What's new

Afghan policeman shoots dead five British soldiers

"Took you eight years to realize that dialogue is an option as well. Of course."

Don't be a needless fool. That appears, actually, to be YOUR personal problem-not mine.

Reconciliation has ALWAYS been on the table and that's all that "dialogue" represents in the end. The afghan government will talk with and try to induce into the national political process any element that's not committed to power by the barrel of a gun.

The ideologues of the taliban are NOT a consideration by their choice, not the afghan government nor us. Omar has made plain that they won't negotiate towards an electoral process as mandated by the afghan constitution and that the taliban demand ISAF's withdrawal as preliminary condition in any case.

Of course they demand such a withdrawal preliminary to any dialogue. The taliban can NEVER win a military victory inside Afghanistan. Unless they can remove ISAF, how else can they seize power without elections? Dialogue for the afghan taliban leadership is simply a substitute term for surrender negotiations by the present afghan government to the taliban.

OTOH, most observers doubt that all the afghan taliban are as committed philosophically as the hard-core taliban leadership. About 20% is estimated as truly committed for reasons of ideology. Many of the rest might be open to dialogue leading to reconciliation under the terms I've described. The more the afghan government's performance improves, the more likely this shall be the case.

death from above, if all you wish is to make gratuitous slams against the United States, we'll be finished with this post. I'd encourage you to display better manners and considerably more knowledge as, otherwise, there's little point to suffer your foolishness and poor decorum any further.

Thanks.:usflag:
 
7 US soldiers killed by two gunmen, lets see if US govt link them to Al Qaeda or not, btw they dont have to show any proofs their media plays a big role in portraying black as white, and we have seen all the bio chemical WMD of Iraq but Isreali phosphorus bombs on innocent Gazans were mistake of groundmen who didnt read the lebal before loading them on aircrafts
 
Duality is the word here:

A Creeping Collapse in Credibility at the White House:

From ENRON Entanglements to UNOCAL Bringing the Taliban to Texas and Controlling Afghanistan

By Tom Turnipseed

The Bush Administration's entanglement with ENRON is beginning to unravel as it finally admits that Enron executives entered the White House six times last year to secretly plan the Administration's energy policy with Vice-President Cheney before the collapse of the Texas-based energy giant. Meanwhile, even more trouble for our former-Texas-oil-man-turned-President is brewing with reports that unveil UNOCAL, another big energy company, for being in bed with the Taliban, along with the U.S. government in a major, continuing effort to construct pipelines through Afghanistan from the petroleum-rich Caspian Basin in Central Asia. Beneath their burkas, UNOCAL is being exposed for giving the five star treatment to Taliban Mullahs in the Lone Star State in 1997. The "evil-ones" were also invited to meet with U.S. government officials in Washington, D.C.

According to a December 17, 1997 article in the British paper, The Telegraph, headlined, "Oil barons court Taliban in Texas," the Taliban was about to sign a "£2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country. ... The Islamic warriors appear to have been persuaded to close the deal, not through delicate negotiation but by old-fashioned Texan hospitality. ... Dressed in traditional salwar khameez,Afghan waistcoats and loose, black turbans, the high-ranking delegation was given VIP treatment during the four-day stay."

At the same time, U.S. government documents reveal that the Taliban were harboring Osama bin Laden as their "guest" since June 1996. By then, bin Laden had: been expelled by Sudan in early 1996 in response to US insistence and the threat of UN sanctions; publicly declared war against the U.S. on or about August 23, 1996; pronounced the bombings in Riyadh and at Khobar in Saudi Arabia killing 19 US servicemen as 'praiseworthy terrorism', promising that other attacks would follow in November 1996 and further admitted carrying out attacks on U.S. military personnel in Somalia in 1993 and Yemen in 1992, declaring that "we used to hunt them down in Mogadishu"; stated in an interview broadcast in February 1997 that "if someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." Evidence was also developing which linked bin Laden to: the 1995 bombing of a U.S. military barracks in Riyadh which killed five; Ramzi Yuosef, who led the 1993 World Trade Center attacks; and a 1994 assassination plot against President Clinton in the Philippines.

