Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It is most certainly not a civil war level. If he thinks that people of one nationality killing others of the same nationality is civil war, then we have civil war in every city where people are murdered.
What an incredibly weak argument. I guess then we can dismiss all civil wars with the same logic, bravo. You've completely ignored the fact that this is war by groups against other groups, within the nation. It isn't theft or random violence by a few, it is an organized effort.

Once again, wrong. Osama bin Laden was greatly emboldened after Somalia 1993, which to him showed that the US was a 'paper tiger'. Why? Because of Clinton's quick pullout. Yes, credibility can be lost.
Then he must really think Reagan was weak. Beirut anyone?

Pulling out of Somalia was the right thing to do. It was putting in troops in Somalia in the first place that was the mistake. The cause was noble, but to complete the mission would have required deep involvement in an anarchic civil war. Nobody was willing to do that.
He also shows his subtle racism when he says that Iraqis can't deal with democracy. His whole argument seems to be 'because I say so'.
A fractured state in civil war between the parts cannot deal with democracy. First of all, they have no experience with it. Second of all, they are fighting one another. That's not racist, that is simply the way it is.
And he's saying that Japan and Germany were examples of 'constitutional orders' before 1930? What the heck is he smoking?! I hope the knowledge of history here is such that I won't have to go into a deep discussion on why he is wrong.
Germany had a constitutional govt from 1919 to 1933 when Hitler hijacked it. Helped him that the German people lost their wits and turned to fascism. (Time to quote Ben Franklin again.)

As for Japan, you might want to check out the Taisho period...

Maybe Odom should question what you are smoking?

Iraq is not 'producing well-experienced terrorists'; there are many terrorists there, certainly, but they already dying at high rates. Nor are they leaving to practice. The only place they can get to right now is Iraq, so why would they leave? And if they are getting so much practice there, why would they leave to practice more? He doesn't make sense. He also assumes a new dictator, which he earlier implied would get power as leader of some faction of America hating terrorists, would then cut off all support to terrorists. Rather nonsensical.
As the military men on the ground have been saying, the dumb ones are dead. The ones still there are adapting. Yes, I posted a quote on this very topic not long ago...if you want to find it, hunt for it.

And it is logical to assume a new dictator would clamp down on terrorism in Iraq. It is fairly standard practice. And the dictator will know full well what will happen if terrorist links get back to him after an attack on the U.S.

However, you are just trying to sidetrack from the real issue you quoted from him: the occupation of Iraq has strengthened AQ, rather than weakening it. There was no real AQ presidence in Iraq before the invasion. There is a strong one now. Yes, there are more factors to it than that, but the basic statement was true.
Since when do Iranians support the US liberation, and how does he see so clearly into the minds of the ayatollahs? And another loaded question based on assumptions.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend...even if he is still my enemy afterwards.
Once again, we see his assumptions that 1) civil war is inevitable and 2) Iran is the puppet master in Iraq (wait, didn't he say earlier that there already civil war? If there was, the how can conflict be delayed at the same time?)
Civil war was inevitable from when Iraq first attacked Kuwait. Heck, they already had one, but Saddam suppressed it--dictatorships are rather good at that, and he brought in sufficient forces to secure the place. Iran has much to gain, not much we can do about it. The mistake was Saddam's, but we still have to face the truth.
Hmm, perhaps because the soldiers are just being trained, while the insurgents he has already described as 'well-experienced'? Does he think withdrawing and thusly taking all support from behind the new Iraqi soldiers would help them fight the terrorists?
They've not shown much initiative in getting off the ground. Few results. And the basic problem now is that the country is already fractured in three pieces. It isn't functioning as a nation, but as three rival nations.
Gee, could it be that the soldiers get the idea none of the Americans at home are bearing the pains because politicians constantly call for a timeline to pullout, denounce their mission, and refer to them as nazis?
Malarkey. Congrats, you brought a gratuitous Nazi reference in. Hope you are proud of that accomlishment.
The only reason support is dropping is because of the constant doom and gloom spewed forth from the media and the unscrupulous lying by politicians.
More bogus propaganda. The media has been more truthful by the Administration by far. "unscrupulous lying by politicians" must be a reference to the "we don't torture/mission accomplished/Brownie you're doing a heck of a job" team.
He also demonstrates complete ignorance of what the enlisted troops are feeling.
I doubt he knows how they feel about it any more than YOU do.
Wrong. OBL does not want Arabs to see how quickly terrorists are killed, how swiftly Saddam fell and was found in disgrace, a regime that hated America to be dstroyed, ad for Muslims to see how horrific and uncaring of causulties are. And Europeans are in no way the strongest(what give him that idea? England is with us, and France and Germany...well, I won't waste my time.) or even most important.
What? Huh? Not sure what you are even trying to say. However, OBL should indeed be pleased that we are sidetracked in Iraq. It helps his recruiting, and it keeps us off his back. It also gives more leeway to North Korea, Iran, and others.
If you tell a big lie long enough...

In short, this is an article rife with ignorance, assumptions, lies, and

Crazed Rabbit
No, your criticism of it, perhaps. I don't agree with everything he wrote, but he is closer to the mark than your "refutation."