Recxjake's brother was right [Archive]

the Talking Can

07-09-2006, 12:20 PM

Baghdad is a really peaceful place, there is no civil war, and something is in its 'last throes'...I'd like to congratulate Bush for devising a "plan"
that didn't bother to include one single day of peace or protection for the citizens in Iraq...brilliant...

Gunmen kill 40 Sunnis in rampage
'One of the biggest massacres of Sunnis'

Sunday, July 9, 2006; Posted: 10:02 a.m. EDT (14:02 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen roaming a Baghdad neighborhood on Sunday killed at least 40 unarmed Iraqis as soon as they identified them as Sunnis, emergency police said.

Ala'a Makki, a spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party -- Iraq's main Sunni political movement -- said the victims included women and children.

He called the killings in Hay al Jihad "one of the biggest massacres of Sunnis."

Gunmen -- mostly "young reckless teenagers" -- started to pick up Sunni youth and execute them in public, while others went door-to-door looking for Sunni families who stayed behind, Makki said.

After warning one Iraqi woman she had 10 seconds to leave, the gunmen killed her and her children, Makki said.

A member of the Iraqi Islamic Party was dragged out of his house at 7 a.m. and executed, he said.

A witness in the Hay al Jihad neighborhood said he walked outside his home and saw the main street lined with bodies, and the attackers setting fire to homes.

He said residents tried to call the Ministries of Interior and Defense, without success....

I blame the media and homosexuals (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/09/iraq.main/index.html)

Bowser

07-09-2006, 12:30 PM

Does anyone doubt that this type of news is going to be commonplace for at least the next ten to fifteen years?

morphius

07-09-2006, 12:34 PM

If one person shooting a bunch of people makes a civil war, what does that make Columbine? That at least had more shooters...

memyselfI

07-09-2006, 12:36 PM

If one person shooting a bunch of people makes a civil war, what does that make Columbine? That at least had more shooters...

Which orrifice do you have your head up to believe there is/has been only 'one person shooting a bunch of people' in Iraq?

the Talking Can

07-09-2006, 12:40 PM

If one person shooting a bunch of people makes a civil war, what does that make Columbine? That at least had more shooters...

you've obviously been paying close attention...you should post more...we need your informed insight...

jspchief

07-09-2006, 01:19 PM

The report I heard said they set up a fake police checkpoint. They asked each person whether they were Sunni or Shiite, and if you answered Sunni, they killed you.

Iowanian

07-09-2006, 01:42 PM

jspchief

07-09-2006, 01:44 PM

There have been tit for tat killings between both sects for a long time.

The mahdi do have a strong presence in the military and police forces. There is no denying that, but I'm not sure its worse than the former bathists and fedeyen.

Hard to say for certain whether it's better or worse, but it has been pretty bad lately. 40 people murdered in cold blood today.

Iowanian

07-09-2006, 01:47 PM

I know its terrible.

This is one of the things my brother thought would be a problem.

I don't think anyone would be terribly surprised if eventually, Iraq IS split into thirds...the Kurds in the north with those oil fields, who will probably tangle with Turkey when their kurds try to separate, the Sunnis get the desolate center and the Shiite in the south.

Noone can deny that there are both ALOT of asshole sunni and Shiite in Iraq.

It does seem though like if they want to, the Shiite clerics can contain their mobs. I still think Al Sadr is a big, big problem.

craneref

07-09-2006, 01:49 PM

Nightwish

07-09-2006, 02:01 PM

Of course there was NO ONE dying in Iraq before the war, well except those nasty Kurds and disidents agains the regime. I mean really, they had it coming for propagating an uncomfortable existence fot eh peaceful and loving Sadaam. I guess getting drug out of your house is a much more terrible death than getting gun down on the street corner from a passing car, oh wait, that only happens in the United States. The damn administration has created these local dissidents that are upset with the way the government is run and taking it out on innocent people.
Now that you've got your rhetoric spiel out of the way, let's move on to the things you said that actually had a bit of substance.

OK, let me make this easy, this is about RELIGION to these people, between the Sunni and Shiite, extremists from one or the other will take every opportunity to kill the other. Blaming this on the US being in Iraq is like blaming Gang Violence on the police for not shooting all the bad people to start with.
We're not blaming this merely on the US being in Iraq, though that it certainly helping to foment the disorder. We're blaming it on the lack of foresight of our leaders and planners who ignored all projections that this sort of thing would take place in the aftermath of the heavy fighting, who insisted it wouldn't happen, and who failed utterly to plan for this contingency. Time and time again they were told by experts and analysts that this would happen, that they would need more manpower and a better strategy, and each time they thumbed their noses at those experts and analysts and said they were wrong. Well, they weren't wrong, were they?

If it helps you sleep better at night thinking that every EVIL thing that happens anywhere in Iraq had to be because of the United States, fine, hate away, you have that right in this country.
Well, that didn't take long for you to get right back to the thoughtless rhetoric again.

Why so selfish and deny the rest of the world the same right to believe differently and not be slaughtered for it???????
Huh? Where do you people come up with this stuff? Honestly! Is there some handbook out there on bookstore shelves entitled, "101 Ways to Seize upon Every Subject as an Opportunity to Insult Everyone Who Doesn't Believe Exactly as You?"

At work every day to preserve the rights and freedoms of ALL Americans and defending the US agains ALL enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC!!!!!
And there it is, folks, the requisitie pseudo-patriotic soundbite that must inevitably follow a right-wing rant these days to give it the appearance of righteousness.

morphius

07-09-2006, 02:03 PM

Which orrifice do you have your head up to believe there is/has been only 'one person shooting a bunch of people' in Iraq?
eh, I read gunman, not gunmen. I have a hard time carring what the whiners and peaceniks are saying.

HolyHandgernade

07-09-2006, 02:07 PM

Of course there was NO ONE dying in Iraq before the war, well except those nasty Kurds and disidents agains the regime. I mean really, they had it coming for propagating an uncomfortable existence fot eh peaceful and loving Sadaam. I guess getting drug out of your house is a much more terrible death than getting gun down on the street corner from a passing car, oh wait, that only happens in the United States. The damn administration has created these local dissidents that are upset with the way the government is run and taking it out on innocent people. OK, let me make this easy, this is about RELIGION to these people, between the Sunni and Shiite, extremists from one or the other will take every opportunity to kill the other. Blaming this on the US being in Iraq is like blaming Gang Violence on the police for not shooting all the bad people to start with. If it helps you sleep better at night thinking that every EVIL thing that happens anywhere in Iraq had to be because of the United States, fine, hate away, you have that right in this country. Why so selfish and deny the rest of the world the same right to believe differently and not be slaughtered for it??????? At work every day to preserve the rights and freedoms of ALL Americans and defending the US agains ALL enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC!!!!!

If before the war the Bush battle cry had been let's go into Iraq so we can attempt to meld three bitter factions into one glowing example of democracy in the Middle East as opposed to the Saddam regime has weapons of mass destruction and intends to use them on the U.S., can you honestly tell me you would have been just as gung ho to go in there? They sold you the war on one premise and justify with another. I believe that's called bait and switch in the used car industry. Used car dealers/politicians, I guess I shouldn't be too suprised.

-HH

the Talking Can

07-09-2006, 02:08 PM

the Talking Can

07-09-2006, 02:11 PM

eh, I read gunman, not gunmen. I have a hard time carring what the whiners and peaceniks are saying.

the point is that is not an isolated incident...funny, you think ignorance is a smart response to our involvement in Iraq...that might explain our "plan"

Nightwish

07-09-2006, 02:17 PM

eh, I read gunman, not gunmen. I have a hard time carring what the whiners and peaceniks are saying.BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen roaming a Baghdad neighborhood on Sunday killed at least 40 unarmed Iraqis as soon as they identified them as Sunnis, emergency police said.

Ala'a Makki, a spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party -- Iraq's main Sunni political movement -- said the victims included women and children.

He called the killings in Hay al Jihad "one of the biggest massacres of Sunnis."

Gunmen -- mostly "young reckless teenagers" -- started to pick up Sunni youth and execute them in public, while others went door-to-door looking for Sunni families who stayed behind, Makki said.

After warning one Iraqi woman she had 10 seconds to leave, the gunmen killed her and her children, Makki said.

A member of the Iraqi Islamic Party was dragged out of his house at 7 a.m. and executed, he said.

A witness in the Hay al Jihad neighborhood said he walked outside his home and saw the main street lined with bodies, and the attackers setting fire to homes.

He said residents tried to call the Ministries of Interior and Defense, without success.... At least seven different references in that short excerpt to multiple attackers. You'd almost have to be reading a totally different article to not get that there were multiple attackers. And, as stated earlier, it is hardly an isolated incident.

As far as "caring about what the whiners and peaceniks are saying," perhaps you should start. Time and time again we've seen the peaceniks warnings and claims proven right, and the war wagers (and their less than discerning wool-bearing rank and file) proven wrong with regard to this war. Sure there have been times the war side has been right, and the anti-war side has been wrong during this war, but those seem to be the exception to the rule.

morphius

07-09-2006, 02:22 PM

the point is that is not an isolated incident...funny, you think ignorance is a smart response to our involvement in Iraq...that might explain our "plan"
Where did I say ignorance? I have heard all the whining and their great reasons, and it is just a repeat of what they have been saying all along. I have stated my opinions on the subject and understand that there are some random acts of violence by a group of people that try to control through fear. If you want to let those people win, you go right ahead an feel that is a great idea. But ignorance is not knowing that is exactly what we did with Afganastan, and we all saw what that led to.

morphius

07-09-2006, 02:23 PM

At least seven different references in that short excerpt to multiple attackers. You'd almost have to be reading a totally different article to not get that there were multiple attackers. And, as stated earlier, it is hardly an isolated incident.

As far as "caring about what the whiners and peaceniks are saying," perhaps you should start. Time and time again we've seen the peaceniks warnings and claims proven right, and the war wagers (and their less than discerning wool-bearing rank and file) proven wrong with regard to this war. Sure there have been times the war side has been right, and the anti-war side has been wrong during this war, but those seem to be the exception to the rule.
I didn't read past the first line, and barely read that. Just read that someone was being a whiney bitch by showing that some incident killed a bunch of people, therefore ALL bagdahd was a LIVING HELL...

blah, blah, blah.

