• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

You've certainly seen this from me before, with documentation. As it is documented, and you have seen it, I'm not sure how you can challenge it.

Let's see, did this documentation come from the Huffington Post and Media Matters?
 
Hussein was willing to work with an aQ associated group to what exactly? Would you like to share this part?
I know there're examples in there. But I thought you might enjoy telling them more than I would.

It's been posted to you. You didn't care then and you care even less now.
 
No, you just misread it. He had an interest, but he wasn't actively doing anything. He had relationships before DS, and he wanted to maintain them in case he needed to do something later. But he was not actively doing much of anything.

Read the document. It's full or could, could have, would have been able.

Over 100,000 dead, millions displaced, and we're arrogant enough to think we did them a favor.

You're inability to discuss topics honestly is amazing.

Lefties always ignore the Iraqi's who are very happy Saddam and his sons are gone.

It's unbelieveably dishonest to blame the US for Iraqi's killed by jihadis who flooded into Iraq before and after OIF.

But then you have nothing else. A free and peaceful Iraq has caused many a lefty to lose their mind on this issue.

I swear you sound very familiar.
 
It's been posted to you. You didn't care then and you care even less now.
It's not for me—I have read the thing. It's for the folks playing along at home.

And ftr, I am not so sure that you ever did post the things that Hussein was willing to work with an aQ associated group to do. I am also pretty sure that you didn't post the evidence that his regime was hesitant to get involved in anything that would rile up "the West" either. But w/e.


Iraq and Libya really aren't very good analogues at all. The discussion of one does not provide many opportunities for meaningful and signifcant comparisons to the other. Obviously, ymmv.
 
It's not for me—I have read the thing. It's for the folks playing along at home.

If you have read it (highly doubtful) then you know what you are saying isn't true.

You are either functionally illiterate or outright dishonest.

I am not so sure that you ever did post the things that Hussein was willing to work with an aQ associated group to do.

That's an outright lie. I'm calling you on it.

See post 384 and 385 of this very thread.
 
If you have read it (highly doubtful) then you know what you are saying isn't true.
You are either functionally illiterate or outright dishonest.
Or a number of other alternatives. One of these other possible alternatives is that you're mistaken.

That's an outright lie. I'm calling you on it.
See post 384 and 385 of this very thread.
No, it's actually quite true that I wasn't sure about it.
If you think that, "I am not so sure that you ever did post the things that Hussein was willing to work with an aQ associated group to do," is the equivalent of "You have never posted the things that Hussein was willing to work with an aQ associated group to do," then you're not accurately discerning the meaning of the sentences that you are reading.

I have noticed that, to me, these sorts of distinctions sometimes seem lost on you. I am possibly wrong about that.
Also, I apologize for bringing you up as a subject in the debate. I just wanted to make note of it for you in case it helps with anything.
 
Or a number of other alternatives. One of these other possible alternatives is that you're mistaken.

I'm mistaken about direct quotes from the IPP report? BS. You're lying.

No, it's actually quite true that I wasn't sure about it.

BS Moon. You responded in post 388 with this nonsense.

Cut him some slack. I don't think it's intentional deflection.

You are in fact lying about this now and I busted you on it.
 
I'm mistaken about direct quotes from the IPP report? BS. You're lying.
Have you considered the possibility that the conclusions you reached based upon those quotes could be mistaken or based on slight misreadings?

BS Moon. You responded in post 388 with this nonsense.
Cut him some slack. I don't think it's intentional deflection.
You are in fact lying about this now and I busted you on it.
Again, I think you have missed an important aspect of what you have read of my post.
What you posted in those posts, #s 384 and 385, do not say exactly what activities Hussein was willing to work with an aQ associated group to do. Nor, are they the examples of the times when Hussein's regime actually did work with an aQ associated group that are given in the IPP report.


And as an example of what I was saying in re the evidence of Hussein's regime's hesitancy to get involved in anything that would rile up "the West."

