Dude, where's my civil war?

[Montgomery Burns]

Ralph Peters reports from Iraq:

I'm trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it. Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

Ah ha! Former intelligence officer = military man. Obviously a poor oppressed minority who was brainwashed/forced into the military by a past neocon.

Oops. I just noticed his pic above his column--he's caucasian. Okay, so he's not a minority; instead he is a dumb jock.

And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.

To be fair Ralph, I understand that the NY Times is still devoting most of their resources looking for evidence that Bush missed a medical exam 30+ years ago in TANG.

Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.

And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.

*Puts hands over ears and slaps Fahreheit 9-11 in the DVD*

[...] In place of the civil war that elements in our media declared, I saw full streets, open shops, traffic jams, donkey carts, Muslim holiday flags - and children everywhere, waving as our Humvees passed. Even the clouds of dust we stirred up didn't deter them. And the presence of children in the streets is the best possible indicator of a low threat level.

Southeast Baghdad, at least, was happy to see our troops.

And we didn't just drive past them. First Lt. Clenn Frost, the platoon leader, took every opportunity to dismount and mingle with the people. Women brought their children out of their compound gates to say hello. A local sheik spontaneously invited us into his garden for colas and sesame biscuits.

"La la la. I can't hear you."

[...]So why were we told that Iraq was irreversibly in the throes of civil war when it wasn't remotely true? I think the answers are straightforward. First, of course, some parties in the West are anxious to believe the worst about Iraq. They've staked their reputations on Iraq's failure.

They want Iraq to fail? You mean reporters like this one? (From the Daily Telegraph's Toby Harnden)

The other day, while taking a break by the Al-Hamra Hotel pool, fringed with the usual cast of tattooed defence contractors, I was accosted by an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials.

She had been disturbed by my argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam and I was now — there was no choice about this — going to have to justify my bizarre and dangerous views. I’ll spare you most of the details because you know the script — no WMD, no ‘imminent threat’ (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.

But then she came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’

[...]Many journalists are, indeed, brave and conscientious; yet some in Baghdad - working for "prestigious" publications - aren't out on the city streets the way they pretend to be.

They're safe in their enclaves, protected by hired guns, complaining that it's too dangerous out on the streets. They're only in Baghdad for the byline, and they might as well let their Iraqi employees phone it in to the States. Whenever you see a column filed from Baghdad by a semi-celeb journalist with a "contribution" by a local Iraqi, it means this: The Iraqi went out and got the story, while the journalist stayed in his or her room.

And the Iraqi stringers have cracked the code: The Americans don't pay for good news. So they exaggerate the bad.

I understand the bars in the hotels the MSM stay in--do a good business. Glug glug.

For 3 years many on the left have been predicting a civil war. They were confident those brown-skinned Iraqis weren't ready for freedom and the savages needed to live under the boot of a massmurdering totalitarian dicktator.

Once again the left was wrong--just like they were wrong about Reagan and the USSR. Perhaps it is time for them to put their soft bigotry aside and play a different tune in the jukebox.

[Montgomery Burns]

Excerpt from yesterday's Mark Steyn column:

"The press have been insisting Iraq is teetering on the brink of civil war for three years and yet, despite the urgings of CNN and the BBC, those layabout Iraqis stubbornly refuse to get on with it. They're happy to teeter for another three years, no matter how many "experts" stamp their foot and pout their lips and say "I want my civil war now." The New York Times ran a headline after the big bombing: "More Clashes Shake Iraq; Political Talks Are In Ruins." The "political talks" resumed the day after publication. The "ruins" were rebuilt after 48 hours."

Stupid Iraqis. They're letting down CNN, BBC, and the NY Times. When will they ever learn not to sass their masters?

[Black Dog]

I'm trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it. Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

Ralph Peters proves the old saw that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron. Call me crazy, but one car ride through one neighbourhood is obviously not going to give you a complete picture, especially since he doesn't say where he went:

Southeast Baghdad, at least, was happy to see our troops.

Hmm. So he drives 30 miles (18 kilometeres, or about the distance from Edmonton to St. Albert) in what has been one of the quietest areas of the city and-surprise!-finds it to be quiet. Wow, give the man a Pulitzer already! Come to think of it, though, I'm sure Peters would balk at an honour reserved for members of the hated MSM of which this paid emplopyee of a Rupert (FOXNews) Murdoch enterprise doesn't consider himself a part of. No sir, he empathizes more with the down and dirty grunts of the U.S. Army, the source of his fair and balanced reportage.