HolyHandgernade

07-09-2006, 02:25 PM

morphius

07-09-2006, 02:31 PM

Dont bother me with facts! I know what I believe!

-HH
sure, yeah. Like ignoring facts isn't the way you have to live every day of your life.

Nightwish

07-09-2006, 02:33 PM

I didn't read past the first line, and barely read that. Just read that someone was being a whiney bitch by showing that some incident killed a bunch of people, therefore ALL bagdahd was a LIVING HELL...On the one hand, you have some LWNJs basically portraying every square inch of Iraq as a living hell. On the other hand, you have some RWNJs basically saying that nothing out of the ordinary is going on over there. Who is worse?

morphius

07-09-2006, 02:37 PM

On the one hand, you have some LWNJs basically portraying every square inch of Iraq as a living hell. On the other hand, you have some RWNJs basically saying that nothing out of the ordinary is going on over there. Who is worse?
As with most things politically motivated, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Though the LWNJ's are playing into the enemies plan, "if we make it last long enough the American's will get bored and cry to get everyone out now.". It's the same thing that Saddam was trying, lul the American's and bribe Germany, France and Russia...

Nightwish

07-09-2006, 02:48 PM

Though the LWNJ's are playing into the enemies plan, "if we make it last long enough the American's will get bored and cry to get everyone out now."
That doesn't really seem to be the enemies' plan, though, does it? After all, they're barely fighting us anymore. They're mostly fighting each other.

morphius

07-09-2006, 02:51 PM

That doesn't really seem to be the enemies' plan, though, does it? After all, they're barely fighting us anymore. They're mostly fighting each other.
It keeps the bad news in the news, thats all they need. Their real goal is enough chaos so that they can take control, just have to chase out those pesky Americans. Kill a few of us here or there, and make news by killing a large group on occasion.

Nightwish

07-09-2006, 03:16 PM

It keeps the bad news in the news, thats all they need. Their real goal is enough chaos so that they can take control, just have to chase out those pesky Americans. Kill a few of us here or there, and make news by killing a large group on occasion.
You're giving an awful lot of credit to a bunch of disorganized, disparate groups. So let me get this straight: these disparate groups with conflicting beliefs don't really hate each other, they're not really trying to seize control from each other, they're actually working together in some grand nefarious scheme to fool us into thinking they are against each other, but really they're just trying to create and sustain enough chaos to turn the American people against our government? Wow, I'm glad you cleared that up for us. Hey, anything that lets you folks play the old "you're aiding the enemy" card, right?

recxjake

07-09-2006, 03:18 PM

how did i get involved in this thread!

morphius

07-09-2006, 03:32 PM

You're giving an awful lot of credit to a bunch of disorganized, disparate groups. So let me get this straight: these disparate groups with conflicting beliefs don't really hate each other, they're not really trying to seize control from each other, they're actually working together in some grand nefarious scheme to fool us into thinking they are against each other, but really they're just trying to create and sustain enough chaos to turn the American people against our government? Wow, I'm glad you cleared that up for us. Hey, anything that lets you folks play the old "you're aiding the enemy" card, right?
Oh yeah, they really love each other over there. It is all about getting us out. Don't be so dense. I'm not going to write a 300 page essay explaining this mess, why should I? Especially when all I would get is an "all that so you can say we are aiding the enemy card" BS. Because obviously that was my goal...

Bowser

07-09-2006, 03:40 PM

Wow. Morphius is getting piled on while craneref and recxjake stand idly by. The planets must be in some sort of weird alignment.

FringeNC

07-09-2006, 03:42 PM

recxjake

07-09-2006, 03:43 PM

Wow. Morphius is getting piled on while craneref and recxjake stand idly by. The planets must be in some sort of weird alignment.

I simply don't want to engage into an arguement on this beautiful Sunday, I would rather look at porn and watch nascar....

morphius

07-09-2006, 03:44 PM

Wow. Morphius is getting piled on while craneref and recxjake stand idly by. The planets must be in some sort of weird alignment.
hehe, I deserved it for not reading the actual article, and then posting on a thread I couldn't care less about with a bunch of LW zealouts running around. It is fun, and I just sort of giggle about how serious they take some of this. I'm expecting them to dedicate themselves with a rolling hunger strike any moment now.

go bowe

07-09-2006, 04:06 PM

yeah, that rolling hunger thing really got me yesterday...

all day long we were cooking the most delightful array of tasty treats (we had a family get-together and the young 'uns had a keg)...

and the hunger kept rolling and rolling until we finally ate around 8 o'clock or so...

Adept Havelock

07-09-2006, 04:09 PM

I thought Operation Rolling Hunger was a Vietnam-Era Air Operation....

Bowser

07-09-2006, 04:11 PM

I thought Operation Rolling Hunger was a Vietnam-Era Air Operation....

Somalia, I believe.

banyon

07-09-2006, 04:54 PM

T. Can, you really think the U.S. caused this? Or during Saddam's police-state era was a lid just kept on all this crap? And we took the lid off?

If we fail in Iraq, it will be because of a dysfunctional Arab/Muslim culture. One way or another, it is nothing to be ashamed of. It is a noble endeavor to try to bring an enlightenment to Arab society. If it fails, the Arab/Muslim world will just be sealed off completely from the West.

Yes. There are any number of areas in the world where if we "pulled the lid off" it would result in dysfunctional chaos. Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Indonesia, The Balkans (again). We remove the forces in control in these areas and it is highly likely that they will erupt again into ethinc civil war. Any number of people saw this before the war, but they were tuned out and shouted down.

morphius

07-09-2006, 05:12 PM

Yes. There are any number of areas in the world where if we "pulled the lid off" it would result in dysfunctional chaos. Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Indonesia, The Balkans (again). We remove the forces in control in these areas and it is highly likely that they will erupt again into ethinc civil war. Any number of people saw this before the war, but they were tuned out and shouted down.
Why don't we blame the countries that put together these people together when the drew up arbritrary lines on maps...

banyon

07-09-2006, 05:25 PM

Why don't we blame the countries that put together these people together when the drew up arbritrary lines on maps...

We could, it's certainly a major factor today, but blame doesn't really get us very far. It's about dealing with the best possible outcome.

Nightwish

07-09-2006, 06:03 PM

Oh yeah, they really love each other over there. It is all about getting us out. Don't be so dense. I'm not going to write a 300 page essay explaining this mess, why should I? Especially when all I would get is an "all that so you can say we are aiding the enemy card" BS. Because obviously that was my goal...
Hey, don't try to turn this around now. You're the one who's trying to claim that all of their infighting is just part of one big plan on their part to get us out. That would explain why they're focusing mostly on each other, instead of the people they are "working together" to try and kick out. Uh huh.

Nightwish

07-09-2006, 06:08 PM

hehe, I deserved it for not reading the actual article, and then posting on a thread I couldn't care less about with a bunch of LW zealouts running around. It is fun, and I just sort of giggle about how serious they take some of this. I'm expecting them to dedicate themselves with a rolling hunger strike any moment now.
I've also noticed that the only people who have mentioned a "rolling hunger strike" are right-wingers, save for a few lefties who didn't notice that it was an invention of the right. What the celebs themselves are calling it is a "rolling fast." There's a huge difference - a huuuuuuuuge difference - between a fast and a hunger strike. Sheehan and three others are hunger striking, the celebs are doing a rolling fast to show emotional support for the hunger strikers. It's still kind of dumb, in my opinion, but the whole "rolling hunger strike" thing is completely the invention of their critics. I'm surprised the few left-wingers who have adopted the phrase didn't catch that.

jspchief

07-09-2006, 06:10 PM

I've also noticed that the only people who have mentioned a "rolling hunger strike" are right-wingers, save for a few lefties who didn't notice that it was an invention of the right. What the celebs themselves are calling it is a "rolling fast." There's a huge difference - a huuuuuuuuge difference - between a fast and a hunger strike. Sheehan and three others are hunger striking, the celebs are doing a rolling fast to show emotional support for the hunger strikers. It's still kind of dumb, in my opinion, but the whole "rolling hunger strike" thing is completely the invention of their critics. I'm surprised the few left-wingers who have adopted the phrase didn't catch that.Does it really matter? It's still ridiculously arrogant and self important.

morphius

07-09-2006, 06:16 PM

Hey, don't try to turn this around now. You're the one who's trying to claim that all of their infighting is just part of one big plan on their part to get us out. That would explain why they're focusing mostly on each other, instead of the people they are "working together" to try and kick out. Uh huh.
I was talking about the insurgents from my previous post. But you can keep playing your game.

Nightwish

07-09-2006, 06:16 PM

Does it really matter? It's still ridiculously arrogant and self important.It matters a little bit. I agree that the whole thing is ridiculous. However, many of the righties around here are basically trying to disparage these celebs for not having the guts to go all out and do what they never said they were going to do in the first place. Really, though, that's not the actual reason they're going out of their way to insult and disparage those celebs. The real reason is because those particular celebs have long been outspoken critics of the Bush Administration, and that has pissed those righties off, and they're really just looking for excuses to try to cut them down to size.

Nightwish

07-09-2006, 06:20 PM

I was talking about the insurgents from my previous post. But you can keep playing your game.
The insurgents are still there, but they're mostly a nominal presence now. The vast bulk of the fighting going on in Iraq, relating directly to the original post, is sectarian violence between disparate Islamic factions, not the insurgents. If you're going to jump into a discussion about sectarian infighting, and talk only of insurgents, then it would probably behoove you to mention at some point that you're only talking about the insurgents. Otherwise, those of us who are keeping with the thread topic will assume that you are, too.

FringeNC

07-09-2006, 06:39 PM

Yes. There are any number of areas in the world where if we "pulled the lid off" it would result in dysfunctional chaos. Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Indonesia, The Balkans (again). We remove the forces in control in these areas and it is highly likely that they will erupt again into ethinc civil war. Any number of people saw this before the war, but they were tuned out and shouted down.

but in the long-run, for the middle east to ever resemble a functioning area, didn't the lid have to come off at some point?

jspchief

07-09-2006, 06:48 PM

but in the long-run, for the middle east to ever resemble a functioning area, didn't the lid have to come off at some point?Of course not. We could just bury our head in the sand and pretend it will never be our problem.