In one case, Iraq's ambassador in Switzerland, who was also Saddam' s half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti, recommended that the Director of the IIS meet directly with an Egyptian who had strong connections to Islamic parties and anti-Western Islamic organizations," and who was offering his assistance in brokering an alliance. But the director of the IIS department responsible for Arab issues did not concur with the ambassador ' s recommendation and cautioned in an internal memorandum that a meeting at such a level would "not serve the current Iraqi situation. . . and will make us lose our main target." He went on to note that working with the religious parties was dangerous at this time because they were "associated with the religious terror, which Hezbollah and Iran are practicing . . . and it is provoking the West.​
 
Have you considered the possibility that the conclusions you reached based upon those quotes could be mistaken or based on slight misreadings?

They are not my conclusions BSer. They are the conclusions of the people who wrote the report.

You would know that if you read the report. Instead you continue to deliberately lie about that.

Again, I think you have missed an important aspect of what you have read of my post.

I've missed nothing. You're a liar and I busted you on it.

Welcome to my ignore list liar.
 
They are not my conclusions BSer. They are the conclusions of the people who wrote the report.
You would know that if you read the report. Instead you continue to deliberately lie about that.
I've missed nothing. You're a liar and I busted you on it.
Welcome to my ignore list liar.
Thank you. In all my years here I don't think I have ever had the honor of being one someone's ignore list before.
 
Thank you. In all my years here I don't think I have ever had the honor of being one someone's ignore list before.

I've had the same person indulge in much drama about their having me on ignore on multiple occasions.

Oddly enough, they keep on responding to my posts. Must be a malfunction of the ignore option, methinks.
 
I've had the same person indulge in much drama about their having me on ignore on multiple occasions.

Oddly enough, they keep on responding to my posts. Must be a malfunction of the ignore option, methinks.

I just busted Moon lying to me. I don't like exchanging posts with dishonest posters. They are a waste of time.

Moon did exactly the same thing in the WMD thread I started.

He is the only self professed "conservative" I know who still refuses to accept the findings of international weapons inspectors and the IPP report.
 
Last edited:
Prove this utter BS you typed here?

j-mac

J, it's easy addition. We killed iraqis. They were not part of the terrorist groups we're talking about, so they can't count as killing those terrorist. The numbers in all the reports say only 5% of those who came to Iraq had any connection to any terrorist group prior to coming to Iraq, so they and the iraqs are all new recruits. So, that means that only 5% of the %5 of foriegn fighters who were Iaq would fall under the stat of us killing terrorist who are not new. That means 95% are new recruits among those who came to Iraq, and all the Iraqis are new as they were not with Al Qaeda or any such group prior. It's simple addition.

And j, I've posted those numbers for you many times over the years. Perhaps you should bookmark them so you have them. :coffeepap
 
Let's see, did this documentation come from the Huffington Post and Media Matters?

Nope. From CIA and Military reports. Used the Boston Globe and Washington Post as links. Never used media matters for much of anything. Only used Huffington a few times. But the important thing is they (Boston and WP) linked it to military and CIA reports. I think the Christian Science Monitor also had a few articles on it as well.
 
J, it's easy addition. We killed iraqis. They were not part of the terrorist groups we're talking about, so they can't count as killing those terrorist. The numbers in all the reports say only 5% of those who came to Iraq had any connection to any terrorist group prior to coming to Iraq, so they and the iraqs are all new recruits. So, that means that only 5% of the %5 of foriegn fighters who were Iaq would fall under the stat of us killing terrorist who are not new. That means 95% are new recruits among those who came to Iraq, and all the Iraqis are new as they were not with Al Qaeda or any such group prior. It's simple addition.

And j, I've posted those numbers for you many times over the years. Perhaps you should bookmark them so you have them. :coffeepap

And they are now dead or on the side of the Iraqi Government. AQI has been decimated.

And it sure is simple addition. They cannot fill their decimated ranks in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Kinda blows the "making more terrorists" theory of yours right out of the water.

I swear this nonsense sounds very familiar. Almost like I heard it somewhere else by somone just like you.
 
And they are now dead or on the side of the Iraqi Government. AQI has been decimated.

And it sure is simple addition. They cannot fill their decimated ranks in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Kinda blows the "making more terrorists" theory of yours right out of the water.

I swear this nonsense sounds very familiar. Almost like I heard it somewhere else by somone just like you.

No, Al Qaeda wasn't really touched in Iraq. Iraqis were. The CIA said in 2008, in Iraq, is was still al Qaeda's "largest regional affiliate." CIA Director Hayden - State of al Qaeda Today - Transcript | Atlantic Council

But remember, those were made up of Iraqis. New recruits. Our enemy is hold up in Pakistan. They recruit from around the world and continue to do so. The CIA once said that the people trained in Iraq would be killing folks around the world for decades. You have a rainbow colored view of the mess we created.
 
No, Al Qaeda wasn't really touched in Iraq.

This nonsense is not true and you know that.

AQI has been decimated and no liberal smoke screen will cover that up.

OBL said Iraq was their central focus and they were soundly defeated there.

The same thing is happening to them in Afghanistan.
 
No, Al Qaeda wasn't really touched in Iraq. Iraqis were. The CIA said in 2008, in Iraq, is was still al Qaeda's "largest regional affiliate." CIA Director Hayden - State of al Qaeda Today - Transcript | Atlantic Council

But remember, those were made up of Iraqis. New recruits. Our enemy is hold up in Pakistan. They recruit from around the world and continue to do so. The CIA once said that the people trained in Iraq would be killing folks around the world for decades. You have a rainbow colored view of the mess we created.
While I suspect it's true that the invasion of Iraq invigorated if not outright created aQI, aQI is past it's prime. They are their own worst enemies.

The fact of the matter is that given their druthers, most people would lead a peaceful life making babies and taking care of their families. aQI's Knight Templar attitude calls for them to be against moderates--which means most everyone. They're really bankrupt morally and philosophically. W/o some great oppression, they have no leverage for appeal because they're gross and antithetical to the way most people would choose to lead their lives.

Even today al Qaeda in Iraq remains that organization’s – al Qaeda’s – largest regional affiliate. It still can and does inflict damage. No matter what residual tactical strength it retains in Iraq, though, the most important point is that al Qaeda in Iraq is on the verge of strategic defeat. The U.S. military fought and the Iraqi people rejected the AQI-led insurgency. Al Qaeda lost its power when Iraqis came to see it for what it was – a terrorist organization waging war on the Iraqi people.
Today, that flow of money, weapons and foreign fighters I talked about, that flow is greatly diminished. We don’t often hear al Qaeda’s senior leadership pointing to Iraq as the central front in their global battle. In fact, bleed-out from Iraq, the export or frequently what we see, the diversion of terrorists and their deadly capabilities, is as much a concern now as the ongoing threat of AQI attacks inside the country of Iraq itself. Many of the foreign fighters who have left Iraq over the past three years have frankly been frustrated by the lack of success, or disillusioned with al Qaeda’s ideas and tactics. Some have likely abandoned the fight altogether, and they’ve simply gone home to resume their lives. Others leave Iraq with hopes of building al Qaeda capacity elsewhere, and that might be Afghanistan or Lebanon on the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, just to name a few examples. We even see some Iraq veterans involved in planning attacks in the West, in Europe and in the United States.
Now, this bleed-out problem is one we have always known we would have to deal with. But I frankly take a great deal of personal consolation in knowing that that shift, that shift we’re seeing, is further evidence that al Qaeda in Iraq is failing.​
 
While I suspect it's true that the invasion of Iraq invigorated if not outright created aQI, aQI is past it's prime. They are their own worst enemies.

The fact of the matter is that given their druthers, most people would lead a peaceful life making babies and taking care of their families. aQI's Knight Templar attitude calls for them to be against moderates--which means most everyone. They're really bankrupt morally and philosophically. W/o some great oppression, they have no leverage for appeal because they're gross and antithetical to the way most people would choose to lead their lives.

Even today al Qaeda in Iraq remains that organization’s – al Qaeda’s – largest regional affiliate. It still can and does inflict damage. No matter what residual tactical strength it retains in Iraq, though, the most important point is that al Qaeda in Iraq is on the verge of strategic defeat. The U.S. military fought and the Iraqi people rejected the AQI-led insurgency. Al Qaeda lost its power when Iraqis came to see it for what it was – a terrorist organization waging war on the Iraqi people.
Today, that flow of money, weapons and foreign fighters I talked about, that flow is greatly diminished. We don’t often hear al Qaeda’s senior leadership pointing to Iraq as the central front in their global battle. In fact, bleed-out from Iraq, the export or frequently what we see, the diversion of terrorists and their deadly capabilities, is as much a concern now as the ongoing threat of AQI attacks inside the country of Iraq itself. Many of the foreign fighters who have left Iraq over the past three years have frankly been frustrated by the lack of success, or disillusioned with al Qaeda’s ideas and tactics. Some have likely abandoned the fight altogether, and they’ve simply gone home to resume their lives. Others leave Iraq with hopes of building al Qaeda capacity elsewhere, and that might be Afghanistan or Lebanon on the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, just to name a few examples. We even see some Iraq veterans involved in planning attacks in the West, in Europe and in the United States.
Now, this bleed-out problem is one we have always known we would have to deal with. But I frankly take a great deal of personal consolation in knowing that that shift, that shift we’re seeing, is further evidence that al Qaeda in Iraq is failing.​

I don't disagree with you on the whole. My major point to him is that defeating Al Qaeda In Iraq is not equal to defeating Al Qaeda. That organization is still viable in Pakistan. Al Qaeda in Iraq was an Iraqi organization that would not have been there had we not invaded. The organization of al Qaeda benefitted from our invasion in more than a few ways. They got new recruits, the received on the job training, and they got to hurt us for a number of years. I doubt they expected to defeat us in Iraq, I doubt they expect to defeat us at all, as they really can never defeat us militarily. They can only hurt us, and they have.
 
This nonsense is not true and you know that.

AQI has been decimated and no liberal smoke screen will cover that up.

OBL said Iraq was their central focus and they were soundly defeated there.

The same thing is happening to them in Afghanistan.

AQI (Iraqis) but not al Qeada. I'm trying to get you to see there is a difference between the two.

In Afghanistan you're fighting someone different as well (Taliban). al Qaeda is in Pakistan. We're in Afghanistan because we're worried aboiut al Qaeda, who is in Pakistan, but we're not fighting al Qaeda directly there.
 
Last edited:
More from the same source:

But over the past year or so there is clear and mounting evidence that we have real cause for optimism. Some hard-line religious leaders are speaking out against al Qaeda’s tactics and its ideology. Polling has shown that support for al Qaeda and bin Laden has fallen in many predominantly Muslim countries. In fact, more and more Muslims are pushing back against the senseless violence and flawed worldview of al Qaeda. Credible, influential voices are refuting al Qaeda’s twisted justification for murdering innocents. These voices are tapping into doubts about al Qaeda that have always been there. People understand that most victims of terrorism are Muslim, and they ask a simple question: what justifies this?

The answer from al Qaeda is one that a vast majority of people in the Islamic world simply now don’t espouse. They don’t support bin Laden’s caliphate, they don’t want to be governed as the Afghan people were governed by the Taliban.​
 
AQI (Iraqis) but not al Qeada. I'm trying to get you to see there is a difference between the two.
Oooh. Trying to get RM to see the difference between two related but different things...

[popcornmunching]...
 
Further and further from the ideals of the founders. The Republic is slipping through our fingers.
 
Further and further from the ideals of the founders. The Republic is slipping through our fingers.

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but we do have to abandon our imperialistic efforts, which aren't all that new (think Hawaii).
 
Back
Top Bottom