Back in Houston, the Taliban was learning how the "other half lives," and according to The Telegraph, "stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus." The Taliban representatives "...were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marveled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms." Mr. Miller, said he hoped that UNOCAL had clinched the deal.

Dick Cheney was then CEO of Haliburton Corporation, a pipeline services vendor based in Texas. Gushed Cheney in 1998, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight. The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is." Would Cheney bargain with the harborers of U.S. troop killers if that's where the business was?

The Telegraph reported that Unocal had promised to start building the pipeline and paying the Taliban immediately, with the added inducements and a donation of £500,000 to the University of Nebraska for courses in Afghanistan to train 400 teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipefitters.

The Telegraph also reported, "The US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children "despicable", appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract." In a paper prepared by Neamatollah Nojumi, at the Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Nojumi wrote in August 1997 that Madeline Albright sat in a "full-dress CIA briefing" on the Caspian region. CIA agents then accompanied "some well-trained petroleum engineers" to the region. Albright concluded that shaping the region's policies was "one of the most exciting things that we can do."

It's also exciting to the Bush Administration. According to the authors of Bin Laden, the Hidden Truth, one of the FBI's leading counter terrorism agents, John O'Neill, resigned last year in protest over the Bush Administration's alleged obstruction of his investigation into bin Laden. (A similar complaint has been filed on behalf of another unidentified FBI Agent by the conservative Judicial Watch public interest group.) Supposedly the Bush Administration had been meeting since January 2001 with the Taliban, and was also reluctant to offend Saudi Arabians who O'Neill had linked to bin Laden. Mr. O'Neill, after leaving the FBI, assumed the position of security director at the World Trade Center, where he was killed in the 911 attacks.

As America's New War now begins focusing on other "rogue nations," UNOCAL's stars have magically aligned. About two months after the Houston parties, UNOCAL executive John Maresca addressed the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and urged support for establishment of an investor-friendly climate in Afghanistan, "... we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company." Meaning that UNOCAL's ability to construct the Afghan pipeline was a cause worthy of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Maresca's prayers have been answered with the Taliban's replacement. As reported in Le Monde, the new Afghan government's head, Hamid Karzai, formerly served as a UNOCAL consultant. Only nine days after Karzai's ascension, President Bush nominated another UNOCAL consultant and former Taliban defender, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan.


When UNOCAL makes big bucks from the pipeline they should donate 50% of all pretax profits to the 911 Fund. And they should also cut a very special check to the widow of FBI Agent O'Neill.

Tom Turnipseed is a civil rights lawyer in South Carolina. Visit Tom's website at Turnipseed & Associates

Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed United States was on intimate terms with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia. - Wikipedia

I'd ask was it a war for the freedom of the Afghan people under the oppression of Taliban or.....
Coming back to the topic, since US purpose in Afghanistan is not yet served nor is there any chance in near future with the mounting death toll and renewed insurgency. The only real option for the US, is to bring Taliban back in the loop.
I've got one more thing to add to it, primary reason given by US for invading Afghanistan was to hunt down Al-Qaeda. In the aftermath of 9/11, On 4 October 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan refused the offer. On 7 October 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to "detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law" if the United States made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence. This counter offer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.

death from above, if all you wish is to make gratuitous slams against the United States, we'll be finished with this post. I'd encourage you to display better manners and considerably more knowledge as, otherwise, there's little point to suffer your foolishness and poor decorum any further.

To be honest, I never wish to offend you nor have I crossed any moral boundary.
 
Last edited:
If the US spy satellites can 'locate' and 'identify' insurgents on the ground, and direct the soldiers or drones to eradicate them, why they can not see the huge poppy fields? And if they can see the huge poppy fields, why the USAF does not send the B-57s/B-2s do destroy the fields by the carpet bombing? All the carpet bombing is for killing the innocent civilians? Especially if all the poppy is being cultivated in Helmand, which is a Taliban stronghold (even after 8 years of continuous occupation:cheesy:), what is stopping the good NATO/ISAF to eradicate those fields? Taliban or the insurgents may resist on the ground, but can they also target the B-57, B-2 or drones and protect their poppy fields?

Why don't you simply accept the fact that the NATO/ISAF as well as the corrupt Karzai regime is fully supporting and benefiting from the drug business? Karzai's brother is known for his involvement in drug business so are many other thugs in US-backed Karzai regime; why they are not being arrested and tried for their crimes?