Nightwish

07-09-2006, 06:52 PM

but in the long-run, for the middle east to ever resemble a functioning area, didn't the lid have to come off at some point?
Do you think that our efforts over there have really accomplished that? Do you think that our marching with tanks and bombs and guns-a-blazin', trying to force down centuries of history and theocratic tradition, telling them they are going to have to elect their new government by democratic means, and if we don't like their choices, they'll have to do it again and again until we do, is going to be the thing that stabilizes the Middle East?

jspchief

07-09-2006, 06:58 PM

Do you think that our efforts over there have really accomplished that? Do you think that our marching with tanks and bombs and guns-a-blazin', trying to force down centuries of history and theocratic tradition, telling them they are going to have to elect their new government by democratic means, and if we don't like their choices, they'll have to do it again and again until we do, is going to be the thing that stabilizes the Middle East?If you expected it to happen in the span of a few years, you were going to be disappointed no matter what approach was taken.

It's not like the entire world hasn't tried diplomacy. How long do we sit back and let it get worse before something is done?

mlyonsd

07-09-2006, 07:03 PM

Do you think that our efforts over there have really accomplished that? Do you think that our marching with tanks and bombs and guns-a-blazin', trying to force down centuries of history and theocratic tradition, telling them they are going to have to elect their new government by democratic means, and if we don't like their choices, they'll have to do it again and again until we do, is going to be the thing that stabilizes the Middle East?

We won't know for a while. Maybe as long as 20-30 years.

mlyonsd

07-09-2006, 07:04 PM

dirk digler

07-09-2006, 07:04 PM

If you expected it to happen in the span of a few years, you were going to be disappointed no matter what approach was taken.

It's not like the entire world hasn't tried diplomacy. How long do we sit back and let it get worse before something is done?

As I said in another thread, IMHO this is a 2 1/2 yr problem. The next POTUS is not going to want any part of this mess and will withdraw all troops. I fully expect a huge US withdrawal around Sept-Oct 2008.

jspchief

07-09-2006, 07:12 PM

As I said in another thread, IMHO this is a 2 1/2 yr problem. The next POTUS is not going to want any part of this mess and will withdraw all troops. I fully expect a huge US withdrawal around Sept-Oct 2008.If we withdraw with the next US President, before the job is done, this problem will never go away. I can't even fathom how stupid that would be.

More likely it's a 10-20 year process.

dirk digler

07-09-2006, 07:18 PM

If we withdraw with the next US President, before the job is done, this problem will never go away. I can't even fathom how stupid that would be.

More likely it's a 10-20 year process.

Do you really think that if a Democrat is elected POTUS he/she is going to keep troops in Iraq?

mlyonsd

07-09-2006, 07:25 PM

Do you really think that if a Democrat is elected POTUS he/she is going to keep troops in Iraq?

There are too many unknown variables to make that prediction.

patteeu

07-09-2006, 07:31 PM

We're not blaming this merely on the US being in Iraq, though that it certainly helping to foment the disorder. We're blaming it on the lack of foresight of our leaders and planners who ignored all projections that this sort of thing would take place in the aftermath of the heavy fighting, who insisted it wouldn't happen, and who failed utterly to plan for this contingency. Time and time again they were told by experts and analysts that this would happen, that they would need more manpower and a better strategy, and each time they thumbed their noses at those experts and analysts and said they were wrong. Well, they weren't wrong, were they?

It's always easy to go back after the fact and pick out the advice you think should have been taken in the first place. That's not so easy to do on the front end. Beyond that, you don't have any way of knowing if following the advice you now think was the right advice would be an improvement or not. For all you know it could have turned out even worse now if we'd have followed the advice of your favored experts and analysts.

dirk digler

07-09-2006, 07:32 PM

There are too many unknown variables to make that prediction.

If the Iraq situation stays the same as it is now do you honestly think that the new POTUS, Dem or Rep, are going to keep troops there? No way in hell. The Iraq occupation is equally as unpopular as Vietnam was. I can't see a candidate campaigning for the POTUS saying he/she is going to keep troops there. That is a losing campaign IMHO.

patteeu

07-09-2006, 07:44 PM

If the Iraq situation stays the same as it is now do you honestly think that the new POTUS, Dem or Rep, are going to keep troops there? No way in hell. The Iraq occupation is equally as unpopular as Vietnam was. I can't see a candidate campaigning for the POTUS saying he/she is going to keep troops there. That is a losing campaign IMHO.

I expect that we will continue to have troops in Iraq well into the next administration whether it's a Republican or democrat president.

I don't think Iraq is "equally as unpopular as Vietnam." The anti-war protests that have been held didn't draw very well and aside from people on the internet, I rarely hear people talking about Iraq. I think it might have something to do with the relatively small number of KIA and the fact that this war started after an attack on our own soil that everyone can remember even if not everyone can see how the two are related.

|Zach|

07-09-2006, 08:01 PM

I expect that we will continue to have troops in Iraq well into the next administration whether it's a Republican or democrat president.

I don't think Iraq is "equally as unpopular as Vietnam." The anti-war protests that have been held didn't draw very well and aside from people on the internet, I rarely hear people talking about Iraq. I think it might have something to do with the relatively small number of KIA and the fact that this war started after an attack on our own soil that everyone can remember even if not everyone can see how the two are related.
Rarely hear people talking about Iraq? Do you work in a daycare?

jspchief

07-09-2006, 08:11 PM

Do you really think that if a Democrat is elected POTUS he/she is going to keep troops in Iraq?If Iraq isn't stabilized, I think it would be grossly irresponsible to pull troops out.

Regardless of why we went there and how good or bad an idea it was, the next person that becomes President is going to inherit that mess. Walking away and letting it fester will be exponentially worse than going there in the first place. IMO.

To answer your question directly, yes I believe the next president will keep troops in Iraq, regardless of which party they belong to. To do otherwise would be diplomatic/political suicide.

jspchief

07-09-2006, 08:16 PM

If the Iraq situation stays the same as it is now do you honestly think that the new POTUS, Dem or Rep, are going to keep troops there? No way in hell. The Iraq occupation is equally as unpopular as Vietnam was. I can't see a candidate campaigning for the POTUS saying he/she is going to keep troops there. That is a losing campaign IMHO.There's a reason we can't just bail out like we did in Somalia or Vietnam. Those countries didn't have the financial capabilities nor the idealogies to bring the war back onto our soil. They weren't going to degrade into a training ground for people whose only purpose in life is to murder as many westerners as possible.

We aren't going to be able to turn our back on an unstable Iraq like we could with Vietnam. It will have too many future ramifications both here and globally.

patteeu

07-09-2006, 08:42 PM

Rarely hear people talking about Iraq? Do you work in a daycare?

I don't hang around with a lot of head-in-the-sand, aint-it-cool-that-I'm-anti-war, fluff-heads so that might account for part of it. I'd imagine things might be different on a college campus, but in the real world you don't even get daily updates on the war from the evening news or NPR.

I'm not trying to say that no one thinks about it or that there isn't a substantial group of people who are opposed to it, I'm just saying it hasn't come anywhere close to anti-Vietnam sentiment. Have you seen the anti-Iraq War rallies? They're kind of pathetic and I'm talking about attendence levels not the kinds of people who show up at them.

FringeNC

07-09-2006, 08:48 PM

Quick note:

there have been votes in Congress to pull troops out, and even the Dems vote against....don't some of you guys watch the news?

the Talking Can

07-09-2006, 09:08 PM

jspchief

07-09-2006, 09:17 PM

memyselfI

07-09-2006, 09:28 PM

Do you think that our efforts over there have really accomplished that? Do you think that our marching with tanks and bombs and guns-a-blazin', trying to force down centuries of history and theocratic tradition, telling them they are going to have to elect their new government by democratic means, and if we don't like their choices, they'll have to do it again and again until we do, is going to be the thing that stabilizes the Middle East?

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2006/1101060717_400.jpg

recxjake

07-09-2006, 09:31 PM

I got this off the espn boards... for whats its worth...

Last night I was at a going away party for a friend of mine who is being deployed to Iraq. It was a lot of his family members and friends, but one person in particular that stood out the most. I had never met him, he is a friend of his family and a soldier himself who just returned from Iraq a month ago.
He has been a member of the special forces community for the past 25 years, serving in Somalia, Philippines, Bosnia, and others….but the past three years he has been embedded in the most dangerous areas of Iraq. He was there when the US forces claimed Baghdad and came back just before Zarqawi was killed.

He was very humble and kind, didn’t want to talk about what area of the Special Forces he served, or even his rank. However he was more than happy to talk about what he saw and did during his time.

Here are a few notables:

He said probably 95% of the Iraqis want the US troops there.

He said we are close to breaking the back of the insurgency.

He showed me photographs from when they first entered Saddam’s palace, and some of the things they found. Included were gold plated AKs, silver plated AKs, and assassin brief cases with German HKs in them and a trigger mechanism on the handle of the brief case. These were to be distributed among Al Qaida and the former Bathists but they intercepted them before they were able to get to the terrorists. They also found millions of US currency.

Possibly the most intriguing photograph was that of a giant mural. It was thirty feet long and fifteen feet high. It was hanging from a building near one of Saddam’s palaces. It was very telling.
Set in front of a blue backdrop was a picture of Saddam in uniform smoking a cigar. Next to him was a picture of the World Trade Center. One was on fire and the other was about to be struck by a plane. In Arabic scribe on the top said “victory”

He told me there is so much more than what meets the eye and the ear. There were photographs of people Saddam had tortured, gassed, mutilated, executed.
There is also LOADS of information that is classified and probably will remain that way.

Bottomline….he said Bush, Cheney, Rummy, they don’t care about poll numbers, and if the Iraqi civilians were given a poll they would be extremely favorable.

The insurgents are NOT the freedom fighters that Cindy Sheehan claims they are. They don’t think twice about strapping explosives to mentally retarded people and having them walk into a crowd. They do the same to children.

He said there is tons of work to be done. To this day they still find Iraqi police officers that we trained, bound with their own handcuffs, and a bullet wound through their heads, lying in ditches. It’s common.

