Learning how to use the 'quote' codes would really help me follow along.

Quote Originally Posted by manfrommaine View Post
I said that the plans that we used going in were terrible and that they were determined by civilians... and that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs publicly disagreed with RUmmy on the number of troops that would be needed to accomplish the reconstruction. He was right...Rummy was wrong. Now if you think that is fantasy, there is little left to discuss on that point.
No - you wrote "plans were ignored" - I'm saying that's simply NOT true. Chosing an 'alternative' plan is not 'ignoring plans'. Btw - have you READ or have access to all the contingency plans? We may have chosen the 'wrong' or an 'inadequate' plan - but that's different. What I find striking is you blame the violence in Iraq with our Failure to plan - and NOT 'radical muslims (a large portion are Iranian) who want to KILL all those who aren't of their faith.'


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w113007S95.DTL

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in614905.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/in...14cfd6&ei=5088

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/ar...ArchiveId=3531

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AA0894DD404482

I could go on...but you get the point.

They why villify JUST the crusaders?

I didn't... read my words in context...I was explaining the source of the enmity felt by muslims. Now clearly, muslims aren't going to feel enmity about the treatment of the crusaders at the hands of muslims, are they?

Do you feel compelled to argue just for the sake of arguing??


None of those links prove torture. Some show servicemen having killed Terrorists. That's not 'torture'. IF those cases are legit, they are cases of assult/murder. Different than your "(The US Military) has Tortured Iraqi Citizens" - Also, some aren't even stories about Iraq.

I agure when I see people lying or preaching half-truths. "Invading Christian Crusaders" was what you said gave the Terrorists their will to fight. Now, I took that as you meaning 'the crusades' - but re-reading, you could be calling CURRENT forces "Invading Christian Crusaders". Your context wasnt clear to me. Either way, it's dishonest for you to label the crusaders from history as 'invading' - when they were in fact, "defending'. And it's MORE dishonest to label CURRENT forces as "Invading Christian Crusaders" (if that's what you meant) for several reason; two I can think of off the top of my head are:

1) Not all Coalition forces are christians. A Large number are muslim. Some are Jewish. Some Atheist. Some "whatever".
2) It's a 'defensive war'