You invaders can only twist and turn your tongue between your cheeks, but you simply can not argue while supporting your claims and rants with the hard facts.
This is just so much a stupid argument I am not going to waste my time on it. Face it...What you thought was exculpatory evidence for the Taliban, the UNODC report, turned out to be a damning one for the Taliban, even the locals admitted it. You should too.
 
This is just so much a stupid argument I am not going to waste my time on it. Face it...What you thought was exculpatory evidence for the Taliban, the UNODC report, turned out to be a damning one for the Taliban, even the locals admitted it. You should too.
Can’t complaint really; you did not even spare your own country and your own people and joined hands with the oppressors and occupiers in the slaughter, how will you think straight for Afghans? At any rate, you did not reply, with all the assets in the space, in the sky, and on the ground, how those poppy fields are still surviving and coughing out opium?
 
Last edited:
If they are doing this, than shame on them. Those who cooperate with the foreign forces and fight against their country and their people, and sell out themselves for money or whatever incentive are called ‘Traitors’.
If? There is no 'if' about it. It happened in Iraq, it still is happening in Iraq, and it is happening today in Afghanistan. Do you think they care about YOUR opinion when so many are illiterate, let alone have internet access? No...They care about what is happening to their daily lives right NOW and even though so much of them are illiterate, they do not care for the Taliban. Just like with the UNODC report, you did not stop to think.

Iraq was attacked in the name of WMDs, which everyone knew at the time of attack, was nothing but a false accusation. In fact had Iraq had WMDs, the invaders dared not to attack, simple as that. The UN inspectors had found out nothing and there were simply no proofs of the presence of Al-Qaeda or the links of the Saddam with any such outfit. Yet, Iraq was invaded and millions of Iraqis got displaced, tens of thousands got killed. From every standpoint, resisting the invaders was legitimate and desirable. I respect each Iraqi who lost his/her life during the indiscriminate bombing, each who lost his/her life while resisting the oppressors. And shame on those men and women alike who cooperated and helped the invading forces in identifying the insurgents/freedom fighters.
You are in no position to discuss what the initials 'WMD' really mean. You cannot even explain what was the UN inspectors were doing in Iraq in the first place. Oppressors? Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are the oppressors. Not US. And the shame is on YOU for trying to demean their efforts to create a free Iraq, hopefully more free than the one you are rooting for under the Taliban in Afghanistan.
 
If? There is no 'if' about it. It happened in Iraq, it still is happening in Iraq, and it is happening today in Afghanistan. Do you think they care about YOUR opinion when so many are illiterate, let alone have internet access? No...They care about what is happening to their daily lives right NOW and even though so much of them are illiterate, they do not care for the Taliban. Just like with the UNODC report, you did not stop to think.

You are in no position to discuss what the initials 'WMD' really mean. You cannot even explain what was the UN inspectors were doing in Iraq in the first place. Oppressors? Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are the oppressors. Not US. And the shame is on YOU for trying to demean their efforts to create a free Iraq, hopefully more free than the one you are rooting for under the Taliban in Afghanistan.
You may want to visit the VA Hospital and get yourself checked for a possible mental or psychological disorder. It is clear from two of your above posts that you have some severe kind of disorder rendering you unable to read and understand correctly.

First of all, the Americans were not in Iraq for a regime change. Consult the speeches of than President, George W Bush on the issue of Iraq war.

Second, Dr. Hans Blix had a clear mandate as the leader of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Dr. Blix submitted his report not to me, but to the very Institution who had given him the job. So go to the UN website, read about what the Inspectors were asked to do in Iraq, and than if some shame is still left in you, read the findings in his report.
 
Last edited:
You may want to visit the VA Hospital and get yourself checked for a possible mental or psychological disorder. It is clear from two of your above posts that you have some severe kind of disorder rendering you unable to read and understand correctly.
You should take your own advice. After all, it is YOU who gladly admit to a preference of discussing topics from a position of ignorance, vis-a-vis Viet Nam.

First of all, the Americans were not in Iraq for a regime change. Consult the speeches of than President, George W Bush on the issue of Iraq war.
Did I say it was?