At the same time however, the insurgency is losing their supply of food, money, means of communication, and weapons. He said he misses Iraq, and he wishes he could go back in place of my friend who leaves tomorrow. He said it’s a dangerous, ugly, yet eerily beautiful place that he is drawn to. Perhaps because he lost so many friends in the process.

Take what you want from this, I just thought I would share. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and others have merely outside opinions. This gentlemen has lived, breathed, and eaten Iraq for the past three years. I took his stories to heart, and they sent shivers down my spine

FringeNC

07-09-2006, 10:11 PM

funny how people's estimation of what's going on in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with Bush's actual claims about Iraq...pre- or post-invasion...any basic reconciling of the two would seriously cause some heads to explode...

basically what people are saying is this: I don't give a shit...he's a republican, I won't pretend he's accountble for his performance....I will though act as though he's a "decider" in all other matters...

Bush himself has already said it is the next president's problem...he's washed his hands of it, basically...oh, our Fearless Leader...

and the metric, the assessment mechanism keeps changing to fit the sad rationalizing of dis-honest republicans..."You can't judge him for 1000 years!"...."so what if there are no WMDs, he's still honest!"...."yes, the violence in Iraq is greater than ever...this is proof of progress!"..."no, we didn't send enough troops..but Bush is still guy I want making decisions!"..."sure, its a civil war...but that's to be expected even though Bush didn't actually expect it"...etc...

easy to be right when you have no definition of wrong...or when you simply refuse to care...

Au contraire. Every conservative I discussed the regime change with certainly understood there were two components to it

1) End states that have anything to do with terrorism (and make that a credible policy)
2) Attempt to bring democracy,capitalism, and the rule of law to the Middle East.

Read Mark Steyn or any conservative blog. We all knew what was up. The WMD thing was suggested by Powell to get UN approval to cover Tony Blair's ass. (And de Villepin lied to Powell every step of the way.)

So...it was determined that the WMD argument would be the main argument (everyone assumed it was a no-brainer that they had WMDs. No one on the security council even made an objection to those claims), although it certainly wasn't the true motivating factor. Anyway, we all know Bush doesn't have the communication skills to sell a complex policy anyway...

The aftermath of the regime change hasn't gone as smoothly as anticipated. Anyone who says it has is lying. Part of the reason for that is the civil war. Not the Iraqi civil war. But the civil war between the Arabist at the CIA and State, and the neo-cons.

The policy was a gamble. Will it pay off? I don't know. But the status quo of allowing the Middle East to rot and fester was a huge risk, too. Awash in oil money and radical Islam, the Middle East is a ticking time bomb. In the industrial era, who would care, because it would take tanks and battleships to wage war. But what about in the next 50 years -- designer viri, nanotechnology, nukes....you name it, a little oil money and lab can wreak havoc.

The Dems are good at second guessing (even though they voted for approval), but what is a alternative comprehensive plan to deal with the present and future problems associated with the Middle East? Dems are big on root causes -- we attempted to go after a big root cause of the dysfunction in the Middle East -- which is the lack of freedom of the people.

And I disqualify any plan that says Israel is the problem. If little Israel can make the Arabs psychotic, then we need to treat the underlying illness, not pander to the psychosis.

patteeu

07-09-2006, 10:33 PM

Au contraire....

I don't know about the part where WMD was suggested by Powell, but other than that, it was the best post I've read around here in a while. :toast:

banyon

07-10-2006, 08:29 AM

I don't hang around with a lot of head-in-the-sand, aint-it-cool-that-I'm-anti-war, fluff-heads so that might account for part of it.

Don't you spend a lot of time on this board? :shrug:

Iowanian

07-10-2006, 09:44 AM

Rarely hear people talking about Iraq? Do you work in a daycare?

He probably doesn't have time to hang out down at Starbucks and sip cappaccino, polish his mac and whine about everything all day like acollege kid.

patteeu

07-10-2006, 09:53 AM

Don't you spend a lot of time on this board? :shrug:

HA! You got me there. ;)

chagrin

07-10-2006, 09:54 AM

|Zach|

07-10-2006, 10:14 AM

He probably doesn't have time to hang out down at Starbucks and sip cappaccino, polish his mac and whine about everything all day like acollege kid.
You have shown a history on this board of not talking about things you know nothing about. No reason to start now.

Nightwish

07-10-2006, 01:14 PM

How can you even ask? Obviously it's the LWNJ's
Being a RWNJ yourself, it's obvious that you would say that. But can you give a good explanation why?

Nightwish

07-10-2006, 01:20 PM

He probably doesn't have time to hang out down at Starbucks and sip cappaccino, polish his mac and whine about everything all day like acollege kid.
I don't either, and I don't hang with an especially liberal crowd. And I hear about it almost daily. Among those people I see or talk to on a fairly regular basis, one is a hard left liberal "hippy chick," one is a near left moderate liberal, two are near right moderate conservatives, one is your average run-of-the-mill conservative, and one is a hard right conservative. One that I don't see quite as regularly, but still fairly often, is a neocon. And my family, except for my father and youngest sister, all vote Republican. And Iraq is still a daily topic among almost all of them, and it doesn't require me starting the conversation, either, in case anyone thought of making that charge. True, it's not front page news on every newspaper and tv news program the way it used to be, but it's not exactly a forgotten and obscure topic either. I don't see Iraq-related reports on the news every day like we used to, but it's still on there a good 2-3 times per week. It's a long way from forgotten.

patteeu

07-10-2006, 01:55 PM

I don't either, and I don't hang with an especially liberal crowd. And I hear about it almost daily. Among those people I see or talk to on a fairly regular basis, one is a hard left liberal "hippy chick," one is a near left moderate liberal, two are near right moderate conservatives, one is your average run-of-the-mill conservative, and one is a hard right conservative. One that I don't see quite as regularly, but still fairly often, is a neocon. And my family, except for my father and youngest sister, all vote Republican. And Iraq is still a daily topic among almost all of them, and it doesn't require me starting the conversation, either, in case anyone thought of making that charge. True, it's not front page news on every newspaper and tv news program the way it used to be, but it's not exactly a forgotten and obscure topic either. I don't see Iraq-related reports on the news every day like we used to, but it's still on there a good 2-3 times per week. It's a long way from forgotten.

The point that led to this discussion revolved around whether Iraq has become "equally as unpopular as Vietnam." Among the arguments I made was my anecdotal observation that I rarely hear people talking about Iraq in my everyday life. That doesn't mean I'm saying Iraq has been forgotten by any means, although I'll admit that "rarely" might have been an exageration (especially since I didn't exclude other forms of media along with the internet). I'd guess it's still the #1 political issue, but I haven't seen any polls recently.

Ugly Duck

07-11-2006, 08:45 AM

something is in its 'last throes'...Cheney's "the insurgency is in its last throes" analysis is not as wrong as it seemed at first. Its the the idea that the conflict is an insurgency vs the Iraqi people thing that was in its last throes. Folks are more and more realizing that this is an Iraqi vs Iraqi thing, a civil war thing. Iraqis don't pay much attention to the "government" that we installed. "Insurgency" has less and less meaning when the government just isn't much of a factor.

We can debate when it would be time to leave the Iraqis to work it out amongst themselves, but one thing the neocon regime owes us bigtime is a clear explanation of what "victory" means. They say we must stay until total victory or our boyz will have died in vain. They say we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up. WTF does that mean? We stay until Iraqis decide to be nice to each other? We insured that there were no WMD's, toppled Sodom, installed democracy. The Iraqis have even stood up, but they've stood up to kill the hell out of each other. "Victory" is such an important topic, it needs to be more clearly defined.

jspchief

07-11-2006, 09:01 AM

Cheney's "the insurgency is in its last throes" analysis is not as wrong as it seemed at first. Its the the idea that the conflict is an insurgency vs the Iraqi people thing that was in its last throes. Folks are more and more realizing that this is an Iraqi vs Iraqi thing, a civil war thing. Iraqis don't pay much attention to the "government" that we installed. "Insurgency" has less and less meaning when the government just isn't much of a factor.

We can debate when it would be time to leave the Iraqis to work it out amongst themselves, but one thing the neocon regime owes us bigtime is a clear explanation of what "victory" means. They say we must stay until total victory or our boyz will have died in vain. They say we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up. WTF does that mean? We stay until Iraqis decide to be nice to each other? We insured that there were no WMD's, toppled Sodom, installed democracy. The Iraqis have even stood up, but they've stood up to kill the hell out of each other. "Victory" is such an important topic, it needs to be more clearly defined.I think the only definition of victory would be "when Iraq is stable". And the definition of "stable" doesn't exist.

What is clear is that if we left now, the place would become worse than before we arrived. Somewhere down the road, hopefully things are in order to a point where that isn't the case. But I think to stomp your foot and demand a timeline or exact criteria just isn't going to work.

go bowe

07-11-2006, 09:50 AM

The point that led to this discussion revolved around whether Iraq has become "equally as unpopular as Vietnam." Among the arguments I made was my anecdotal observation that I rarely hear people talking about Iraq in my everyday life. That doesn't mean I'm saying Iraq has been forgotten by any means, although I'll admit that "rarely" might have been an exageration (especially since I didn't exclude other forms of media along with the internet). I'd guess it's still the #1 political issue, but I haven't seen any polls recently.it's hard to say whether iraq has become equally unpopular as the vietnam war was...

you don't see the massive, ongoing, and ever increasing protests in the streets, that's for sure...

a big part of that was the draft, forcing 18 year olds who were too poor for college to go die in the damned jungle for a corrupt regime...

i think what's different is that this time is that even though the poll numbers are pretty clear about the majority of americans not approving of the way iraq has been handled so far, you just don't see much public protest...

disapproval is mainstream pretty much, but protests have not become mainstream, as they eventually did with vietnam...

