Does General Mattis favor boots on the ground to defeat ISIS?

Thanks for that observation..... Laughter is great medicine!

 

...and again, many thanks!! [ROTFL]

 

Here's some research. https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com...saddam-hussein-had-no-connection-to-al-qaeda/ and this http://dev.factcheck.org/2005/11/iraq-what-did-congress-know-and-when/

And, as you probably know, members of Congress have access to the same information as the President.

 

As long as the children and grand children of the rich and powerful don't serve in the military, the U.S. will be in a state of constant warfare. It is just business.

 

Nothing here proves GWB knew the information he gave was false.
Do you have proof of his prior knowledge or not?

 

The fact that most intelligent observers knew the information was false does not prove a moron like Bush knew the same thing. Of course Bush's possible level of self delusion is really not an excuse for his actions.

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't. In his book, Bush blamed bad intelligence. He never mentioned the Office of Special Plans that provided the intelligence the administration wanted.

But common sense goes a long way. I had been studying AQ for a book I was writing when 9/11 happened. I knew they were fundamentalist Sunni and wanted to create a Sunni caliphate in the Middle East. Saddam was secular. He would be a prime target for AQ, certainly not an ally. I then stumbled upon a lead weapons inspector who I interviewed. Again, this is all before 9/11.

Since Bush has failed to tell me anything, I can't possibly know what he knew, and, like I said, he blamed bad intell in his book. That said, common sense dictates that if an obscure columnist knew in late 2002 there were no WMD's, Saddam was not allied with AQ, and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 then surely the President knew. That is the only thing that makes sense.

Bush was not a neocon. Cheney and Rumsfeld were. For more more info, read up on the PNAC, Project for the New American Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz was Rumsfeld's deputy and the architect of the Iraq war.

 

In none of this is there proof that Bush lied.
Care to try again?

- - - Updated - - -

If you cannot prove that Bush knew the statements he made were false, you cannot honestly argue that he lied.

 

I read both your sources. They were very interesting. I then did some research on my own and found considerable support for the idea that they were not allies. I cannot account for the discrepancy in the sources.

AQ and Iraq did not live in their own little vacuums. Certainly there was some contact. Also, the goals of Iraq and AQ are very similar when it came to America but very different when it came to Islam. Keep in mind, AQ is fundamentalist Sunni. Iraq was predominately Shi'a, although Saddam's regime was Sunni. AQ's goals are (the short version):

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).

Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html

Saddam was secular as was the Iraqi government under him. Thus, Saddam and his minions were "apostates."

That said, they both had the same goal, kill Americans. Muslim affairs can become Machiavillian when it comes to relationships. Look at the conflicting organizations in Syria for example. These relationships can become even more confusing when one considers this Arab philosophy, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The similar goal of killing Americans would have caused some contact over the years, but in the end bin Laden and Saddam were bitter foes.

 

I can argue it. I can't prove it.

In this case proof is subjective. You are asking for proof of what the President knew. That is impossible to prove, which is why you are asking for it to justify your avoidance of reality. You cut off the rest of my reply that strongly indicated that common sense dictated the President knew they were lies, beginning with the idea that it is ludicrous to assume an obscure columnist knew more in late 2002, early 2003, than the President.

 

Actually what we will do is trade Economic Aid to Russia for Russia to give Assad asylum and force him to step down from power.

Russia can retain a presence in Syria but they must work with us to eradicate the ISIS and DO IT RIGHT!!

AA

 

The ambitions of Al Qaeda and other Islamists spread well beyond the Middle East. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/12/world/12aqmap.html?_r=0 Their real ambition is to establish an international caliphate and hey say so themselves. Here's a very interesting speech by Gadaffi before he was murdered (with help from HBO and HRC) According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).

Saddam was a Sunni. But although Muslim sects may differ, argue, and murder each other, there is a shared commonality among many of these Muslims in their hatred of Jews and Christians. This is why they drove them from the Middle East Centuries ago, despite being the third major religion to arrive on the scene, and why they are persecuting Jews and Christians today. Dhimmis as well of course.

Right. And recall the meaning of Taqiyya.

Bitter foes perhaps, though there doesn't seem to be any strong evidence of that, but their shared hatred of the Jews and the West would overcome any differences they may have had. And as we see in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin, Asia, Africa, etc. there war is not only against the USA. It is international and we should recognize that fact. They may point to past grievances in order to rationalize or justify their terrorism of today but that's only a distraction from their ultimate goal.

 

Many children of 'the rich and powerful' have volunteered and served in the military. Do you have some evidence that they haven't??

 

You know I know a LOT of members of the U.S. Military and everyone I have ever met and I am sure there are a few exceptions out there but over the last 35 years the men and women in our Military I have met have all been PROFESSIONALS who were all highly competent and well trained and very eager to do their jobs!!

Now as I said I am sure there are a few out there who joined the Military because they did not see any other options but today's U.S. Military consists of an ALL VOLUNTEER PROFESSIONAL FORCE and I am very proud of those kids and the men and women I have worked with as they view their role in the Military as a PROFESSIONAL and in today's day and age it is not easy to get into the U.S. Military.

Especially the Air Force and Navy as they are looking for people with an Associates degree at the LEAST and even the U.S. Army RARELY will take on a non-High School Graduate.

AA

 

Don't know what you're responding to because I disagree with none of this.

 

I am not disagreeing with you I am just adding to what you said.

AA

 

My apologies. That's happened to me as well.

 

That would be great for our side. Why do you think Russia will do anything for our side?

Trump has the mistaken idea that Russia will help us eradicate ISIS. That is extremely naive. The only time Russia has attacked ISIS in Syria is when it has been in support of Assad's forces. Everyone must keep in mind, ISIS is a problem for the West and Putin might be silently cheering them on. Russia has it own Islamic terrorist problem and they are not going to help the U.S. in any manner, shape, or form any more than we would help them in Chechnya. Also, it is extremely unlikely Putin will assist in retiring Assad. The two are allies and that will be so as long Russia has a naval base on Syrian soil.

Syria is already a failed state. If Assad falls, the region will be nothing but chaos. Quite frankly, Russia can have Syria. That is, if she wants it. Have you looked at images of Aleppo lately? Nothing but devastation.

 

The only evidence of that is AQ's goals versus the secular nature of Saddam's government. It's like saying there is no proof of the animosity between the U.S. and Russia. We know it exists, but proving it is subjective.

That said, I can't take issue with your post. It is quite accurate.

 

I am so happy you two are getting along. You are both friends of mine.

 

You have to understand just how bad the Russian economy is as it is failing badly and is in a death spiral.

It is in a state of Economic DEPRESSION not recession and the Assad/Syria card is what Putin is holding and he will play it when he finally comes to terms with the fact Russia alone cannot stop their economy from completely collapsing.

AA

 

I know Russia is in a depression and wages are falling drastically for those employed. Putin's huge military has to be a tremendous drain on Russia's economy. Russia"s Annual Defense Budget is $43,000,000,000 with an economy that produces only $1.2 trillion GDP. How can Russia afford such a large military? She should be withdrawing from foreign adventures (Syria, eastern Ukraine, western border) not encouraging them.

 

Russia can't afford them and just to show you just how bad the Russian Economy is the average person in India MAKES MORE MONEY THAN THE AVERAGE RUSSIAN!!!

Considering there is over a BILLION PEOPLE in India and just 145 Million Russian's well....it is pretty pathetic.

The United States......well there are many things we could do that would quickly help save the Russian Economy and when the Russian Economy get's to the point of total collapse as it did back in 2014 when after Russia invaded the Crimea the United States and Canada increased our Oil Production to such a level that the price of oil dropped like a rock and so low that the very heavily dependent upon Energy Export's Russian Economy collapsed.

In a twist of fate the IMF and World Bank stepped in as the Russian Ruble had become worthless and no one would accept Rubles for payment not even Russian businesses....the IMF and World Bank assigned the U.S Dollar and Treasury as Russia's EMERGENCY CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE!!

Russian's were walking around using U.S. Dollars instead of the at the time worthless Rubles to buy things.

AA

 

I have to figure this out!!

AA

 

That's all very interesting and it sounds like Russia is on the verge of an economic collapse. But Russia doesn't act like it. Her adventures in the Middle East, sending the one aircraft carrier and sorties over Syria has to be expensive. Russia's steady buildup of military forces along its border with Ukraine is raising concerns that Moscow, which annexed Crimea in 2014 and then began backing separatists in eastern Ukraine militarily — including with Russian troops — may be considering an overt military campaign against its southwestern neighbor.

All this has to be costing Russia a pretty penny.