someone must have suggested a better way to deploy troops... such as by diplomatically pressuring our quasi-puppet "friends" in the Middle East.

Iraq is also a poor logistical choice because Umm Qasr, the only seaport, is located in the southern most region and must be accessed via a narrow waterway. We currently pay a fortune in neighborhood "toll fees" to move supplies into Iraq.

Finally, if Iraq is meant to be a staging ground for invading Iran (or even Syria), why does the administration promise that there will be no draft? It was and is absurd to think we will be greeted as liberators in the Muslim world. Occupying Iran with our present all-volunteer military apparatus is wishful thinking by uninformed minds. Iran is one of the world's few representative theocracies... and would be more difficult to occupy than any other Muslim population in the Middle East. \


If the Saudi's had some backbone, This war wouldnt be, Crown prince is a wimp hiding behind the USA..Also funneling money to the terrorists to help them while crying wolf to the USA.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ljb
Just curious as these are the dudes we are sacrificing young Americans to protect. (Save from that evil Saddam).

LJB,

It was a powerful indictment of our major ally in the region. Obviously, these guys here did not see it by their comments.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
LJB,

It was a powerful indictment of our major ally in the region. Obviously, these guys here did not see it by their comments.

Name me one person killed in the last 12 months protecting any Saudi's from Sadaam.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Name me one person killed in the last 12 months protecting any Saudi's from Sadaam.

Well, Tom, I can think of 3000 Americans killed on 09/11/01 by a bunch of Saudis.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Well, Tom, I can think of 3000 Americans killed on 09/11/01 by a bunch of Saudis.

Yep, and thanks to our President 75% of the organization responsible is either dead or locked up.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Yep, and thanks to our President 75% of the organization responsible is either dead or locked up.

It's a pity they're so many new recruits..

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
It's a pity they're so many new recruits..

Point them out, I will be glad to shoot them for you.............

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
It's a pity they're so many new recruits..

What proof do you have that they are new?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by schweitz
What proof do you have that they are new?


Exactly. Excellent question. It boggles the mind how assumptions by Democratic Kerry supporters are taken as iron clad, yet assumptions by Bush supporters are "weak at best"

Funny how this stuff works.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
What proof do you have that they are new?

It was recently reported in the NY Times. I don't have the original piece, but here's some comments referring to it.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0%2C6119%2C2-10-1462_1570736%2C00.html

[CapperLou]

IMO the Saudi's are responsible for the whole mess that has evolved all over the world.

They educated these youngsters by building schools all over that contain books that teach the kids that everyone other than muslims are infidels etc.

Then they tried to pay off all the saudi born terrorists and that sure as heck is not working anymore.

They talk out of both sides of their faces and we have put up with them only because of the oil!!!

Everything is about the black gold---that's part of the reason we are on the ground over there. If the Saudi's and others do not put down their own bad guys--and they seem not to speack out or be able to do anything as yet---what is going to happen in the future is that they will go down with them---if it comes to a point where we just have to do some horrrible things as we had to in WWII. Then they will all die together--it will be too late for them--but of course the royal family will flee to London or somewhere else if it comes to that.

There is a mess out there and I'm not the one to solve it--we have to depend on our leaders and I do. I'm not one of these rebels as many have become these days.

All the best,

CapperLou

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
It was recently reported in the NY Times. I don't have the original piece, but here's some comments referring to it.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0%2C6119%2C2-10-1462_1570736%2C00.html

You kidding--right? Yep, iron-clad proof---it has been reported---lol:rolleyes:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
You kidding--right? Yep, iron-clad proof---it has been reported---lol:rolleyes:

Well, let's see. THe NY times quotes intelligence sources to the effect. Seems like that was enoguh for the iron clad WMD claim.

But here's an unbiased source:

“The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London reports al Qaeda is now 18,000 strong, with many new recruits joining as a result of the war in Iraq.”

- The International Institute of Strategic Studies is recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on political military conflict. Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi addressed them on September 30.


....

"Put your head back into the sand."

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Well, Tom, I can think of 3000 Americans killed on 09/11/01 by a bunch of Saudis.

There you go, evading the issues again. Is Ljb tutoring you on spin. I asked specifically who was killed protecting Saudis from SH in the last year. Your anser has noting whatsoever to do with that question. Your answer was liberal BS because YOU CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. You have nothing to offer exept BS and lies and spins. And post of what someone else thinks.
It must be hard to sleep at night knowing you are empty. Completely empty. You and Ljb are actually answering my questins with your non-answers. You have no facts, proof, whatever...just internet graffitti to post and run. I understand wqhy you guys hate Bush so much.....you are afraid of strong people with the courage of their convictions. You are mindless trolls following the DNC. And cannot reply without your scripts.
Sheez. Pretty pathetic. :(

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Well, let's see. THe NY times quotes intelligence sources to the effect. Seems like that was enoguh for the iron clad WMD claim.

But here's an unbiased source:

“The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London reports al Qaeda is now 18,000 strong, with many new recruits joining as a result of the war in Iraq.”

- The International Institute of Strategic Studies is recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on political military conflict. Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi addressed them on September 30.


....

"Put your head back into the sand."


Did they take a poll or are they registered someplace? :rolleyes:

[Secretariat]

Why don't you look them up Schweitz? Enlighten yourself.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Why don't you look them up Schweitz? Enlighten yourself.

Why don't you? It's your source----My point is that there is really no way to know how many terrorists there are and I think you kmow that.

[Tom]

Michael Moore says there are only a few hundred Al Qeda opertives wold wide, and he wouldn't lie, would he?:confused:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
Why don't you? It's your source----My point is that there is really no way to know how many terrorists there are and I think you kmow that.

I already have. Obviously so has Prime Minister Allawi.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I already have. Obviously so has Prime Minister Allawi.

Yea, right lol----I guess you better get busy and educate Michael Moore then. :D

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
Yea, right lol----I guess you better get busy and educate Michael Moore then. :D

I've made it easier for you.

Read and explore their site.

http://www.iiss.org/news.php?PHPSESSID=feafb66e1997af39699caf10609bf35 a

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I've made it easier for you.

Read and explore their site.

http://www.iiss.org/news.php?PHPSESSID=feafb66e1997af39699caf10609bf35 a

A London based think tank---wahoo---I ask again---did they take a poll or do terrorists register someplace?---because I see words like "estimated" and phrases like "appeared to".

I bet these guys didn't like what Reagan was doing when he brought the Soviet Union to their knees either.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
A London based think tank---wahoo---I ask again---did they take a poll or do terrorists register someplace?---because I see words like "estimated" and phrases like "appeared to".

I bet these guys didn't like what Reagan was doing when he brought the Soviet Union to their knees either.

That's right. All you need is the word of a druggie Rush, a sexual harasser O'Reilly, and a fella with a Messiah complex, Bush.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
That's right. All you need is the word of a druggie Rush, a sexual harasser O'Reilly, and a fella with a Messiah complex, Bush.

No, I use common sense that nobody really knows---you use whatever article offers up an OPINION that you agree with.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
That's right. All you need is the word of a druggie Rush, a sexual harasser O'Reilly, and a fella with a Messiah complex, Bush.

Why do you evade a direct question as the o the authenticity of your sources with this totally irrelevant personal attack on third parties? Is your powder wet?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Why do you evade a direct question as the o the authenticity of your sources with this totally irrelevant personal attack on third parties? Is your powder wet?

I posted my sources above if you'd take the tiem to look. Generally, you complain about links. You're not interested in sources, but dogma. Where are your sources other than right wing anecdotal stump speeches?

[Tom]

AGAIN.....you dodge the quesiton. Way to go.