Ugly Duck

07-11-2006, 10:48 PM

it's hard to say whether iraq has become equally unpopular as the vietnam war was...

you don't see the massive, ongoing, and ever increasing protests in the streets, that's for sure...

a big part of that was the draft, forcing 18 year olds who were too poor for college to go die in the damned jungle for a corrupt regime...

i think what's different is that this time is that even though the poll numbers are pretty clear about the majority of americans not approving of the way iraq has been handled so far, you just don't see much public protest...

disapproval is mainstream pretty much, but protests have not become mainstream, as they eventually did with vietnam...Part of the reason for that is that we aren't being asked to pay for this war. I reckon that this is the first time we have tax cuts in wartime. The neocon regime is just tacking the war bill onto our national debt instead of requiring us to actually pay for it. If America was asked to foot the bill for their war, I betcha the regime would see protests on the scale of the Vietnam era. As long as they keep racking up the debt on our kids instead of on us, they are safe. The "tax cuts" they grant to us are future tax increases on the coming generations, and our generation is just greedy enough to be pacified by that ploy.

Brock

07-11-2006, 10:55 PM

Part of the reason for that is that we aren't being asked to pay for this war. I reckon that this is the first time we have tax cuts in wartime. The neocon regime is just tacking the war bill onto our national debt instead of requiring us to actually pay for it. If America was asked to foot the bill for their war, I betcha the regime would see protests on the scale of the Vietnam era.

Nice spin. So the flea-ridden hippies that were protesting Vietnam were protesting higher taxes to pay for Vietnam? LOL

Ugly Duck

07-11-2006, 11:24 PM

So the flea-ridden hippies that were protesting Vietnam were protesting higher taxes to pay for Vietnam? LOL?? I don't getcha... my point was that the neocons are tacking the bill on to the national debt instead of making us pay for it. The sentiment against the neocon adventure in Iraq would explode exponentially if they tried to dig into our wallets to pay for it. Only if they ask us to cough up the money they are spending will we see anti-war protests on the Vietnam scale.

patteeu

07-12-2006, 07:45 AM

Part of the reason for that is that we aren't being asked to pay for this war. I reckon that this is the first time we have tax cuts in wartime. The neocon regime is just tacking the war bill onto our national debt instead of requiring us to actually pay for it. If America was asked to foot the bill for their war, I betcha the regime would see protests on the scale of the Vietnam era. As long as they keep racking up the debt on our kids instead of on us, they are safe. The "tax cuts" they grant to us are future tax increases on the coming generations, and our generation is just greedy enough to be pacified by that ploy.

I think go bo's theory is better. The draft is a more relevant factor, IMO.

patteeu

07-12-2006, 07:45 AM

Nice spin. So the flea-ridden hippies that were protesting Vietnam were protesting higher taxes to pay for Vietnam? LOL

ROFL

the Talking Can

07-12-2006, 07:56 AM

Bush's tax cuts are working! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/12/iraq.main/index.html)

Twenty bodies found in Iraq after abductions
U.S. troops quiz Rumsfeld

Wednesday, July 12, 2006; Posted: 8:17 a.m. EDT (12:17 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Twenty people were found dead Wednesday northeast of Baghdad after gunmen kidnapped 24 civilians, an Iraqi official said.

The victims were civilians and bus drivers, said the official from the Diyala Joint Coordination Center.

The kidnapping occurred Wednesday morning in Muqtadya, a mixed city northeast of the Diyala provincial capital of Baquba.

Iraqi security forces are searching for the victims....

...Violent week

Rumsfeld's visit comes amid another violent week in Iraq.

Seven Iraqis died and 20 were wounded when a suicide bomber walked into a restaurant in a southern Baghdad neighborhood Wednesday and detonated a bomb, Iraqi emergency police said.

Less than an hour earlier, a car bomb targeting Iraqi civilians exploded in central Baghdad, killing two and wounding two, Iraqi emergency police said.

On Tuesday, incidents included the killing of 10 people on a bus and a separate attack that killed between five and 16 people near Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. (Details)

In addition, gunmen kidnapped an Iraqi diplomat from his western Baghdad house Tuesday, police said. The diplomat was posted in Iran and was in Baghdad on leave.

Differing accounts were given of what happened near the Green Zone, which serves as headquarters for U.S. and Iraqi government officials.

According to the Multinational Corps-Iraq, "Three bombs detonated outside of the International Zone at approximately 10:50 a.m., reportedly killing 15 local nationals and an Iraqi policeman" and wounding four locals.

The statement said the incident occurred just north of the Green Zone, and indicated two people with suicide vests blew themselves up after a bomb went off.

Iraqi police, however, told CNN a bomber was parking a car by a restaurant near an Iraqi police checkpoint around 11 a.m. when police became suspicious and gave chase. At that point, the vehicle exploded, killing the man inside, police added.

Five people were killed and 12 others wounded, police said.

Radar Chief

07-12-2006, 09:04 AM

Bush's tax cuts are working! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/12/iraq.main/index.html)

Interesting how the focus has shifted from US soldiers to Iraqi civilians in the search for some blood to splatter across the headlines.
Not unexpected, or even surprising who posted it, just interesting. :hmmm:

Nightwish

07-12-2006, 12:38 PM

Interesting how the focus has shifted from US soldiers to Iraqi civilians in the search for some blood to splatter across the headlines.
Not unexpected, or even surprising who posted it, just interesting. :hmmm:
Do you find the fact that the bulk of the fighting and bloodshed in Iraq has shifted from insurgency against our troops to sectarian infighting equally interesting? You should, since it's a pretty obvious cause/effect relationship. The media focus has shifted because the focus of the fighting has shifted.

Radar Chief

07-12-2006, 01:19 PM

Do you find the fact that the bulk of the fighting and bloodshed in Iraq has shifted from insurgency against our troops to sectarian infighting equally interesting? You should, since it's a pretty obvious cause/effect relationship. The media focus has shifted because the focus of the fighting has shifted.

Yes, I do. An indication of their desperation, IMO.
Also an indication that they know what’ll get the biggest splash on our news, particularly since it’s badly damage’n their “Mujahadin” image in the rest of the ME.
Ironic then isn’t it that they, the press, continue with the need for bloody headlines even though it’s known that they’re premote’n those we’re fight’n? :hmmm:

patteeu

07-12-2006, 01:20 PM

Do you find the fact that the bulk of the fighting and bloodshed in Iraq has shifted from insurgency against our troops to sectarian infighting equally interesting? You should, since it's a pretty obvious cause/effect relationship. The media focus has shifted because the focus of the fighting has shifted.

The complaint a few months ago was that too many of our GIs were being killed and that our presence made us a target. This was the central argument made by your war hero, John Murtha, when he first unveiled his "cut and run to Okinawa" strategy. He argued that getting out of Iraq would decrease the violence because we wouldn't be there anymore to act as targets.

Nightwish

07-12-2006, 01:24 PM

The complaint a few months ago was that too many of our GIs were being killed and that our presence made us a target. This was the central argument made by your war hero, John Murtha, when he first unveiled his "cut and run to Okinawa" strategy. He argued that getting out of Iraq would decrease the violence because we wouldn't be there anymore to act as targets.Which has zilch to do with RC's criticism of the shift in media focus. So a critic of the war was wrong about something. How many more things will they have to be wrong about in order to catch up with the number of things the supporters of the war have been wrong about? There's still a pretty huge gap there.

Radar Chief

07-12-2006, 01:26 PM

Which has zilch to do with RC's criticism of the shift in media focus.

It’s just an observation, NW.
Though, if you really wanna take it as a “criticism”, you’re free to do so. ;)

go bowe

07-12-2006, 01:46 PM

a little criticism now and then is a good thing - t. jefferson...

go bowe

07-12-2006, 01:48 PM

Nice spin. So the flea-ridden hippies that were protesting Vietnam were protesting higher taxes to pay for Vietnam? LOLi'll have you know that i have never had fleas...

patteeu

07-12-2006, 02:09 PM

Which has zilch to do with RC's criticism of the shift in media focus. So a critic of the war was wrong about something. How many more things will they have to be wrong about in order to catch up with the number of things the supporters of the war have been wrong about? There's still a pretty huge gap there.

The media was on the Murtha bandwagon almost as much as you were. You were all wrong. But of course, being so fundamentally wrong about something like that didn't stop anyone from shifting their focus from US bloodshed to general bloodshed because none of it is really the reason the surrenderists want out of Iraq. The real reason for most of you has to do with domestic politics, as I'm sure you are aware.

Nightwish

07-12-2006, 06:55 PM

The media was on the Murtha bandwagon almost as much as you were. You were all wrong.
The only ones who were wrong were those who said that our withdrawal would decrease the violence in Iraq. As I recall, there weren't too many that actually said that; most of us said that our withdrawal would decrease the incidents of violence against American targets and take away the insurgents' reasons for being there. I don't remember anyone, even Murtha, saying that there wouldn't be any sectarian violence. In fact, most of us, as well as the media, predicted precisely the opposite. Technically, what we claimed hasn't been disproven, since most of the sectarian infighting isn't the doings of the insurgents or Al Qaeda.

But of course, being so fundamentally wrong about something like that didn't stop anyone from shifting their focus from US bloodshed to general bloodshed
You must be new to the world of news media. Nobody ever told you that violence and bloodshed sells newspapers?

because none of it is really the reason the surrenderists want out of Iraq. The real reason for most of you has to do with domestic politics, as I'm sure you are aware.
I know you have a desperate need to believe that. Because, of course, none of us who actually have friends and/or family over there actually care about their safety and security. It's only about domestic politics for us, isn't it? Our friends and family can die, and to hell with them, right, pat?

jettio

07-12-2006, 06:55 PM

There have been tit for tat killings between both sects for a long time.

The mahdi do have a strong presence in the military and police forces. There is no denying that, but I'm not sure its worse than the former bathists and fedeyen.

These people have been killing each other for centuries...but you're right, its Bush's fault for not seeing yesterday's events in the magic 8 ball.

You're almost as far gone as Dense and Jaz

You are getting pretty good at explaining stuff.

Could you explain why we invaded a country that had no chance of screwing with us?

Also, explain why we set up shop in Saddam's palaces and prisons and establish green zones while leaving ordinary people to the wolves. That is a disgrace.

It is not any surprise that there is chaos, it has been a clusterf*ck from the very beginning and if arrogant people like yourself and the Stooges had not insulted every allied nation with decent enough bullsh*t detectors to identify obvious bullsh*t, it might be possible to ask for the help needed to make the place safe.

Maybe the Germans knew that the story of WMD was bogus because they were the ones that told the Stooges that Curveball was full of sh*t.