Meanwhile, in peaceful Iraq the top commander of the Iraqi army division in Baghdad was killed Monday in a surge of violence that left more than 20 people dead.

[New Zeal]

I'm trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it. Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

Dude, the Iraqis are getting ready to strike back at the US invaders who have destroyed their infrastructure, randomly bombed their cities, killed their families and want to take their oil.

Dude, they're not interested in civil war, they want their country back.

Dude, the Iraqi soldiers are playing Mum while they check out where the US keeps their munitions, how the bases are laid out, where their weak spots are.

Dude, the Iraqis are waiting for the right moment to strike, while Bush's leadership falters and the US troops are at their most vulnerable.

Dude, 70% of the GIs in Iraq want out, because they don't know who is their friend and who is going to knife them behind the back tomorrow.

Dude, the US forces in Iraq are teaching the army the very skills they need to push the US out of the country.

Dude...

[GostHacked]

We should really revisit Fallujah. I would really like to see what that place is like. I hear reports that it is basicly deserted after the US assault ..

Other places that need revisiting.

Basra

Tikrit

Sadr City (hahah)

We need reporters roaming those streets, giving us a non biased view. Just show us the aftermath of the invasion, this has not been done. I want to see stuff from ALL parts if Iraq This is what I want to see.

Untill reporters have full free unbiased unfiltered access to the real Iraq, we won't know the truth either way.

[geoffrey]

I'm trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it. Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

Dude, the Iraqis are getting ready to strike back at the US invaders who have destroyed their infrastructure, randomly bombed their cities, killed their families and want to take their oil.

Dude, they're not interested in civil war, they want their country back.

Dude, the Iraqi soldiers are playing Mum while they check out where the US keeps their munitions, how the bases are laid out, where their weak spots are.

Dude, the Iraqis are waiting for the right moment to strike, while Bush's leadership falters and the US troops are at their most vulnerable.

Dude, 70% of the GIs in Iraq want out, because they don't know who is their friend and who is going to knife them behind the back tomorrow.

Dude, the US forces in Iraq are teaching the army the very skills they need to push the US out of the country.

Dude...

Dude... are you some Californian surfer bum?

The US has safer and more reliable large supplies of oil in Albeta. Why the hell would they invade Iraq? It doesn't take an invasion to buy oil. That excuse just doesn't fly in the minds of anyone half intelligent.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!! YEEAAAAAAAA!

Dude...

[Black Dog]

The US has safer and more reliable large supplies of oil in Albeta. Why the hell would they invade Iraq? It doesn't take an invasion to buy oil. That excuse just doesn't fly in the minds of anyone half intelligent.

You clearly don't understand the oil argument.

It's not about buying oil. It's about controlling the access to it.

[GostHacked]

The US has safer and more reliable large supplies of oil in Albeta. Why the hell would they invade Iraq? It doesn't take an invasion to buy oil. That excuse just doesn't fly in the minds of anyone half intelligent.

You clearly don't understand the oil argument.

It's not about buying oil. It's about controlling the access to it.

CORRECT GOOD SIR !!! One line I love is to 'reduce dependancy on foreign oil'. This is true at this point since the US controls Iraq and what goes in and out. Essentially the US now owns the Iraqi oil. Once Iraq is divided up into the 3 sections, for each group, the US will just limit themselves to the area where the oil fields are.

Also, March 20th will be very very interesting.

[Drea]

What happens March 20?

Check this out it's from Counter Currents.org

United Iraqi Protests Against US Divide and Rule Policy

On 23 February 47 factory workers were stopped at a checkpoint north of Baghdad, dragged out of their buses and shot dead. The brutal murders were reported across the world as another sectarian attack.

The victims were described as Shia Muslims. Their killers, we were to conclude, were Sunnis.

The next day it emerged that the men were a mix of Sunnis and Shias returning from a demonstration in Baghdad protesting at the destruction of the Golden Dome mosque in the northern city of Samarra.