Second, Dr. Hans Blix had a clear mandate as the leader of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Dr. Blix submitted his report not to me, but to the very Institution who had given him the job. So go to the UN website, read about what the Inspectors were asked to do in Iraq, and than if some shame is still left in you, read the findings in his report.
I read all three reports by Hans Blix, Rolf Ekeus and Richard Butler. All three are non-Americans. What were they doing in Iraq in the FIRST place? What were they monitoring and verifying? But just like the UNODC, you prefer to discuss complex issues from ignorance and actually takes pride in it.
 
You should take your own advice. After all, it is YOU who gladly admit to a preference of discussing topics from a position of ignorance, vis-a-vis Viet Nam.
Take my advice, don’t try to rise the sun from the West. The time has not yet come for this to happen. Either reject my understanding with logic and proof, or else take your pill and go to the bed.

Did I say it was?
" Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are the oppressors. Not US. And the shame is on YOU for trying to demean their efforts to create a free Iraq, hopefully more free than the one you are rooting for under the Taliban in Afghanistan."

If above is not about the regime change, than what it is about?

All three are non-Americans
So?

What were they doing in Iraq in the FIRST place? What were they monitoring and verifying?
You don’t know Professor? And you claim to know things better than other? Maybe in another dimension where only you live with the help of your anti-depressant pills.

you prefer to discuss complex issues from ignorance
Maybe, why don’t you explain?

You have not yet replied to the question I asked “with all the assets in the space, in the sky, and on the ground, how those poppy fields are still surviving and coughing out opium for past eight or so years?”
 
Take my advice, don’t try to rise the sun from the West. The time has not yet come for this to happen. Either reject my understanding with logic and proof, or else take your pill and go to the bed.
Logic and proof? From you who did not even bothered to read the UNODC report before trying to excuse the Taliban from involvement with opium?

" Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are the oppressors. Not US. And the shame is on YOU for trying to demean their efforts to create a free Iraq, hopefully more free than the one you are rooting for under the Taliban in Afghanistan."

If above is not about the regime change, than what it is about?
Sometimes regime change is part of the larger question as to what happened and what needs to be done.

There was a reason why all three non-Americans were selected to head the UN inspection teams.

You don’t know Professor? And you claim to know things better than other? Maybe in another dimension where only you live with the help of your anti-depressant pills.

Maybe, why don’t you explain?
I do know. I am trying to see if YOU do. From what I have seen with the UNODC report, it does not look favorably upon you.

You have not yet replied to the question I asked “with all the assets in the space, in the sky, and on the ground, how those poppy fields are still surviving and coughing out opium for past eight or so years?”
Because it is a stupid question.
 
Logic and proof? From you who did not even bothered to read the UNODC report before trying to excuse the Taliban from involvement with opium?
I am not ‘excusing’ Taliban, rather questioning the inability of the corrupt Karzai & Co and the occupation forces and holding them equally responsible.

Sometimes regime change is part of the larger question as to what happened and what needs to be done.
So now you accept. Good, you could have agreed on this in the previous post. But the reason Bush & Cronies gave to go in Iraq was not regime change but WMD, which were never recovered.

There was a reason why all three non-Americans were selected to head the UN inspection teams.
What was the reason?

I do know. I am trying to see if YOU do. From what I have seen with the UNODC report, it does not look favorably upon you.
Really, how? Don’t give vague answers, give reasons.

Because it is a stupid question.
How? Because you don’t have any answer? Again, don’t comment, give reason(s), how it qualifies to be a stupid question?
 
I am not ‘excusing’ Taliban, rather questioning the inability of the corrupt Karzai & Co and the occupation forces and holding them equally responsible.
Of course you are (feebly) trying to make excuses for the Taliban and you are doing in an off-handed way by pointing out the corruption of the Karzai regime, as if somehow said corruption would make the Taliban more palatable. All in the name of 'the oppressed', as if you really know what constitute 'the oppressed'. You are a poseur in the first degree, pal.

So now you accept. Good, you could have agreed on this in the previous post. But the reason Bush & Cronies gave to go in Iraq was not regime change but WMD, which were never recovered.
Again...You have YET to define the initials 'WMD' as how the UN/IAEA defined them. This is not about Bush, or Clinton, or the elder Bush but about the US and the UN. Iraq had ten years under three separate UN/IAEA inspection teams to come clean and Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear scientist admitted that Iraq was NOT in full compliance.