The Germans and the French were right and arrogant people like you and the Stooges asked for this very predictable mess.

B*sh did not need a magic 8-ball to know that Stooges were idiots. He already knew that.

patteeu

07-12-2006, 08:44 PM

The only ones who were wrong were those who said that our withdrawal would decrease the violence in Iraq. As I recall, there weren't too many that actually said that; most of us said that our withdrawal would decrease the incidents of violence against American targets and take away the insurgents' reasons for being there. I don't remember anyone, even Murtha, saying that there wouldn't be any sectarian violence. In fact, most of us, as well as the media, predicted precisely the opposite. Technically, what we claimed hasn't been disproven, since most of the sectarian infighting isn't the doings of the insurgents or Al Qaeda.

You don't have a clue what Murtha was proposing. At the beginning, you weren't even willing to admit that Murtha wanted to withdraw from Iraq whether the Iraqis were prepared to defend themselves or not. Don't even bother trying to tell me what he meant.

You must be new to the world of news media. Nobody ever told you that violence and bloodshed sells newspapers?

It's not really the news media I'm talking about as much as the leftwing analysis media and anti-bush and/or anti-iraq advocates like yourself.

I know you have a desperate need to believe that. Because, of course, none of us who actually have friends and/or family over there actually care about their safety and security. It's only about domestic politics for us, isn't it? Our friends and family can die, and to hell with them, right, pat?

Probably. :rolleyes:

craneref

07-15-2006, 12:36 PM

Now that you've got your rhetoric spiel out of the way, let's move on to the things you said that actually had a bit of substance.

We're not blaming this merely on the US being in Iraq, though that it certainly helping to foment the disorder. We're blaming it on the lack of foresight of our leaders and planners who ignored all projections that this sort of thing would take place in the aftermath of the heavy fighting, who insisted it wouldn't happen, and who failed utterly to plan for this contingency. Time and time again they were told by experts and analysts that this would happen, that they would need more manpower and a better strategy, and each time they thumbed their noses at those experts and analysts and said they were wrong. Well, they weren't wrong, were they?

Well, that didn't take long for you to get right back to the thoughtless rhetoric again.

Huh? Where do you people come up with this stuff? Honestly! Is there some handbook out there on bookstore shelves entitled, "101 Ways to Seize upon Every Subject as an Opportunity to Insult Everyone Who Doesn't Believe Exactly as You?"

And there it is, folks, the requisitie pseudo-patriotic soundbite that must inevitably follow a right-wing rant these days to give it the appearance of righteousness.

I stand corrected, obviously YOUR beliefs are the only correct ones and only those who oppose speak truth. Thoughtless rhetoric, yeah, your right, I get up everyday, put on my uniform, kiss my family good-bye not knowing if I will be home that night because I gie absolutely NO thought to the job I have volunteered for. Hindsight is 20/20 and what ifs are always abound, but I remember being told this would be a LONG fight, the major battle went quick as planned, however this is no different than the defeat of Germany and Japan, it took years, and this is NOT about national pride, it is about killing Americans, plain and simple, it is just easier to reach Americans there than here. I can only speak for what I directly deal with, but I have naever been disreguarded on what I thought was necessary to complete the mission. I know that the IN thing is to talk to a FEW retired Generals and let them tell how they were ignored, but everybody has a boss and they ae not required to do things the way we suggest, that is called the change of command. Throwing more at something does not always work, besides last time I checked there is a little more going on in the world than just Iraq and maybe a couple of troops are needed to guard America's freedom somewhere else. Oh how naiive of me and handbook, there is NO threat to America where I think there is, becasue I am just the right-wing conservative nut that wants to kill everybody that believes differently from me and nail the 10 commandments on everything that doesn't move. I understand your ease at recognizing thoughtless rhetoric and I THANK YOU for questioning my patriotism, it just makes me realize that the freedom of this country is something that has to be prtected at all costs. So to keep from wasting anymore of your obviously superior intellectual time, I will close that when I die, my coffin will be draped with the American flag, the one I lived and died to protect.

craneref

07-15-2006, 12:44 PM

I would like to add that no one "HATES" war more than I do. I hate it so completely that I currently work a regular 60 hour work week, take calls in the evenings and on weekends to ensure that what the troops need, they get. But the real hero's behind my long work hours and dedication are my family, who spend many dinners without Dad at the table or someitmes months at a time with Dad halfway around the world, why they celebrate birthdays, Christmas's, First days of Schools, 100's on their tests, anniversary's and just plain hanging out with Dad. They have sacrificed because of their hatred for war as well. I do not want to have to worry about a bus pulling up beside the car with my family in it and being blown up, nobody should have to worry about that. There are thousands of families full of heros just like mine and that my friend is the real reason that I my comrades in arms serve this country everyday, because not only am I humbled aobut the men and women that I serve under, with and for me but stand in AWE of the extreme LOVE and PATIENCE that my family endures for me and this country!!

Nightwish

07-15-2006, 10:20 PM

You don't have a clue what Murtha was proposing.
You really don't see the irony in that statement, do you? That's sad.

At the beginning, you weren't even willing to admit that Murtha wanted to withdraw from Iraq whether the Iraqis were prepared to defend themselves or not.
At the beginning, I didn't say anything about what Murtha wanted. I addressed only what he actually said. And he actually said "as soon as it is practical" or words to that effect.

Don't even bother trying to tell me what he meant.
You're the very last person who needs to be giving advice on trying to tell us what he meant. In your various analyses of his plan, you've deliberately omitted about 2/3 of what he actually said, you've essentially rewritten his comments, and created a strawman that you can keep knocking down to your heart's content. You latched onto the rhetoric the Republicans started spouting when he first came out about wanting to get the troops out. Do you remember that? Do you remember how Murtha's actual plan never made it to the floor of Congress, that the Republicans instead rewrote it, eliminating key components of the plan he promoted, claimed it was the same plan he was promoting, and put that up for vote before Murtha could put up his own? Do you remember that "cut and run" fabrication the Republicans offered to Congress, falsely claiming it was the same plan as authored by Murtha? Do you remember that they had to publically recant and apologize a day or two later? I'm doubting that you remember any of that, since you never fell off that bandwagon, even when the Republicans had a moment of clarity and abandoned it themselves!

I'm also curious to know why, in all your representations of Murtha's plan to we unsuspecting board members, you've made a particular point of portraying Okinawa as his primary target for redeployment, but have been strangely silent about the dozens of times in dozens of interviews he actually said that his preferred points of redeployment are Kuwait, Qatar, and other "friendly" Middle Eastern States? Why do you keep omitting that important information, pat? It wouldn't be because it doesn't fit into your story, would it? Surely not! And why, when you've been challenged more than once to comment on the fact that Murtha explicitly called for a "quick reaction force" and "over the horizon presence," you've avoided answering those questions like the plague, and rather quickly changed the subject? It wouldn't be because those rather important facts don't fit into your story, would it? It wouldn't be because your story that Murtha wants them all drawn back to America, or to Okinawa, or to other points halfway around the globe, wouldn't hold water if readers knew what he actually said, would it? Surely not!

It's not really the news media I'm talking about as much as the leftwing analysis media and anti-bush and/or anti-iraq advocates like yourself.
So it's only the "leftwing analysis media" and "anti-bush and/or anti-iraq advocates" who relish in serving up violence, mayhem and bloodshed for the appetites of the American readers? You must be a lot newer to all this than I thought. Or just a whole lot more naive than I thought.

Probably. :rolleyes:
You just dropped rungs on the credibility ladder, my friend.

patteeu

07-15-2006, 10:36 PM

You really don't see the irony in that statement, do you? That's sad.

At the beginning, I didn't say anything about what Murtha wanted. I addressed only what he actually said. And he actually said "as soon as it is practical" or words to that effect.

You're the very last person who needs to be giving advice on trying to tell us what he meant. In your various analyses of his plan, you've deliberately omitted about 2/3 of what he actually said, you've essentially rewritten his comments, and created a strawman that you can keep knocking down to your heart's content. You latched onto the rhetoric the Republicans started spouting when he first came out about wanting to get the troops out. Do you remember that? Do you remember how Murtha's actual plan never made it to the floor of Congress, that the Republicans instead rewrote it, eliminating key components of the plan he promoted, claimed it was the same plan he was promoting, and put that up for vote before Murtha could put up his own? Do you remember that "cut and run" fabrication the Republicans offered to Congress, falsely claiming it was the same plan as authored by Murtha? Do you remember that they had to publically recant and apologize a day or two later? I'm doubting that you remember any of that, since you never fell off that bandwagon, even when the Republicans had a moment of clarity and abandoned it themselves!

I'm also curious to know why, in all your representations of Murtha's plan to we unsuspecting board members, you've made a particular point of portraying Okinawa as his primary target for redeployment, but have been strangely silent about the dozens of times in dozens of interviews he actually said that his preferred points of redeployment are Kuwait, Qatar, and other "friendly" Middle Eastern States? Why do you keep omitting that important information, pat? It wouldn't be because it doesn't fit into your story, would it? Surely not! And why, when you've been challenged more than once to comment on the fact that Murtha explicitly called for a "quick reaction force" and "over the horizon presence," you've avoided answering those questions like the plague, and rather quickly changed the subject? It wouldn't be because those rather important facts don't fit into your story, would it? It wouldn't be because your story that Murtha wants them all drawn back to America, or to Okinawa, or to other points halfway around the globe, wouldn't hold water if readers knew what he actually said, would it? Surely not!

All I know is that everything I said about Murtha from the beginning has proven to be right and you've been revising your analysis all along because his clarifications keep undermining your favorable (from my POV) interpretations. His original comments were vague specifically to allow people like you to avoid the harsh reality of his policy of surrender.

Nightwish

07-15-2006, 10:38 PM

I stand corrected, obviously YOUR beliefs are the only correct ones and only those who oppose speak truth.
First the rhetoric, then the victim complex. At least you're following the formula. In the next couple posts, I'll be an America hater. Look for it.