Somebody is Trying to Provoke a Civil War in Iraq

Iraq is not a sectarian society, but a tribal society. People are intermarried. Shiites and Sunnis marry each other. It's not a question of having a huge block of people here called Shiites and a huge block of people called Sunnis any more than you can do the same with the United States, saying Blacks are here and Protestants are here and so on. But certainly, somebody at the moment is trying to provoke a civil war in Iraq. Someone wants a civil war. Some form of militias and death squads want a civil war. There never has been a civil war in Iraq. The real question I ask myself is: who are these people who are trying to provoke the civil war?

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

Ralph Peters proves the old saw that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron.

Old saw?

He was in the military so he is a moron. If he at least looked European or French, but he is clearly of subpar intelligence when it comes to comparison to America's greatest war hero and super-duper genius John Fitzgerald Kerry!

Call me crazy, but one car ride through one neighbourhood is obviously not going to give you a complete picture, especially since he doesn't say where he went

Can I call you blind?

Let's take another look at Peters' column:

"I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad".

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods.

Hmm. So he drives 30 miles (18 kilometeres...

30 miles is 18 kilometres? What are you smoking?

...or about the distance from Edmonton to St. Albert) in what has been one of the quietest areas of the city and-surprise!-finds it to be quiet.

30 miles through alleys and streets, including:

In place of the civil war that elements in our media declared, I saw full streets, open shops, traffic jams, donkey carts, Muslim holiday flags - and children everywhere, waving as our Humvees passed. Even the clouds of dust we stirred up didn't deter them. And the presence of children in the streets is the best possible indicator of a low threat level. . . And we didn't just drive past them. First Lt. Clenn Frost, the platoon leader, took every opportunity to dismount and mingle with the people. Women brought their children out of their compound gates to say hello. A local sheik spontaneously invited us into his garden for colas and sesame biscuits.

Wow, give the man a Pulitzer already! Come to think of it, though, I'm sure Peters would balk at an honour reserved for members of the hated MSM...

Do you know some of the journalists who have won a Pulitzer Prize? Like the Nobel Peace Prize, it has lost credibility in the eyes of the public.

...of which this paid emplopyee...

Here it comes

of a Rupert (FOXNews) Murdoch enterprise doesn't consider himself a part of.

So intolerant. We are not even allowed to have one channel.

It goes to show how closeminded the left is. No TV news channel offers the diversity of opinion that you get on the FNC. There is a reason why it gets better ratings than the combined CNN, CNN Headline News, MSNBC, and CNBC ratings.

I find it amusing how the Fox News Channel spooks leftwingers. It was banned for 5 years in Canada and most of the leftwing "media watch" websites devote 90% of their energy to Fox News. There's even a website (newshounds.us) that has people sitting around all day and nit-picking every single little thing they can find "wrong" about Fox News.

Just today (Tues) there are extended entries at:

1) 09:38 PM

2) 08:21 PM

3) 05:53 PM

4) 05:36 PM

5) 04:59 PM

6) 02:02 PM

7) 10:50 AM

8) 10:03 AM

9) 01:15 AM

10)12:26 AM

And the day isn't over yet! Monday's last entry was posted at 11:45 PM. Get a life, ffs!

No sir, he empathizes more with the down and dirty grunts of the U.S. Army, the source of his fair and balanced reportage.

Nowhere on a major channel can you get such a diverse amount of views like on the FNC. It's not my fault so many Democrats end up looking like idiots on the FNC. It's a right-leaning channel, don't expect to have Dan Rather there licking your arses while lobbing up softball questions. Sharpen your debating skills and quit trying to spin everything!

O'Reilly has been calling out Howard Dean for months to appear on the No Spin Zone; Dean has refused. He's the head of the DNC, fer cripe sake.

Meanwhile in peaceful Iraq the top commander of the Iraqi army division in Baghdad was killed Monday in a surge of violence that left more than 20 people dead.

There are terrorists in Iraq? Noooooo.

Dude, where's the civil war?

[Montgomery Burns]

The US has safer and more reliable large supplies of oil in Albeta. Why the hell would they invade Iraq? It doesn't take an invasion to buy oil. That excuse just doesn't fly in the minds of anyone half intelligent.

You clearly don't understand the oil argument.

It's not about buying oil. It's about controlling the access to it.