Amazon.com: The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind (9780471679653): Mahdi Obeidi, Kurt Pitzer: Books

What was the reason?
The three UN/IAEA inspection teams were DELIBERATELY structured to exclude Americans at the top. Blix and Ekeus were Swiss and Butler was Australian. The US agreed to the organization.

Really, how? Don’t give vague answers, give reasons.
It is clear that I know more about the 'WMD' issue than you do. I will give answers as I see fit. I will string you out to show the readers how you argue from a position of ignorance and likes it that way.

How? Because you don’t have any answer? Again, don’t comment, give reason(s), how it qualifies to be a stupid question?
Buddy...If the US were to bomb those poppy fields as you would like US to do, the farmers would have no arable fields for at least a couple of years. It is better to either let those poppy crops die naturally or plow them over, and let the farmers grow something else, not disrupt the soil drastically through explosions. Christ Almighty...!!! You would like US in Afghanistan to actually destroy the farmers' lands and to have Americans on this forum advocate for that action just so you can satisfy your anti-Americanism. This is why no one should take seriously your crocodile tears for 'the oppressed'.
 
Of course you are (feebly) trying to make excuses for the Taliban and you are doing in an off-handed way by pointing out the corruption of the Karzai regime, as if somehow said corruption would make the Taliban more palatable. All in the name of 'the oppressed', as if you really know what constitute 'the oppressed'. You are a poseur in the first degree, pal.

Again...You have YET to define the initials 'WMD' as how the UN/IAEA defined them. This is not about Bush, or Clinton, or the elder Bush but about the US and the UN. Iraq had ten years under three separate UN/IAEA inspection teams to come clean and Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear scientist admitted that Iraq was NOT in full compliance.

Amazon.com: The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind (9780471679653): Mahdi Obeidi, Kurt Pitzer: Books

The three UN/IAEA inspection teams were DELIBERATELY structured to exclude Americans at the top. Blix and Ekeus were Swiss and Butler was Australian. The US agreed to the organization.

It is clear that I know more about the 'WMD' issue than you do. I will give answers as I see fit. I will string you out to show the readers how you argue from a position of ignorance and likes it that way.

Buddy...If the US were to bomb those poppy fields as you would like US to do, the farmers would have no arable fields for at least a couple of years. It is better to either let those poppy crops die naturally or plow them over, and let the farmers grow something else, not disrupt the soil drastically through explosions. Christ Almighty...!!! You would like US in Afghanistan to actually destroy the farmers' lands and to have Americans on this forum advocate for that action just so you can satisfy your anti-Americanism. This is why no one should take seriously your crocodile tears for 'the oppressed'.

Mr Gambit,

I don't think you know anything about the wmd's as much as you claim to----qsaark is a microbiologist and me---myself had spent 3 plus yeares doing microbiology, biochem at a univ at one time----so please---just because you are millitary---trust me---there are no idiots on the other side either.

In manufacturing wmd, you need lab equipment---the major sellers of lab eqiupment to the iraqis were germans, italians, swiss----all lab eqipment items have serial numbers on them for your information---all glass equipment has serial numbers---.

Mossad / israelis reported on record that there were no serial numbers missing from any of the suppliers in anywhere in the western or the eastern world---all equipment was accounted for---that is before the 2nd gulf war---.

Even Gen Collin Powell admitted on tv that he was lied to and put together by the agency----he said that he believed in what was presented to him---he stated that he should have done more research on that matter---in other words---Gen Powell was saying that he was ashaned of being put together by the con artists of Bush's govt---that is the ex Jcoas and sec def---the most pathetic man in the history of u s millitary---murderer of a million iraqi muslims---if he would not have pulled out that little bottle in the un---nobody would have supported the war in europe---now he is ashamed of not asking more questions---they all like to come clean on Larry King live---.

what are you talking about hans blix and jac k sh-it---hans blix didn't even want to talk on the tv---felt so ashamed of the million people killed in iraq.

