I thought it was funny when the reporter was asking if the confrence set up the military official never answered the question...
rather he asked back...was she suggesting that the president of the United States was anything but honest....
I would've said..."I believe that what the question implies."
ObliviousWell if Al Qaeda denied it, then we should definately believe them. They are so well known for being men of honor and trustworthy. :uhm:
While this might sound stupid, we should belive them since they are always proud to admit it when they've done something bad.
Komrad makes a point, they generally boast their "accomplishments" shamelessly.
I'm not exactly sure if a letter paritally detailing strategic plans is an accomplishment. As far as Al Queda's statment goes, who the hell knows? They could just as easily be lieing to hide their true plans as be telling the truth in order to cast doubt on the word of the US. Back on topic: @ Bresilin, there was an informal survey last year prior to the election which showed that the troops favored Bush 4 to 1. It wasn't a very scientific survey, and there are no parallel surveys to compare it so it is anything but concrete evidense; however, if true, it does confirm that the traditionally republican army voting army agrees with Bush;at the very least to an extent slightly greater than his rivals.
All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie
ok i stop there. it's really insane. I've seen that only 2% of the black community is still supporting bush and it's the first time that popularity of bush is under 40% of the us population.
Lt. Comm BreslinYes, they were fully aware of the situation they were going into...I'm sure they were expecting an American death toll of 1965 and a total wounded count of 14755..[/quote] no, they were expecting no death toll, because the iraqis will greet them all with open arms :rolleyes:Lt. Comm BreslinI remember them saying that this war would run on for several years [/quote] it has run on for yearsaround 2000 killed and 14755 wounded, what do you call that? [quote=Lt. Comm Breslin]I even remember them saying that British troops would mount offensives against the 'new' Iraqi police force.Lt. Comm Breslinand that there would still be no Iraqi constitution even to this day.and there isnt, because they cant agree on one [quote=Lt. Comm Breslin]I remember them saying that there would be massive resistance to the American presense.
15th January 2004
GreatGrizzlyno, they were expecting no death toll, because the iraqis will greet them all with open arms :rolleyes: it has run on for years and there isnt, because they cant agree on one around 2000 killed and 14755 wounded, what do you call that?
You aren't very good at this sort of thing, are you...
Of course it was staged, otherwise they would be asking why the fuck are they still there?
I didn't make it!
Yes, I agree. Most Americans don't support this war. Only the blind and dillusional still do. There was no real justification for it in the first place. A pointless war.