If you said you suspected that was one of many factors in the Bush administration's decision, I might agree with you.

It is not in the USA's interest--especially after 9-11--to have an oil-rich psychopath that has the potential to hurt the US economy--and commit terror, get WMD, and get nukes. Indeed, we see from the translation of those tapes that Saddam was actively trying to get a nuke program going as recently as 2000.

A guy that used chemical weapons during war, and even on his own citizens; a man who attacked 4 countries (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel); a man that was costing the US hundreds of billions of dollars by having US troops in the ME to "contain" Saddam for 12 years; a man who ignored the ceasefire he signed in 1991; for the UN lovers, he ignored 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN Resolutions; a man who repeatedly shot at US (and UK) aircraft over the two No Fly Zones; a man who paid people to commit acts of terror; a man that harbored numerous sorts of terrorists in Iraq, and a man who tried to assassinate a US president.

Yeah, a sworn enemy--a madman who controls such a valuable resource to the US could potentially cripple or severely hurt the US economy.

Geopolitics. All countries engage in it.

[Montgomery Burns]

Separately, more than 300 tribal chiefs, politicians, clerics, security officials and other community leaders met last week in Hawijah, about 35 miles southwest of Kirkuk, and "declared war" on al-Qaeda in Iraq

Dude, where's my civil war?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

It's not about buying oil. It's about controlling the access to it.

I think a lot of people miss the point that denying China (or anyone else that may be a contender) oil may be more important to the US than obtaining it.

[GostHacked]

The US has safer and more reliable large supplies of oil in Albeta. Why the hell would they invade Iraq? It doesn't take an invasion to buy oil. That excuse just doesn't fly in the minds of anyone half intelligent.

You clearly don't understand the oil argument.

It's not about buying oil. It's about controlling the access to it.

If you said you suspected that was one of many factors in the Bush administration's decision, I might agree with you.

It is not in the USA's interest--especially after 9-11--to have an oil-rich psychopath that has the potential to hurt the US economy--and commit terror, get WMD, and get nukes. Indeed, we see from the translation of those tapes that Saddam was actively trying to get a nuke program going as recently as 2000.

A guy that used chemical weapons during war, and even on his own citizens; a man who attacked 4 countries (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel); a man that was costing the US hundreds of billions of dollars by having US troops in the ME to "contain" Saddam for 12 years; a man who ignored the ceasefire he signed in 1991; for the UN lovers, he ignored 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN Resolutions; a man who repeatedly shot at US (and UK) aircraft over the two No Fly Zones; a man who paid people to commit acts of terror; a man that harbored numerous sorts of terrorists in Iraq, and a man who tried to assassinate a US president.

Yeah, a sworn enemy--a madman who controls such a valuable resource to the US could potentially cripple or severely hurt the US economy.

Geopolitics. All countries engage in it.

Come on. Don't do this to yourself Burnsy. Saddam and even Osama were held in high regards with the US administration during the 80s. The US even gave Saddam the chemicals to gas his own citizens. The US funded and armed the Taleban feat. OBL, to help get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Hypocracy abound here. Deal with the despots when it is convenient.

Don't do this to yourself.

[Montgomery Burns]

The US has safer and more reliable large supplies of oil in Albeta. Why the hell would they invade Iraq? It doesn't take an invasion to buy oil. That excuse just doesn't fly in the minds of anyone half intelligent.

You clearly don't understand the oil argument.

It's not about buying oil. It's about controlling the access to it.

If you said you suspected that was one of many factors in the Bush administration's decision, I might agree with you.

It is not in the USA's interest--especially after 9-11--to have an oil-rich psychopath that has the potential to hurt the US economy--and commit terror, get WMD, and get nukes. Indeed, we see from the translation of those tapes that Saddam was actively trying to get a nuke program going as recently as 2000.

A guy that used chemical weapons during war, and even on his own citizens; a man who attacked 4 countries (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel); a man that was costing the US hundreds of billions of dollars by having US troops in the ME to "contain" Saddam for 12 years; a man who ignored the ceasefire he signed in 1991; for the UN lovers, he ignored 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN Resolutions; a man who repeatedly shot at US (and UK) aircraft over the two No Fly Zones; a man who paid people to commit acts of terror; a man that harbored numerous sorts of terrorists in Iraq, and a man who tried to assassinate a US president.