Why don't you talk about Scott Ritter---who took the whole of the u s estb head on one man----openly stated on tv that he didnot find an aota of truth in wmd's---there was no trace of equipment purchase anywhere in the world for wmd's.

Admit it gambit---you wanted to invade because your chiristian beliefs and christian zealotarty and chirstian righteousness, your chirstian belief of the return of the messiah when israel will be attacked---every thing was done---every catalyst stirred so that muslims could somehow attack somewhere in israel and then let the big war come---then the christian right was ready for the messiah---what a shame to kill a million people in name of religious righteousness in this period of enlightenment.
 
Why don't you talk about Scott Ritter---who took the whole of the u s estb head on one man----openly stated on tv that he didnot find an aota of truth in wmd's---there was no trace of equipment purchase anywhere in the world for wmd's.
According to Mahdi Obeidi in his memoir that I posted, of Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear scientist, Ritter was convinced that Iraq was hiding nuclear weapons related programs, which included materials and facilities, from UN/IAEA inspectors. Ritter was aggressive in his duties and frightened a lot of Obeidi's colleagues and subordinates. Ritter was also correct and Obeidi admitted in his memoir that he had to lie to Ritter. It was only because of Ritter's lack of technical knowledge that Obeidi's evasion was successful in a face-to-face confrontation in front of other UN/IAEA inspectors and Iraqi handlers. Ritter's main role within the UN/IAEA's inspections and enforcement apparatus was investigator, not analyst, and Ritter came very close to exposing Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
 
According to Mahdi Obeidi in his memoir that I posted, of Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear scientist, Ritter was convinced that Iraq was hiding nuclear weapons related programs, which included materials and facilities, from UN/IAEA inspectors. Ritter was aggressive in his duties and frightened a lot of Obeidi's colleagues and subordinates. Ritter was also correct and Obeidi admitted in his memoir that he had to lie to Ritter. It was only because of Ritter's lack of technical knowledge that Obeidi's evasion was successful in a face-to-face confrontation in front of other UN/IAEA inspectors and Iraqi handlers. Ritter's main role within the UN/IAEA's inspections and enforcement apparatus was investigator, not analyst, and Ritter came very close to exposing Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
Ritter came very close to exposing Iraq's nuclear weapons programs….. "There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance
". (page 46)

Source: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know. 2002.

What Ritter and many others said regarding the Iraqi WMDs later proved. After the naked US occupation, not even a thread of evidence was found of anything Saddam was blamed for. No nuclear, biological or chemical weapons or their manufacturing facilities could be unearthed despite all frantic efforts. And if yes, show me the proof.

Fact of the matter is, you are a liar; you are deliberately misguiding the members and spreading disinformation. However, let me remind you that this is not the Fox news, spread your lies where people are ready to buy them.

Buddy...If the US were to bomb those poppy fields as you would like US to do, the farmers would have no arable fields for at least a couple of years. It is better to either let those poppy crops die naturally or plow them over, and let the farmers grow something else, not disrupt the soil drastically through explosions. Christ Almighty...!!! You would like US in Afghanistan to actually destroy the farmers' lands and to have Americans on this forum advocate for that action just so you can satisfy your anti-Americanism. This is why no one should take seriously your crocodile tears for 'the oppressed'.
For your information, I am a Scientist, Masters in Biochemistry (with distinction), and PhD in Molecular Biology and working in one of the best American University. To destroy the crop, you don’t have to napalm the fields (BTW you folks had no problem napalming the paddy fields in Vietnam and Combodia); a spray of chemical will do the job without causing any damage to the field or the farmers. These ideas have been floated earlier but always rejected by the American administration on lame excuses as the one you have given in your reply. In addition to the destruction of the poppy field, several other measures could have been taken such as:

a. Buying the entire poppy crop from the farmers at the market price and destroy it.
b. Tracking and targeting the poppy harvest
c. Tracking and targeting the mobile and stationary laboratories
d. Tracking and confiscating the chemicals used in the extraction and purification of the opium
e. Controlling the narcotic traffic across the Afghan borders
f. Identifying and putting on trial the corrupt Afghan officials involved in narcotic business
g. Suspending and punishing the NATO/ISAF field commanders who are helping directly and indirectly the Afghan narcotic smugglers in return of their lives
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom