PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Fallujah To Be Turned Over to Iraqis As Marines Leave in Droves


KCJohnny
10-18-2008, 02:34 AM
Fallujah To Be Turned Over to Iraqis As Marines Leave in Droves (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/10/17/fallujah-to-be-turned-over-to-iraqis-as-marines-leave-in-dro.html)

http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/universal/images/transparent.pngFriday, October 17, 2008 at 10:48AM

“We are winning this thing.” The walls are coming down, the barbed wire being cut, and 100% of eligible voters in Fallujah, Iraq, have registered to vote in anticipation of the upcoming provincial elections.
One of Anbar Province’s largest cities, the war torn former al-Qaeda stronghold of Fallujah, will be turned over to Iraq on November 14. The Marines have been downsizing over the last 10 months and are leaving Fallujah by the thousands.

Fox News’Jennifer Griffin gave this excellent report (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html):
“We will shut down the command function here and I will move; my staff has already started to move,” Kelly, the commander of Multinational Force-West, told FOX News in an exclusive interview via satellite. “We will turn the lights off here.”

They will hand the Fallujah base over to their Iraqi counterparts on Nov. 14, having relocated themselves and thousands of combat vehicles to the desert base of Al Asad to the west. Marines will no longer be seen in city centers such as Fallujah — a major step toward leaving Iraq, and one step closer to Iraq’s goal of having U.S. troops out of its population centers by mid-2009 — one of the key points enshrined in the Status of Forces Agreement being reviewed on Capitol Hill today.

On Wednesday, to little fanfare, the Marines quietly closed down Al Qaim base near the Syrian border. Now it is run by Iraqis.

In Fallujah, where the U.S. Marines once had three large mess halls to feed troops, they are now down to one. The Marines have quietly disassembled the entire infrastructure of the base.

“We probably had several thousand of those large metal containers — tractor-trailer containers,” Kelly said. “I bet we don’t have 200 of them here now.”

Of the thousands of vehicles once parked at the base, now there are only 300 left. Their transfer occurred at night, between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m., over the past 10 months so as not to disturb Iraqi drivers and clog the roads.

They dubbed it “Operation Rudy Giuliani” because they were cleaning the streets up and returning Fallujah to normalcy — taking down barbed wire and tearing down checkpoints and Jersey walls that made Anbar look like a war zone.

“There is almost no barbed wire left anywhere in Fallujah,” Kelly said. An Iraqi no longer sees barbed wire when traveling in and around the city.

Between 300 and 400 concrete barriers that divided the city were removed by Navy Seabees.

But perhaps the biggest sign that the situation has changed for the better for Sunnis living in Anbar: With the help of the Marines and the Iraqi police, nearly 100 percent of the eligible voting population were registered a month ago to vote in upcoming provincial elections.

“They seem to add another political party every day,” Kelly said. “We didn’t have a single security violation of any kind. They’re at least going to give the electoral process a shot … at least going to give democracy a chance.”

In football terms, Kelly says, the Marines are “in the last 10 yards of this fight.”

“Could it go back? I don’t think so,” he said firmly. “We are winning this thing.”
Is Fallujah returning to what it was? No, Fallujah is moving ahead to democracy.

HOOAH! (report by Amy Proctor (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/), posted with permission)

Logical
10-18-2008, 02:58 AM
The sooner we are out of that cesspool the better. If this leads to that then great.

KCJohnny
10-18-2008, 04:28 AM
This what we call "victory with honor" in the US Military.

If we hadn't gone in, Saddam and his sons would still be torturing and gassing his own people while bilking the UN for billions and shooting at the Coalition Forces aircraft patrolling the UN-mandated No-Fly Zones. Now they have 100% voter registration in Anbar and western Iraq is virtually free of AQ influence.

Many of my friends served in Anbar. The turn around there is a modern military miracle.

tiptap
10-18-2008, 07:15 AM
That would have been one billion a year to patrol the No Fly. The people of Iraq would be hating Sadam not Uncle Sam and there would be 100% free AQ influence.

It only cost us 1 trillion dollars and 5000 American lives to get Saddam.

I am glad we can now start to leave.

