SADDAM, UDAY, QUSAY.

[Ethereal]

give it up Nitro, your thesis is hypocritical ... that wasn't why U.S. went to war.

Give it up?! LMAO I haven't even started!

So in the "distant future" there "might" be records that show the United States shared "similar thoughts" with Israel that Saddam killing off the Kurdish resistance would benefit the U.S.

Where is the hypocrisy here? You have mentioned this word a few times already but have yet to explain where it is present. This article doesn't talk about support for the mass killings of Kurdish civilians, but the fight against Kurdish resistance who were armed and allied with Iranians and in return, were killing Iraqi's.

It is not hypocritical for the United States to support a Iranian/Kurdish-Resistance defeat by Iraq, while condemning the massive destruction of Kurdish civilians and villages.

You don't know for a fact, any more than I do the exact reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq. What I can show you is that the United States has claimed a major factor in the invasion was for the liberation of that country. Then I can show you substantial proof that the people of Iraq needed to be liberated. I did this by showing you how civilians were tortured and killed (this includes completely innocent humans by the thousands), his war crimes, and attempts at genocide. There isn't enough bandwidth on the server holding this message board for me to talk about all of the attrocious acts that Saddam has committed throughout his presidency.

Nitro, who's going to invade us? becuase we also did bad things.

The difference here is, your talking about incidents that this "country" has been behind in the past, while I'm focusing on what a single dictator has been reponsible for, not what "Iraq" has done.

Tell me this, who is going to invade Russia and China for aiding northern vietnamese to take over Vietnam and to execute the president as a means to spread communism. Who is going to invade Germany for the 35 million people that died under Hitler's reign. Every country in this world has a history, the main difference in this case is that the leader who has committed these horrible acts is still ruling! If Saddam was guilty of gassing 5,000 Kurds in 1988, but was run out of office in 1990, we would not be having this conversation.

To answer your question, no one is going to invade the United States. The reason for this is not so much that we haven't done anything wrong in the past, but think about it; Some of you claim that Bush is a war-feign, well what happens when we are invaded and we start losing the war. With nuclear weapons at the helm of the president, and his finger on the detonator, who do you think is going to fuck with us? That is why we don't fuck with China and it's communist state, because they have 400 nuclear missles and the largest [but weak] army in the world. You look at it like the U.S. is only picking on these little countries, but I like to look at it as the U.S. doing what it can in order to stop communism, terrorism, and evil dictatorship.

There are very few countries in this world that can contend with the United States in hand to hand, air assault, and missle technology, all of which know better then to risk their own country fighting against us. Im sure through the thought process of every dictator who has ever pondered the thought of invading the United States rained flashes of the last time this country was bombed [Japan]. Need I say more?

 

[nefar559]

So in the "distant future" there "might" be records that show the United States shared "similar thoughts" with Israel that Saddam killing off the Kurdish resistance would benefit the U.S.

its no secret that Isreal is backed by the US. And the other way around, you only need to see how they vote/veto in the UN.

Where is the hypocrisy here? You have mentioned this word a few times already but have yet to explain where it is present. This article doesn't talk about support for the mass killings of Kurdish civilians, but the fight against Kurdish resistance who were armed and allied with Iranians and in return, were killing Iraqi's.

LOL, can you comprehen? read my posts on this thread, and you will see violations on the US part, and yet they come out to say they are liberating IRAQ, and yet they themselfs did huge harm to the country.

liberating iraqis? if you believe in this, why were you not saying shit when saddam was our ally? when he was killing oppisition in iraq. Apparently he committed his wrost crimes when he was our ally. US knew about the opposition, they let Saddam kill them ... With this said, this can't be a reason. (remember when i told you that the first time?)

let me again just give you an example:

In 1998, when Madelaine Albright was asked whether the reported death of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of sanctions was justified, she answered 'I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it'

that alone just killed your thesis.

Where is the hypocrisy here? You have mentioned this word a few times already but have yet to explain where it is present. This article doesn't talk about support for the mass killings of Kurdish civilians, but the fight against Kurdish resistance who were armed and allied with Iranians and in return, were killing Iraqi's.

It is not hypocritical for the United States to support a Iranian/Kurdish-Resistance defeat by Iraq, while condemning the massive destruction of Kurdish civilians and villages.

the reason why Saddam killed kurdish civilians, was becuase of the resistance....same was true down south with the Shii'te (sp).

in my view why didn't US support both rebellion in the north and south, that would have toppled Saddam and no doubt splitted the country...seems that US has an agenda.....what can this be? an interest? but in the middle east? pieces of puzzle to hard for nitro the fake guru to put together.