Thoughtless rhetoric, yeah, your right, I get up everyday, put on my uniform, kiss my family good-bye not knowing if I will be home that night because I gie absolutely NO thought to the job I have volunteered for.
Okay. You're serving in Iraq, and you took your family with you? Is that what you're trying to say? 'Cuz it seems like you're trying awfully hard to convince us that you're in the line of fire on a daily basis. And you took your family with you? Just what exactly are we supposed to believe now?

and this is NOT about national pride, it is about killing Americans, plain and simple, it is just easier to reach Americans there than here.
Could you try to write a little more coherently, please? You're very hard to follow. What is not about national pride? What is about killing Americans?

I can only speak for what I directly deal with, but I have naever been disreguarded on what I thought was necessary to complete the mission.
What exactly do you deal with? So far we have it that you are in the line of fire on a daily basis, and that you kiss your family goodbye every morning (so you must be with them).

I know that the IN thing is to talk to a FEW retired Generals
Does their experience and expertise go right out the door at the moment of retirement?

and let them tell how they were ignored, but everybody has a boss and they ae not required to do things the way we suggest, that is called the change of command.
Okay, now we're getting a little clearer (though not much) - I think we can safely rule out that you're a soldier serving in harms way. A real soldier would know the difference between the "chain of command" and "change of command."

Throwing more at something does not always work, besides last time I checked there is a little more going on in the world than just Iraq and maybe a couple of troops are needed to guard America's freedom somewhere else.
Are you just doing a stream of consciousness thing? Not making much sense.

Oh how naiive of me and handbook, there is NO threat to America where I think there is, becasue I am just the right-wing conservative nut that wants to kill everybody that believes differently from me and nail the 10 commandments on everything that doesn't move.
Who said anything about the 10 Commandments? Who said anything about killing everybody who believes differently from you? Enough with the victim complex already!

I THANK YOU for questioning my patriotism, it just makes me realize that the freedom of this country is something that has to be prtected at all costs. So to keep from wasting anymore of your obviously superior intellectual time, I will close that when I die, my coffin will be draped with the American flag, the one I lived and died to protect.
I didn't question your patriotism. I criticized you for making tired comments that read like a cheesy recruitment ad, rather than sounding like well-thought-out arguments intended to provoke thought. With your penchant for spouting the cheesiest of the party lines, I fully expect to see the words "Uncle Sam Wants You" in your next post. Please don't disappoint me!

Nightwish

07-15-2006, 10:41 PM

All I know is that everything I said about Murtha from the beginning has proven to be right and you've been revising your analysis
I revised my analysis because the situation has changed. Murtha's original comments were made before the sectarian violence dramatically escalated, before we found ourselves facing the very real prospect of standing in the middle of a bloody civil war. Like about 2/3 of everything else Murtha said, you've deliberately avoided accounting for that, too. And again, you still refuse to address Kuwait, Qatar, over the horizon, quick reactionary force ...

Obviously, "all [you] know" on this topic ain't much.

the Talking Can

07-17-2006, 06:48 AM

Recxjake's brother is a prophet.

Baghdad is a city of peace.

Gunmen kill at least 40 in Iraq market attack
Top Oil Ministry official kidnapped in Baghdad

Monday, July 17, 2006; Posted: 6:32 a.m. EDT (10:32 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Heavily armed gunmen attacked a market in a city south of Baghdad on Monday, killing 40 people and wounding 60 others, according to police and government officials.

There were differing accounts of what took place in the attack, which begin around 9 a.m. (0600 GMT) near the al-Jazaer neighborhood of Mahmoudiya.

According to Iraq's Ministry of Defense, two car bombs exploded in the marketplace, followed by four mortar explosions.

The MOD said 40 people were killed and 70 wounded. The ministry also said three of the attackers have been arrested.

In details provided by the Interior Ministry and police, mortars rained down on the marketplace before gunmen dressed in black opened fire, killing 48 people and wounding 60 others....

...The attack comes a day after a suicide bomber detonated explosives inside a cafe packed with Shiites in northern Iraq, killing at least 26 people and injuring 22 others, an Iraqi general said....

...Also Sunday, gunmen kidnapped a senior Oil Ministry official, Adel Kazzaz, just after he left a government building in eastern Baghdad, a ministry spokesman said.

On Saturday, the head of Iraq's Olympic Committee, Ahmad el Kijiye, was kidnapped along with at least 30 of his co-workers by gunmen dressed in army uniforms, Iraqi police said.

The kidnapping happened in a Shiite neighborhood of central Baghdad as they were leaving a meeting at a cultural center, police said.

Six of those seized were later released, police said Sunday....

its the media's fault..yeah, that's the ticket (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/17/iraq.main/index.html)

the Talking Can

07-18-2006, 05:25 AM

Another peaceful day.

Plus, when you open a bank account in Baghdad you get a free waterbed! Allahu Akbar!

Iraq holy city bombing kills 45
Armed robbers hit Baghdad bank

Tuesday, July 18, 2006; Posted: 6:07 a.m. EDT (10:07 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 45 people were killed and 60 others wounded Tuesday morning when a suicide car bomber detonated in a busy Kufa marketplace where day laborers gather, Iraqi police said.

The attack took place around 7:30 a.m. near a Shia shrine.

Kufa is considered a holy place by Shia Muslims and is just outside Najaf, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) south of Baghdad.

In another development Tuesday, gunmen wearing Iraqi army uniforms stole 1.24 billion Iraqi dinars (about $675,000) from Rafidain Bank in western Baghdad early Tuesday afternoon, Iraqi emergency police told CNN...

I blame hippies. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.main/index.html)

Radar Chief

07-18-2006, 08:34 AM

Another peaceful day.

Plus, when you open a bank account in Baghdad you get a free waterbed! Allahu Akbar!

I blame hippies. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.main/index.html)

Waterbeds are bad for your back.
I’m surprised you’re not cry’n ‘bout the injustice of purposely injure’n otherwise healthy Iraqi backs.

patteeu

07-18-2006, 11:11 AM

I wonder what the lament will be when Baghdad is pacified.

Tourism to central Iraq has not yet reached the levels of an average Arab coastal city, oh the humanity. :deevee:

banyon

07-18-2006, 11:15 AM

I wonder what the lament will be when Baghdad is pacified.

Tourism to central Iraq has not yet reached the levels of an average Arab coastal city, oh the humanity. :deevee:
http://static.flickr.com/29/57171544_a08886e63f_o.jpg

the Talking Can

07-18-2006, 12:38 PM

I wonder what the lament will be when Baghdad is pacified.

Tourism to central Iraq has not yet reached the levels of an average Arab coastal city, oh the humanity. :deevee:

uh, news flash: Baghdad is a peaceful city..there is no violence in Iraq, you stupid hippy...what kind of terrorism loving Commie would suggest there was violence in Iraq?

Every day since we invaded with an appropriate sized force has been a peacful day in Iraq, thus proving Bush right when he said "Mission Accomplished"....go suck Murtha's penis you left wing goodless supporter of homosexuals...

the Talking Can

07-18-2006, 02:31 PM

More good news.

There is no civil war in Iraq. And Bush's plan to provide security to the Iraqi people has been an unqualified sucess.

More people die in Hutchinson every day than have died in Iraq this year. Hell, if it weren't for soccer moms, only 13,000 rag heads would have died.

The tax cuts are working!!! I just bought a new Yukon Denali!

U.N.: 14,000 Iraqis killed in 2006
Holy city bomb kills 45; Armed robbers hit Baghdad bank

Tuesday, July 18, 2006; Posted: 1:37 p.m. EDT (17:37 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- More than 14,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq in the first half of this year, an ominous figure reflecting the fact that "killings, kidnappings and torture remain widespread" in the war-torn country, a United Nations report says.

Killings of civilians are on "an upward trend," with more than 5,800 deaths and more than 5,700 injuries reported in May and June alone, it says.

The report, a bimonthly document produced by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, covers May and June, and includes chilling casualty figures and ugly anecdotes from the insurgent and sectarian warfare that continues to rage despite the establishment of a national unity government and a security crackdown in Baghdad....

I blame hippies. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.main/index.html)

the Talking Can

07-24-2006, 06:15 AM

I've heard from rexcjake's brother that you can get a sweet deal on hotel rooms in Baghdad. A whole floor for 6 pesos.

With complimentary jihadists for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Over 60 killed as Iraq violence escalates

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer Sun Jul 23, 7:43 PM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Bombs killed more than 60 people and wounded more than 200 Sunday in Baghdad and the northern oil center of Kirkuk — a dramatic escalation of violence as U.S. and Iraqi forces crack down on
Iraq's most feared Shiite militia.
ADVERTISEMENT

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki left Sunday for talks in Washington this week with
President Bush to discuss sectarian violence, which has risen sharply since Iraq's national unity government took office two months ago.

A suicide driver detonated a minivan at the entrance to a bustling market in Sadr City, the capital's biggest Shiite district and stronghold of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

At least 34 people were killed and 74 were wounded, the Iraqi army said in a statement. Eight more people died and about 20 were injured when a roadside bomb exploded two hours later at a municipal building in Sadr City about a half mile from the car bombing, the army said.

In Kirkuk, 180 miles to the north, a car bomb detonated at midday near a courthouse. The courthouse is located among a cluster of wooden shops and stalls, many of which burst into flames, engulfing the warren of crowded streets in roiling black smoke.

Twenty people were killed and 159 were wounded, police said. The tally of injured was so high because many people were trampled as panic swept shoppers, police said. Others suffered burns when the initial blast triggered secondary explosions in shops that sold chemicals and flammable liquids, police said.

Scenes at local hospitals were gruesome. Victims young and old lay bleeding on stretchers and gurneys, some of them scarred with horrific burns. Many lay unattended as doctors and nurses scrambled to care for the large number of wounded....

Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060723/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=As83ONVFaat9yKeVc78kJe5vaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

CRONUS

07-24-2006, 08:22 AM

http://static.flickr.com/29/57171544_a08886e63f_o.jpg

ROFL it took me a second, but indeed Patteeu statement is Pie in the Sky. Props

Frankie

07-25-2006, 09:36 AM

Recxjake's brother was right.
But his parents were obviously wrong on the day they conceived him.
:p

the Talking Can

07-27-2006, 07:19 AM

etc....