KCJohnny
10-18-2008, 10:41 AM
That would have been one billion a year to patrol the No Fly. The people of Iraq would be hating Sadam not Uncle Sam and there would be 100% free AQ influence.

It only cost us 1 trillion dollars and 5000 American lives to get Saddam.

I am glad we can now start to leave.

Wrong.
The No Fly Zones, mandated by the UN, were attacked over 500 times in 2002 alone while Hans Blix was conducting his charade of WMD inspections. 90,000 US forces were deployed in the region to contain Saddam (compare to 135,000 average of American troops deployed in Iraq 2003-2008).

The people in Iraq are very thankful for removing Saddam - a dictator who's reign and sons gave the people ZERO hope. I was there in February of 2008 - when was the last time you were there, Mr. tiptap?

A Saddam-free Iraq changes the equation of the world. But I guess that is lost on people who with one side of their mouhs condemn Rumsfeld for meeting with Saddam and the other side of their mouth cry what an unjust action it was to depose the butcher of Baghdad.

I'm tired of hearing whiners with no experience in OIF dictate to us vets what the truth is. Unless you have walked the streets of Baghdad you can not possibly know what the ground view looks like.

banyon
10-18-2008, 10:44 AM
Wrong.
The No Fly Zones, mandated by the UN, were attacked over 500 times in 2002 alone while Hans Blix was conducting his charade of WMD inspections. 90,000 US forces were deployed in the region to contain Saddam (compare to 135,000 average of American troops deployed in Iraq 2003-2008).

The people in Iraq are very thankful for removing Saddam - a dictator who's reign and sons gave the people ZERO hope. I was there in February of 2008 - when was the last time you were there, Mr. tiptap?

A Saddam-free Iraq changes the equation of the world. But I guess that is lost on people who with one side of their mouhs condemn Rumsfeld for meeting with Saddam and the other side of their mouth cry what an unjust action it was to depose the butcher of Baghdad.

I'm tired of hearing whiners with no experience in OIF dictate to us vets what the truth is. Unless you have walked the streets of Baghdad you can not possibly know what the ground view looks like.

KCJOHNNY, what did America gain from this occupation?

Brock
10-18-2008, 10:45 AM
What a waste.

BigChiefFan
10-18-2008, 10:46 AM
Everybody wants the soldiers to LEAVE wth honor. Suggesting otherwise is a futile attempt at belitted other AMERICANS with different ideaologies. You don't have a monopoly on patriotism.

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 10:46 AM
The sooner we are out of that cesspool the better. If this leads to that then great.

Yep.

KCJohnny
10-18-2008, 10:53 AM
KCJOHNNY, what did America gain from this occupation?

Iraq is now a US ally. Trade relations between Iraq and the US will be wide open. Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party's pan -Arab movement is gone. Iran is neutralized. Relations between Shiite groups in the region and the US are opened up. The Kurds and the Shia are free from the threat of WMD that Saddam used on them.

No Iraqi-produced WMD is in the hands of AQ or other Islamic terrorists to use against the USA thanks to our intervention in Iraq.

All Arab regimes in the region are respectful of the US's capability to rapidly conduct a forced entry into their countries and remove a rogue leader.

You may sit comfortably on your cozy liberal asses but US troops have bled and died to keep you safe and secure while you mock and condemn our efforts. A free Iraq = a better world, no matter what your squirrely little liberal diatribes purport.

We kicked Saddam's ass and you are better off for it. Be a man and admit it.

banyon
10-18-2008, 10:57 AM
Iraq is now a US ally. Trade relations between Iraq and the US will be wide open. Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party's pan -Arab movement is gone. Iran is neutralized. Relations between Shiite groups in the region and the US are opened up. The Kurds and the Shia are free from the threat of WMD that Saddam used on them.

No Iraqi-produced WMD is in the hands of AQ or other Islamic terrorists to use against the USA thanks to our intervention in Iraq.

All Arab regimes in the region are respectful of the US's capability to rapidly conduct a forced entry into their countries and remove a rogue leader.

You may sit comfortably on your cozy liberal asses but US troops have bled and died to keep you safe and secure while you mock and condemn our efforts. A free Iraq + a btter world, no matter what your squirrely little liberal diatribes purport.