Yeah, a sworn enemy--a madman who controls such a valuable resource to the US could potentially cripple or severely hurt the US economy.

Geopolitics. All countries engage in it.

Come on. Don't do this to yourself Burnsy. Saddam and even Osama were held in high regards with the US administration during the 80s. The US even gave Saddam the chemicals to gas his own citizens. The US funded and armed the Taleban feat. OBL, to help get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Hypocracy abound here. Deal with the despots when it is convenient.

Don't do this to yourself.

Most of what you said is untrue.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Most of what you said is untrue.

Of course the US never funded the taliban nor did they sell weapons to Iraq at anytime.

[Black Dog]

MB in a nutshell (emphasis on "nut").

blah blah blah FoNews blah blah ratings blah blah blah blah banned 5 years blah blah blah (insert latest unoriginal right wing jab-eg. "moonbats"-here). Blah.

[Montgomery Burns]

Most of what you said is untrue.

Of course the US never funded the taliban nor did they sell weapons to Iraq at anytime.

1) They gave humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. So has Canada. Interesting attempt by the libertarians at Cato to assume that a $43 million grant was payback for the crackdown on opium. I'm not surprised. Most libertarians think drugs shouldn't be illegal.

2) Yeah, they funded a covert war against the USSR by arming Afghanis--"some" who later joined the Taliban. They had to be secretive because the left tended to be sympathetic to the USSR. I read the Charlie Wilson book (the Texas Democrat behind the aiding of the Afghan resistance). It is disingenuous to say that Wilson and the US armed the Taliban.

3) I have never denied that the US sold arms to Iraq. Numerous times I have posted the SIPRI report where it showed that 1% of Iraq's arms came from the US. Funny that you brought up the US arming Iraq, but forgot to note that 57% of Iraq's arms came from Russia, 13% from France, and 12% from China (Top 3 = 82%, and the 3 countries who blocked the US in the UN's Security Council). I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.

Don't you read any soldier blogs? They weren't being attacked with US weaponry. Every weapon seemed to be made in Russia and France.

[Montgomery Burns]

MB in a nutshell (emphasis on "nut").

blah blah blah FoNews blah blah ratings blah blah blah blah banned 5 years blah blah blah (insert latest unoriginal right wing jab-eg. "moonbats"-here). Blah.

You're the one who insisted that Peters was t telling the truth because the NY Post is owned by Rupert (Fox News) Murdoch. At least he is out on the streets, not sitting in the hotel bar all day.

What about Bill Roggio? He's embedded with the troops and he hasn't seen indications of a civil war.

Michael Totten has been doing an excellent job in Iraq. He has reported things like this--complete with pics:

The hardest thing to see was the cell used to hold children before they were murdered. My translator Alan read some of the messages carved into the wall.

“I was ten years old. But they changed my age to 18 for execution.”

“Dear Mom and Dad. I am going to be executed by the Baath. I will not see you again.”

10,725 people were killed in this one building alone. All died during torture. Formal execution actually took place in Abu Ghraib.

No signs of a civil war from him either.

I think Rumsfeld said it best yesterday:

"From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation, according to General Casey. The number of attacks on mosques, as he pointed out, had been exaggerated. The number of Iraqi deaths had been exaggerated. The behavior of the Iraqi security forces had been mischaracterized in some instances. And I guess that is to say nothing of the apparently inaccurate and harmful reports of U.S. military conduct in connection with a bus filled with passengers in Iraq. Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side. It isn't as though there simply have been a series of random errors on both sides of issues. On the contrary, the steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq.

You gotta love Rumsfeld! No straddling the fence with "nuance" from him. Much of the MSM is the enemy. The NY Times even leaked classified info to aid Al Qaeda and endanger the USA's security. :angry:

And then I notice today that there's been a public opinion poll reporting that the readers of these exaggerations believe Iraq is in a civil war -- a majority do, which I suppose is little wonder that the reports we've seen have had that effect on the American people.

Don't feel too bad BD. You weren't the only one who got duped.

[lost&outofcontrol]

1) They gave humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. So has Canada. Interesting attempt by the libertarians at Cato to assume that a $43 million grant was payback for the crackdown on opium. I'm not surprised. Most libertarians think drugs shouldn't be illegal.

2) Yeah, they funded a covert war against the USSR by arming Afghanis--"some" who later joined the Taliban. They had to be secretive because the left tended to be sympathetic to the USSR. I read the Charlie Wilson book (the Texas Democrat behind the aiding of the Afghan resistance). It is disingenuous to say that Wilson and the US armed the Taliban.

3) I have never denied that the US sold arms to Iraq. Numerous times I have posted the SIPRI report where it showed that 1% of Iraq's arms came from the US. Funny that you brought up the US arming Iraq, but forgot to note that 57% of Iraq's arms came from Russia, 13% from France, and 12% from China (Top 3 = 82%, and the 3 countries who blocked the US in the UN's Security Council). I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.

Don't you read any soldier blogs? They weren't being attacked with US weaponry. Every weapon seemed to be made in Russia and France.

uhm oook(confused here), so what was untrue with GostHacked post then? You just agreed with him and yet you said "Most of what you said is untrue." 2 posts earlier ! I was just trying to prove that what he said was true. Get off the horse buddy.

[GostHacked]

1) They gave humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. So has Canada. Interesting attempt by the libertarians at Cato to assume that a $43 million grant was payback for the crackdown on opium. I'm not surprised. Most libertarians think drugs shouldn't be illegal.

2) Yeah, they funded a covert war against the USSR by arming Afghanis--"some" who later joined the Taliban. They had to be secretive because the left tended to be sympathetic to the USSR. I read the Charlie Wilson book (the Texas Democrat behind the aiding of the Afghan resistance). It is disingenuous to say that Wilson and the US armed the Taliban.

3) I have never denied that the US sold arms to Iraq. Numerous times I have posted the SIPRI report where it showed that 1% of Iraq's arms came from the US. Funny that you brought up the US arming Iraq, but forgot to note that 57% of Iraq's arms came from Russia, 13% from France, and 12% from China (Top 3 = 82%, and the 3 countries who blocked the US in the UN's Security Council). I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.

Don't you read any soldier blogs? They weren't being attacked with US weaponry. Every weapon seemed to be made in Russia and France.

uhm oook(confused here), so what was untrue with GostHacked post then? You just agreed with him and yet you said "Most of what you said is untrue." 2 posts earlier ! I was just trying to prove that what he said was true. Get off the horse buddy.

That is the way he rolls up in this bitch. And that CBS link you gave is fantastic! Even the old evil watching all seeing eye of the CBS is saying what we already know. The funny thing is, I remember when this was all happening in the 80s. I listened to the news regularly. Eventhough I was just a kid during the 80s, I recall so much of the US getting involved in Iraq. Burnsy might not be old enough to remeber even recent history.

lost&outofcontrol, I think I am gonna make a trip to the library, pull out some old newspapers nd check that out. I am glad I am in Canada, so I am not privy to the new Patriot Act and NSA spying. I should scan those articles then post them somewhere, I would be violating copyright laws, but man would it be worth it to prove to Monty and Co that they are blind as bats without ears.

[Black Dog]

Old saw?

He was in the military so he is a moron. If he at least looked European or French, but he is clearly of subpar intelligence when it comes to comparison to America's greatest war hero and super-duper genius John Fitzgerald Kerry!

Didn't call him a moron. And what's with your Kerry fetish?

Can I call you blind?

Let's take another look at Peters' column:

"I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad".

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods.

And?

You gotta love Rumsfeld! No straddling the fence with "nuance" from him. Much of the MSM is the enemy. The NY Times even leaked classified info to aid Al Qaeda and endanger the USA's security

Yeah, the media (most of which is owned by big corporations with White House and /or Pentagon ties)is the enemy. They're not like those non partisans at news Corp.

Have another drink Burnsy.

You're the one who insisted that Peters was t telling the truth because the NY Post is owned by Rupert (Fox News) Murdoch. At least he is out on the streets, not sitting in the hotel bar all day.

Actually, dumbass, I never questioned Peters' honesty. I don't have any reason to doubt his story. What I do question is the conclusions he draws based on his experiences, a point I made quite explicit when I said: "one car ride through one neighbourhood is obviously not going to give you a complete picture, especially since he doesn't say where he went."