It is not hypocritical for the United States to support a Iranian/Kurdish-Resistance defeat by Iraq, while condemning the massive destruction of Kurdish civilians and villages.

ok that only killed u'r understand of the subject........u know nothing, but Saddam cruel atrocities, which i'm not denying.
dang, this is too laughable.
"it is not hypocritical for the US to support a Iranian/Kurdish-Resistance defeat by Iraq," yet the US supported Iran also.
"condemming the massive destruction of Kurdish civilians and villages," and yet supporting Saddam as he does such that.
and the next thing you're going to tell is that its wasn't hypocritical for the US to topple a democraticly elected president of IRan ....lol

completely laughable.

The difference here is, your talking about incidents that this "country" has been behind in the past, while I'm focusing on what a single dictator has been reponsible for, not what "Iraq" has done.

Tell me this, who is going to invade Russia and China for aiding northern vietnamese to take over Vietnam and to execute the president as a means to spread communism. Who is going to invade Germany for the 35 million people that died under Hitler's reign. Every country in this world has a history, the main difference in this case is that the leader who has committed these horrible acts is still ruling! If Saddam was guilty of gassing 5,000 Kurds in 1988, but was run out of office in 1990, we would not be having this conversation.

To answer your question, no one is going to invade the United States. The reason for this is not so much that we haven't done anything wrong in the past, but think about it; Some of you claim that Bush is a war-feign, well what happens when we are invaded and we start losing the war. With nuclear weapons at the helm of the president, and his finger on the detonator, who do you think is going to fuck with us? That is why we don't fuck with China and it's communist state, because they have 400 nuclear missles and the largest [but weak] army in the world. You look at it like the U.S. is only picking on these little countries, but I like to look at it as the U.S. doing what it can in order to stop communism, terrorism, and evil dictatorship.

There are very few countries in this world that can contend with the United States in hand to hand, air assault, and missle technology, all of which know better then to risk their own country fighting against us. Im sure through the thought process of every dictator who has ever pondered the thought of invading the United States rained flashes of the last time this country was bombed [Japan]. Need I say more?

aaaah man, more crap from the fake guru.

look the point of the "Nicaragua vs. US" was to point out that the US was/is invovled in some serious shit, and yet one is doing anything to comdenmed the US....yet uneducated fools like you, jump the gun on Saddam. and the funny thing about this, is that all those stories came to the mainstream has soon as the war drums were beating....never in the 80s...becuase back then he was our ally.

 

[Ethereal]

LOL, can you comprehen? read my posts on this thread, and you will see violations on the US part, and yet they come out to say they are liberating IRAQ, and yet they themselfs did huge harm to the country.

Comprehend? Dog, you haven't even said anything. Most of your posts are just articles without explanation, meaning, or any shred of relevance. I made a thread about why Iraq should have been dealt with the way they were, you reply with articles about the The United States vs. The Republic of Nicaragua. Every country has a history of violations nefar559, your not bringing anything new to the table here. Russia, Germany, Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, United States, Japan, China, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This doesn't change anything about the way Iraq was being ran over the past 23 years.

liberating iraqis? if you believe in this, why were you not saying shit when saddam was our ally? when he was killing oppisition in iraq. Apparently he committed his wrost crimes when he was our ally. US knew about the opposition, they let Saddam kill them ... With this said, this can't be a reason. (remember when i told you that the first time?)

Im sorry, I didn't know this message board was up and running when Saddam was our ally, or maybe I would have said something. Like I told you before when Saddam first came to power, the details of how he ran his country were not widely known, and he was not looked at as a criminal. You keep nagging about how he committed his worst crimes when he was our ally, but who the fuck cares? When he committed his worst crimes doesn't mean shit. The fact is that he did them, and he continued to do so throughout his presidency is all that really matters.

In 1998, when Madelaine Albright was asked whether the reported death of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of sanctions was justified, she answered 'I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it'[/url]

that alone just killed your thesis.

That didn't affect my "thesis" in the slightest way what so ever. Here, after reading that, maybe I'll go check the massive grave sites, torture chambers, and murdered political/religious leaders that Saddam was responsible for, and see if there all still dead. You don't know that those 500,000 children weren't killed by Saddam, atleast history shows that he is capable of it.

the reason why Saddam killed kurdish civilians, was becuase of the resistance....same was true down south with the Shii'te (sp).

Now your trying to defend Saddam. Tell me why there were woman and children with bullet holes in their head.

in my view why didn't US support both rebellion in the north and south, that would have toppled Saddam and no doubt splitted the country...seems that US has an agenda.....what can this be? an interest? but in the middle east? pieces of puzzle to hard for nitro the fake guru to put together.

Dog you don't know what the U.S. supported. Let me rewrite this again, for the reading impared:

"So in the "distant future" there "might" be records that show the United States shared "similar thoughts" with Israel that Saddam killing off the Kurdish resistance would benefit the U.S."

It's funny how you start out with this half assed assumption, that you probably didn't know about before you found it on the internet, but now your using it's reference as if it is absolute. Is there anything you won't do...

ok that only killed u'r understand of the subject........u know nothing, but Saddam cruel atrocities, which i'm not denying.
dang, this is too laughable.
"it is not hypocritical for the US to support a Iranian/Kurdish-Resistance defeat by Iraq," yet the US supported Iran also.
"condemming the massive destruction of Kurdish civilians and villages," and yet supporting Saddam as he does such that.

Ha! Your making up lies now because you've found yourself in a hole. The United States never supported the Kurdish civilian death, buahahahaha!!!@~

Now your telling me that during the Iran/Iraq war, we supported the Kurdish, Iran, and Iraq? Hahahaha~!@ I don't think that is humanly possible. I don't hold it against you, intelligence varies amongst humans, it doesn't mean your any less of a person.

look the point of the "Nicaragua vs. US" was to point out that the US was/is invovled in some serious shit, and yet one is doing anything to comdenmed the US

Wow, great observation, maybe you can make a thread about it where it might have some relevance.

yet uneducated fools like you, jump the gun on Saddam. and the funny thing about this, is that all those stories came to the mainstream has soon as the war drums were beating....never in the 80s...becuase back then he was our ally.

I jumped the gun on Saddam? When looking at all the women and children he killed, the thousands of civilians he tortured, the quality of life that he ruined, knowing all this your going to say I jumped the gun on Saddam? Then tell me (without using another country) how I jumped the gun on Saddam.

A lot of these stories did surface when the war started, because Iraqi's felt for the first time they had nothing to fear by telling them. These stories arn't U.S. accusations, they are told directly by numerous victims who survived Saddam's regime.

Man your so determined to make the U.S. look bad, that you don't even care to realize the facts. If Saddam came forward and admitted to everything I said here, you would be telling me the U.S. brainwashed him. Don't let it kill you that you believed in lies over the past years. Support your country, thats the least you can do while you reap the benefits it has to offer you.

 

[Ethereal]

After some thought, I believe that I have found where we disagree concerning the presence of hypocrisy. First and foremost, let's remember that we are talking about two completely different enitities, one being the name of a counrty (United States) and one being a person in ruling (Saddam). It is difficult to compare the atrocities on behalf of each one because on one hand you have a president who must carry the burden of the damage done by previous presidents, while on the other hand you have a dictator, who he himself is directly responsible for his actions in the past. It wasn't Bush that sent troops into VietNam or Nicaragua.

Tell me if I'm understanding this correctly, your saying it is hypocrisy for the United States to invade Iraq based on the actions of Saddam (and his government), because history shows that we have done "bad things" as well (obviously not on the same level).

My question to you is, can the United States ever (in the future) do what they did to Iraq, wthout hypocrisy being present? Is their a time frame involved? Maybe if we go 10 years without doing anything wrong, further showing the world that we are aimed at peace, then we can justifiably enter a country like Iraq on grounds that they are a horribly run country.

The way I see it is, President Bush is not responsible for what the presidents did before him. I understand that it is hard to let go of some of the things that this country is responsible for, but you have to understand the concept of change. Saddam was still in ruling after all that has happened!

 

[nefar559]

The way I see it is, President Bush is not responsible for what the presidents did before him. I understand that it is hard to let go of some of the things that this country is responsible for, but you have to understand the concept of change.

i might not be able to tell you how this administration is still the same, but the Bush administration is made up of officals from reagon's administration. Here's a head start The Thirty-Year Itch
I think Coldblooded can break it down for you.


btw, the bombing in Afghanitan killed 3,000+ innocent civillians. Here something i read in a book...

"...the major women's group in Afghanistan, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, which is highly regarded and very coura_geous; they have been fighting for women's rights for years. They have a Web site. They speak. They talk in words. They were strongly opposed to the bombing.
The United States organized a meeting in Pakistan in
late October 2001 of one thousand Afghan leaders, some of whom trekked in from Afghanistan, others were in Pakistan. Those were all under U.S. auspices. They had disagreed about all sorts of things, but they were unanimous in opposing the bombing. Not only were they opposed in general, but they said it was harming their efforts to overthrow the Taliban from within, which they thought could succeed.
The same was true of the person that the United States had the most hope and faith for, Abdul Haq, a well-know Afghan dissident who was living in Pakistan. He was interviewed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, not an obscure organization, and the interview was not published here but it was published in Europe. About that time, he condemned the bombing. He said the same"



some things just dont change.

 

[Ethereal]

i might not be able to tell you how this administration is still the same, but the Bush administration is made up of officals from reagon's administration.

Yeah but how key are they in decision making?

btw, the bombing in Afghanitan killed 3,000+ innocent civillians.

The planes that crashed into the WTC buildings killed 5,000 innocent civilians.

 

[nefar559]

Yeah but how key are they in decision making?

LOL, read the article, and i dont know much of the subject...but like my example proves nothing has changed.

The planes that crashed into the WTC buildings killed 5,000 innocent civilians.

so does the US have the right to kill an equal amount of innocent civillians? let me enforce this again, nobody in Afghanitan not even the oppositions groups wanted the bombbing of htere country....i guess US just wanted to show off there milletary might.

 

[Ethereal]

so does the US have the right to kill an equal amount of innocent civillians? let me enforce this again, nobody in Afghanitan not even the oppositions groups wanted the bombbing of htere country....i guess US just wanted to show off there milletary might.

It doesn't mean we should be able to kill an equal amount of civilians, but it gives us a reason to retaliate by way of warfare, which in turn, will eventually bring civilian casualties.

Afghanistan didn't want what bombing? They didn't want us to bomb them? Well no shit, who the hell would. If your refering to the planes that crashed into our buildings, then whatever it is that "Afghanistan" said they wanted, means absolutely *SHIT* to me. What the hell are they going to say when Bush confronts them with war, "Yes we did it and were glad"? Come on man, no matter what the situation, they aren't going to admit to shit. I can't believe you even brought that up.

 

[nefar559]

It doesn't mean we should be able to kill an equal amount of civilians, but it gives us a reason to retaliate by way of warfare, which in turn, will eventually bring civilian casualties.

but why not finance and arm the opposition groups which said they can bring down the Taliban without the US bombing?
which will of course have less civilian casualties, bombing mistakes

If your refering to the planes that crashed into our buildings, then whatever it is that "Afghanistan" said they wanted, means absolutely *SHIT* to me.

TRUE IGNORANCE, 3,000 INNOCENT civilians died, becuase of stupid arrogant attitude like that.

people that had nothing to do with 9/11, people that where victims of the taliban, and then where victims of the US.

Afghanistan didn't want what bombing? They didn't want us to bomb them? Well no shit, who the hell would. If your refering to the planes that crashed into our buildings, then whatever it is that "Afghanistan" said they wanted, means absolutely *SHIT* to me. What the hell are they going to say when Bush confronts them with war, "Yes we did it and were glad"? Come on man, no matter what the situation, they aren't going to admit to shit. I can't believe you even brought that up.

those were the OPPISITION groups against the TALIBAN.

 

[Ethereal]

but why not finance and arm the opposition groups which said they can bring down the Taliban without the US bombing?
which will of course have less civilian casualties, bombing mistakes

Because family's wanted an answer to the death of their loved ones. Puting our faith into some middle-eastern foreign intelligence is like roasting your money over an open fire.

TRUE IGNORANCE, 3,000 INNOCENT civilians died, becuase of stupid arrogant attitude like that.

And 5,000 innocent Americans died because people like you choose to ignore whats going on in this world.

people that had nothing to do with 9/11, people that where victims of the taliban, and then where victims of the US.

What did the 5,000 Americans have to do with *ANYTHING* going on overseas. You folks care more about protecting terrorists than you do for the innocent Americans that have been killed.

 

[nefar559]

Because family's wanted an answer to the death of their loved ones. Puting our faith into some middle-eastern foreign intelligence is like roasting your money over an open fire.

and bombing innocent civillians was the answer? are you aware that there are 9/11 familes that were against the bombing?

btw who do u know thats what the families wanted? or are you using them to justifty your responces?

And 5,000 innocent Americans died because people like you choose to ignore whats going on in this world.

this is a bullshit statement ... US supporting dictatorships in that part of the world, and countless others around the world, and other terrorist groups....you can't even knowledge that, and you tell me that i "ignore whats going on in this world"...LOL..another example of IGNORANCE.

What did the 5,000 Americans have to do with *ANYTHING* going on overseas. You folks care more about protecting terrorists than you do for the innocent Americans that have been killed.

and killing 3,000+ INNOCENT afghanis, is justified?

What did the 5,000 Americans have to do with *ANYTHING* going on overseas. You folks care more about protecting terrorists than you do for the innocent Americans that have been killed.

are you retard? can you comprehend, what i stated didn't support terrorist. let me recap for you again.

ALL THE OPPOSITION GROUPS (those against the taliban) IN AFGHANISTAN AGREED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT THE USA TO BOMB THEIR COUNTRY.

AS WE KNOW THE U.S. BOMBING CONTRIBUTE TO THE KILLING OF 3,000+ INNOCENT AFGHANIS, (NOT TERRORISTS)

 

[Mcleanhatch]

and bombing innocent civillians was the answer?

WHY DO YOU GUYS ALWAYS TRY TO IMPLY THAT OUR GOAL IS TO BOMB INNOCENT CIVILIANS??

are you aware that there are 9/11 familes that were against the bombing?

ARE YOU AWARE THAT OUT OF THE 4000 OR SO FAMILIES THE ONES THAT ARE AGAINST THE BOMBING OF AFGANISTAN WERE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. I MEAN THERE IS A CERTAIN %AGE OF THE POPULATIONTHAT ALWAYS HAS BEEN PACIFIST.

btw who do u know thats what the families wanted? or are you using them to justifty your responces

THAT IS A CHILDISH QUESTION

and killing 3,000+ INNOCENT afghanis, is justified?

NO IT ISNT, IF ONLY THOSE FUCKERS (TALIBAN) WOULD HAVE TURNED OVER OSAMA BIN LADEN NOBODY IN AFGANISTAN WOULD HAVE BEEN BOMBED

ALL THE OPPOSITION GROUPS (those against the taliban) IN AFGHANISTAN AGREED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT THE USA TO BOMB THEIR COUNTRY.

AND THATS WHY THEY WERE FIGHTING WITH US AND HELPING US RIGHT???

AS WE KNOW THE U.S. BOMBING CONTRIBUTE TO THE KILLING OF 3,000+ INNOCENT AFGHANIS, (NOT TERRORISTS)

THIS ^^ STATEMENT REMINDED ME OF ADOLFOLIVERBUSH'S POST

TALIBAN CORPORATION

You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
Then you kill them and claim a US bomb blew them up while they were in the hospital.

 

[Mcleanhatch]

Noam Chomsky

http://www.southendpress.org/books/Fatefulexc.shtml

give it up Nitro, your thesis is hypocritical ... that wasn't why U.S. went to war.

wanna know more on who counts and who doens't? pick up "POwer and Terror" Noam Chomsky

STILL PUSHING MR. COMMIE-ANTI-AMERICA AS AN OBJECTIVE FAIR PERSON I SEE

 

[nefar559]

STILL PUSHING MR. COMMIE-ANTI-AMERICA AS AN OBJECTIVE FAIR PERSON I SEE

you just keep proving your ignorance

 

[nefar559]

WHY DO YOU GUYS ALWAYS TRY TO IMPLY THAT OUR GOAL IS TO BOMB INNOCENT CIVILIANS??




ARE YOU AWARE THAT OUT OF THE 4000 OR SO FAMILIES THE ONES THAT ARE AGAINST THE BOMBING OF AFGANISTAN WERE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. I MEAN THERE IS A CERTAIN %AGE OF THE POPULATIONTHAT ALWAYS HAS BEEN PACIFIST.



THAT IS A CHILDISH QUESTION



NO IT ISNT, IF ONLY THOSE FUCKERS (TALIBAN) WOULD HAVE TURNED OVER OSAMA BIN LADEN NOBODY IN AFGANISTAN WOULD HAVE BEEN BOMBED



AND THATS WHY THEY WERE FIGHTING WITH US AND HELPING US RIGHT???



THIS ^^ STATEMENT REMINDED ME OF ADOLFOLIVERBUSH'S POST

damn u sure know how to talk our of your ass mcleanhatch


the point is that these opposition groups didnt want the US to bomb their country...but U.S in turn ignore there wishes, and ended up killing 3,000+ afghnis.

NO IT ISNT, IF ONLY THOSE FUCKERS (TALIBAN) WOULD HAVE TURNED OVER OSAMA BIN LADEN NOBODY IN AFGANISTAN WOULD HAVE BEEN BOMBED

thats what they said, and they asked for proof also, Bush administration didn't listen, so they got there asses bombed.

so think aobut this for a momement...if they would have supplied the Taliban with proof, the Bush administration would have had Osama.

ARE YOU AWARE THAT OUT OF THE 4000 OR SO FAMILIES THE ONES THAT ARE AGAINST THE BOMBING OF AFGANISTAN WERE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. I MEAN THERE IS A CERTAIN %AGE OF THE POPULATIONTHAT ALWAYS HAS BEEN PACIFIST.

quit talking out of your ass

 

[Mcleanhatch]

but why not finance and arm the opposition groups which said they can bring down the Taliban without the US bombing?
which will of course have less civilian casualties, bombing mistakes

WHY WOULD WE???? SO YOU LEFTISTS CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT 20 YEARS FROM NOW???

ISNT THAT WHAT WE DID WITH SADAM HUSSEIN AGAINST ONE OF OUR HUGE ENEMIES IRAN, OR WITH THE MUJAHADEEN AGAINST OUR ARCHRIVAL THE SOVIETS???

 

[Mcleanhatch]

the point is that these opposition groups didnt want the US to bomb their country....

BUT THEY ALSO KNEW THAT WAS THEIR ONLY WAY TO OVERTHROW THE TALIBAN AND ENDED UP HELPING US.

LET ME PUT IT TO YOU THIS WAY. LETS SAY FOR EXAMPLE THAT MY COUSIN KILLS 10 INNOCENT PEOPLE INCLUDING SOME WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND THE POLICE ARE LOOKING FOR HIM, OF COURSE I DONT WANT THEM TO KILL HIM BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THEY DONT STOP HIM BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY HE MIGHT KILL MORE.

SO OF COURSE THEY DIDNT WANT US TO BOMB THEIR COUNTRY BUT SINCE THAT WAS THE ONLY REALISTIC WAY TO SUCEED THEY HAD NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO AGREE AND HELP US

 

[nefar559]

WHY WOULD WE????

the answer is in the statement you quoted.

but why not finance and arm the opposition groups which said they can bring down the Taliban without the US bombing?
which will of course have less civilian casualties, bombing mistakes

do this when you read my statments.
step 1: read my posts
step 2: comprehen
step 3: think about it.

follow these easy steps, and i guarantee less talking out of your ass.

 

[nefar559]

BUT THEY ALSO KNEW THAT WAS THEIR ONLY WAY TO OVERTHROW THE TALIBAN AND ENDED UP HELPING US.

i just stated another possiabllity....something that wasn't in mainstream reporting...something that was agreed to all opposition groups in Afghanitan...the people who live there, who know the coutry....do u get it now?

 

[Mcleanhatch]

i just stated another possiabllity....something that wasn't in mainstream reporting...something that was agreed to all opposition groups in Afghanitan...the people who live there, who know the coutry....do u get it now?

HOW DO YOU KNOW ALL THIS??? WERE YOU THERE TO HERE THEM ALL AGREE??? DO YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE SOURCE YOU CAN POST TO SHOW HOW YOU CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY ALL AGREED TO THAT??? AND I DO STRESS CREDIBLE AND NOT SOME FAR FATCHED SOCIALIST OR FAR LEFT WEBSITE.

AND HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO GET. WE WERE ATTACKED BY SOME1 THAT WAS BEING SUPPORTED AND PORTECTED BY THE TALIBAN, THEY KNEW WHAT HE DID AND WERE ASKED TO TURN HIM OVER AND THEY REFUSED SO IN MY OPINION AND IN THE OPINION OF THOSE IN CHARGE OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY WE WERE RIGHT IN GOING IN THERE REGARDLESS OF WHAT OTHERS FEEL.