Baghdad explosions kill 27
Busy district hit by car bomb, mortars and rockets

Thursday, July 27, 2006; Posted: 7:00 a.m. EDT (11:00 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 27 Iraqi civilians were killed and 100 wounded after when a car bomb, mortars and rockets ripped through a busy shopping district of Baghdad early Thursday, Iraqi emergency police said.

Police said one of the residential buildings in the Karrada area, a mixed commercial-residential district was hit by a Katyusha rocket and witnesses on the scene said they a the building collapse.

The section of the neighborhood targeted is home to many Shiite politicians from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, police said....

a new letter from rexcjake's borther, signed "party on dude!" (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/27/iraq.main/index.html)

the Talking Can

07-31-2006, 04:30 PM

yawn, another day in Paradise....Bush is a smart man...

Kidnappers grab 29 people in Baghdad

Monday, July 31, 2006; Posted: 2:49 p.m. EDT (18:49 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Gunmen dressed in military fatigues swooped down on the offices of the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce and a nearby mobile phone company Monday, seizing 29 people.

Also Monday, at least 27 people were killed or found dead in political or sectarian violence across the country, police said. They included four Iraqi soldiers who died in a suicide bombing in northern Iraq -- the first such attack in the Kurdish-ruled province of Dahuk.

The kidnappings occurred around noon when armed, uniformed men arrived in 15 four-wheel drive vehicles in the main shopping area of Karradah, an upscale residential district where several prominent Shiite politicians live.

One group entered a mobile phone shop and the other went to the next door office of the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce, police Lt. Thair Mahmoud said. The gunmen rounded up 15 staff and customers from the shop and 11 from the chamber before driving away with them, Mahmoud said.

All the victims were believed to be Iraqis. The Iraqi-American Chamber is an independent organization not affiliated with the U.S. government and maintains branches throughout Iraq and in Amman, Jordan.

Despite the fatigue uniforms, the Interior Ministry denied that the kidnappers were police and blamed the attack on "terrorists," Iraqi state television reported.

The raid occurred in the same neighborhood as a mass abduction two weeks ago of about 30 people including the chairman of the Iraqi National Olympic Committee during a meeting of sports officials.

A few have been released but the others remain missing, including committee chairman Ahmed al-Hijiya. The sports officials were seized by gunmen who also wore fatigues and used the same kind of four-wheeled drive vehicles as the kidnappers Monday.

Elsewhere in Baghdad, gunmen also dressed in fatigues blocked a car in which a millionaire businessman was traveling Monday with his two sons in a southeastern neighborhood, police Lt. Bilal Ali Majeed said. The kidnappers fled with the three, leaving the businessman's car in the street, Majeed said.

It is unclear whether such brazen abductions have been carried out by government police or paramilitary commandos, sectarian militias or criminals wearing military fatigues which are widely available in Baghdad markets.

U.S. officials estimate that 30 to 40 people are kidnapped each day in Iraq, although the real figure may be higher because few families contact the police. Security officials believe most of the ransoms end up in the hands of insurgent and militia groups.

Many of the abductions are believed tied to the ongoing violence between Sunni and Shiite extremists who target civilians of the rival Muslim communities.

On Monday, the government said that since February, 30,359 families -- or about 182,000 people -- had fled their homes because of sectarian violence and intimidation. That represented an increase of about 20,000 people from the number reported displaced as of July 20....

Rexcjake makes travel arrangements... (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/31/iraq.main.ap/index.html)

the Talking Can

08-01-2006, 06:50 AM

Not enough rope to hang the neo-cons responsible for this.

Iraq car bombs kill at least 39

Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Posted: 6:45 a.m. EDT (10:45 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A trio of morning car bomb attacks in Iraq on Tuesday killed at least 39 people -- most of them Iraqi soldiers -- and wounded more than 50 others, authorities said.

In the first attack, a roadside bomb hit a bus carrying members of the Iraqi military, who were traveling between Tikrit and Baiji, killing 23 soldiers and wounding 20 others, an official with the Salaheddin Joint Coordination Center told CNN. Tikrit is about 100 miles north of Baghdad in Salaheddin province.

The Iraqi Ministry of Defense said a curfew was imposed in the region to help authorities hunt down those responsible.

Several hours later, at least 10 people were killed and 22 wounded when a suicide car bomber detonated near an Iraqi army convoy in the Karrada section of central Baghdad, police said.

According to police, the casualties were mainly soldiers, but no breakdown was given.

An attack in the same neighborhood last week killed at least 27 civilians and wounded 100 others....

Pizza Party in Baghdad!! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/01/iraq.main/index.html)

patteeu

08-01-2006, 08:28 AM

Not enough rope to hang the neo-cons responsible for this.

Are the neo-cons driving these car bombs or directing these death squads?

terrorist masterminds = not responsible
suicide bombers = not responsible
sectarian militia death squads = not responsible
cut-and-run whackos who encourage the insurgency = not responsible
neo-cons = responsible

:rolleyes:

the Talking Can

08-01-2006, 10:57 AM

Are the neo-cons driving these car bombs or directing these death squads?

terrorist masterminds = not responsible
suicide bombers = not responsible
sectarian militia death squads = not responsible
cut-and-run whackos who encourage the insurgency = not responsible
neo-cons = responsible

:rolleyes:

no, in the fantasy world you live in the people responsible for our plan in Iraq are not responsible for our plan in Iraq....the President isn't the President...the Commander in Chief isn't the Commander in Chief...etc...

you can send us into Iraq....then walk away and pretend it is someone else's fault....you prove it every day...

the collective ignorance and incompetance of Bush, the neo-con planners, and two-bit apologists like yourself has real world consequences...you'll skulk away and blame someone else once Bush leaves office (as will Kotter and a whole host of Republicans who are at least embarrassed enough to not even show their faces)...but we'll remember....

meanwhile, just think, you still have a couple of years to accuse people of being terrorist sympathizers....better get while the getting is good...reality will be back soon, and reality will be pissed...

the Talking Can

08-05-2006, 07:49 AM

Well, the war pigs are hiding their faces....the Bush-is-brilliant crowd won't show...here, tv, nowhere..

This is what Bush's plan has wrought. This was our Leader's best idea. I'm glad he believes in hell...he'll be there some day:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - While American politicians and generals in Washington debate the possibility of civil war in Iraq, many U.S. officers and enlisted men who patrol Baghdad say it has already begun.

Army troops in and around the capital interviewed in the last week cite a long list of evidence that the center of the nation is coming undone: Villages have been abandoned by Sunni and Shiite Muslims; Sunni insurgents have killed thousands of Shiites in car bombings and assassinations; Shiite militia death squads have tortured and killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Sunnis; and when night falls, neighborhoods become open battlegrounds.

"There's one street that's the dividing line. They shoot mortars across the line and abduct people back and forth," said 1st Lt. Brian Johnson, a 4th Infantry Division platoon leader from Houston. Johnson, 24, was describing the nightly violence that pits Sunni gunmen from Baghdad's Ghazaliyah neighborhood against Shiite gunmen from the nearby Shula district.

As he spoke, the sights and sounds of battle grew: first, the rat-a-tat-tat of fire from AK-47 assault rifles, then the heavier bursts of PKC machine guns, and finally the booms of mortar rounds crisscrossing the night sky and crashing down onto houses and roads.

The bodies of captured Sunni and Shiite fighters will turn up in the morning, dropped in canals and left on the side of the road.

"We've seen some that have been executed on site, with bullet holes in the ground; the rest were tortured and executed somewhere else and dumped," Johnson said.

The recent assertion by U.S. soldiers here that Iraq is in a civil war is a stunning indication that American efforts to bring peace and democracy to Iraq are failing, more than three years after the toppling of dictator Saddam Hussein's regime.

Some Iraqi troops, too, share that assessment.

"This is a civil war," said a senior adviser to the commander of the Iraqi Army's 6th Division, which oversees much of Baghdad.

"The problem between Sunnis and Shiites is a religious one, and it gets worse every time they attack each other's mosques," said the adviser, who gave only his rank and first name, Col. Ahmed, because of security concerns. "Iraq is now caught in hell."

U.S. hopes for victory in Iraq hinge principally on two factors: Iraqi security forces becoming more competent and Iraqi political leaders persuading armed groups to lay down their weapons.

But neither seems to be happening. The violence has increased as Iraqi troops have been added, and feuding among the political leadership is intense. American soldiers, particularly the rank and file who go out on daily patrols, say they see no end to the bloodshed. Higher ranking officers concede that the developments are threatening to move beyond their grasp.

"There's no plan - we are constantly reacting," said a senior American military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I have absolutely no idea what we're going to do."

The issue of whether Iraq has descended into civil war has been a hot-button topic even before U.S. troops entered Iraq in 2003, when some opponents of the war raised the likelihood that Iraq would fragment along sectarian lines if Saddam's oppressive regime was removed. Bush administration officials consistently rejected such speculation as unlikely to come to fruition.

On Thursday, however, two top American generals told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iraq could slip into civil war, though both stopped well short of saying that one had begun.

Political sensitivity has made some officers here hesitant to use the words "civil war," but they aren't shy about describing the situation that they and their men have found on their patrols.

"I hate to use the word `purify,' because it sounds very bad, but they are trying to force Shiites into Shiite areas and Sunnis into Sunni areas," said Lt. Col. Craig Osborne, who commands a 4th Infantry Division battalion on the western edge of Baghdad, a hotspot of sectarian violence.

Osborne, 39, of Decatur, Ill., compared Iraq to Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed in an orgy of inter-tribal violence in 1994. "That was without doubt a civil war - the same thing is happening here.

"But it's not called a civil war - there's such a negative connotation to that word and it suggests failure," he said.

On the other side of Baghdad, Shiites from the eastern slum of Sadr City and Sunnis from the nearby neighborhood of Adhamiyah regularly launch incursions into each other's areas, setting off car bombs and dragging victims into torture chambers.

"The sectarian violence flip-flops back and forth," said Lt. Col. Paul Finken, who commands a 101st Airborne Division task force that works with Iraqi soldiers in the area. "We find bodies all the time - bound, tortured, shot."

The idea that U.S. forces have been unable to prevent the nation from sliding into sectarian chaos troubles many American military officials in Iraq.

Don't Blame Bush...he's just the President (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/15201701.htm)