[Montgomery Burns]

1) They gave humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. So has Canada. Interesting attempt by the libertarians at Cato to assume that a $43 million grant was payback for the crackdown on opium. I'm not surprised. Most libertarians think drugs shouldn't be illegal.

2) Yeah, they funded a covert war against the USSR by arming Afghanis--"some" who later joined the Taliban. They had to be secretive because the left tended to be sympathetic to the USSR. I read the Charlie Wilson book (the Texas Democrat behind the aiding of the Afghan resistance). It is disingenuous to say that Wilson and the US armed the Taliban.

3) I have never denied that the US sold arms to Iraq. Numerous times I have posted the SIPRI report where it showed that 1% of Iraq's arms came from the US. Funny that you brought up the US arming Iraq, but forgot to note that 57% of Iraq's arms came from Russia, 13% from France, and 12% from China (Top 3 = 82%, and the 3 countries who blocked the US in the UN's Security Council). I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.

Don't you read any soldier blogs? They weren't being attacked with US weaponry. Every weapon seemed to be made in Russia and France.

uhm oook(confused here), so what was untrue with GostHacked post then? You just agreed with him and yet you said "Most of what you said is untrue." 2 posts earlier ! I was just trying to prove that what he said was true. Get off the horse buddy.

What's the point of posting something we already know?

Buy.A.Clue

[Montgomery Burns]

1) They gave humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. So has Canada. Interesting attempt by the libertarians at Cato to assume that a $43 million grant was payback for the crackdown on opium. I'm not surprised. Most libertarians think drugs shouldn't be illegal.

2) Yeah, they funded a covert war against the USSR by arming Afghanis--"some" who later joined the Taliban. They had to be secretive because the left tended to be sympathetic to the USSR. I read the Charlie Wilson book (the Texas Democrat behind the aiding of the Afghan resistance). It is disingenuous to say that Wilson and the US armed the Taliban.

3) I have never denied that the US sold arms to Iraq. Numerous times I have posted the SIPRI report where it showed that 1% of Iraq's arms came from the US. Funny that you brought up the US arming Iraq, but forgot to note that 57% of Iraq's arms came from Russia, 13% from France, and 12% from China (Top 3 = 82%, and the 3 countries who blocked the US in the UN's Security Council). I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.

Don't you read any soldier blogs? They weren't being attacked with US weaponry. Every weapon seemed to be made in Russia and France.

uhm oook(confused here), so what was untrue with GostHacked post then? You just agreed with him and yet you said "Most of what you said is untrue." 2 posts earlier ! I was just trying to prove that what he said was true. Get off the horse buddy.

That is the way he rolls up in this bitch. And that CBS link you gave is fantastic! Even the old evil watching all seeing eye of the CBS is saying what we already know. The funny thing is, I remember when this was all happening in the 80s. I listened to the news regularly. Eventhough I was just a kid during the 80s, I recall so much of the US getting involved in Iraq. Burnsy might not be old enough to remeber even recent history.

lost&outofcontrol, I think I am gonna make a trip to the library, pull out some old newspapers nd check that out. I am glad I am in Canada, so I am not privy to the new Patriot Act and NSA spying. I should scan those articles then post them somewhere, I would be violating copyright laws, but man would it be worth it to prove to Monty and Co that they are blind as bats without ears.

Oh please do. I'm always up for a larf.

Nothing more entertaining than another conspiracy tale from the frothing moonbats.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

Didn't call him a moron.

I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm. And you certainly suggested he was a moron.

And what's with your Kerry fetish?

More BD projection.

And?

You said he took one 30 mile drive. He clearly states that he took more than one drive. Where is your reading comprehension?

Yeah, the media (most of which is owned by big corporations with White House and /or Pentagon ties)is the enemy. They're not like those non partisans at news Corp.

Have another drink Burnsy.

Oh yeah. That notoriously rightwing MSM. Have another hit off the bong.

Actually, dumbass, I never questioned Peters' honesty. I don't have any reason to doubt his story. What I do question is the conclusions he draws based on his experiences, a point I made quite explicit when I said: "one car ride through one neighbourhood is obviously not going to give you a complete picture, especially since he doesn't say where he went."

You were questioning his integrity because he was a paid employee of Rupert (Fox News) Murdoch.