We kicked Saddam's ass and you are better off for it. Be a man and admit it.

So, since there weren't any WMD's of significance, basically we gained a trade partner? Oh, and I guess the rest can be summarized as "AMERICA F*** YEAH."

patteeu
10-18-2008, 11:20 AM
KCJOHNNY, what did America gain from this occupation?

Whether you agree with the original invasion or not, what we gained by seeing it through is invaluable. Weakness invites conflict. If Barack Obama wins the election, I suspect we'll get another lesson on this topic sooner or later.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 11:22 AM
Everybody wants the soldiers to LEAVE wth honor. Suggesting otherwise is a futile attempt at belitted other AMERICANS with different ideaologies. You don't have a monopoly on patriotism.

It's just that too many people apparently don't know what honor is. Honor isn't declaring victory and then running away with your tail between your legs.

MTG#10
10-18-2008, 11:26 AM
Iraq is now a US ally. Trade relations between Iraq and the US will be wide open. Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party's pan -Arab movement is gone. Iran is neutralized. Relations between Shiite groups in the region and the US are opened up. The Kurds and the Shia are free from the threat of WMD that Saddam used on them.

No Iraqi-produced WMD is in the hands of AQ or other Islamic terrorists to use against the USA thanks to our intervention in Iraq.

All Arab regimes in the region are respectful of the US's capability to rapidly conduct a forced entry into their countries and remove a rogue leader.

You may sit comfortably on your cozy liberal asses but US troops have bled and died to keep you safe and secure while you mock and condemn our efforts. A free Iraq = a better world, no matter what your squirrely little liberal diatribes purport.

We kicked Saddam's ass and you are better off for it. Be a man and admit it.

:clap:

banyon
10-18-2008, 11:28 AM
Whether you agree with the original invasion or not, what we gained by seeing it through is invaluable. Weakness invites conflict. If Barack Obama wins the election, I suspect we'll get another lesson on this topic sooner or later.

Seeing what through? Their disintegration into civil war as soon as we leave?

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 11:29 AM
I wonder if Chris Cooper will play KCJohnny in the film "Blind, decieved homer...the KCJ story"?

patteeu
10-18-2008, 11:31 AM
So, since there weren't any WMD's of significance, basically we gained a trade partner? Oh, and I guess the rest can be summarized as "AMERICA F*** YEAH."

The Iraqi Survey group and other investigations all agree that Saddam had not abandoned his goal of gaining WMD even though he wasn't as active in that regard as our intelligence services (along with pretty much everyone else in the world including some of Saddam's own generals) believed. Elimination of Saddam forever eliminates the chance that Saddam's WMD will be used against us or our allies.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 11:34 AM
Seeing what through? Their disintegration into civil war as soon as we leave?

Is Obama going to let that happen because it won't happen under John McCain.

BTW, was WWII and the removal of Hitler a failure because it spawned the Cold War?

banyon
10-18-2008, 11:36 AM
Is Obama going to let that happen because it won't happen under John McCain.

BTW, was WWII and the removal of Hitler a failure because it spawned the Cold War?

ROFL

Saddam = Hitler

banyon
10-18-2008, 11:37 AM
The Iraqi Survey group and other investigations all agree that Saddam had not abandoned his goal of gaining WMD even though he wasn't as active in that regard as our intelligence services (along with pretty much everyone else in the world including some of Saddam's own generals) believed. Elimination of Saddam forever eliminates the chance that Saddam's WMD will be used against us or our allies.

Right, and in the meantime Kim Jong Il has obtained nukes and Iran isn't far behind. If only we had invaded them too!

patteeu
10-18-2008, 11:55 AM
ROFL

Saddam = Hitler

Yeah, that's what I said. :rolleyes:

patteeu
10-18-2008, 11:57 AM
Right, and in the meantime Kim Jong Il has obtained nukes and Iran isn't far behind. If only we had invaded them too!

Change of subject noted.

MahiMike
10-18-2008, 01:25 PM
This what we call "victory with honor" in the US Military.

If we hadn't gone in, Saddam and his sons would still be torturing and gassing his own people while bilking the UN for billions and shooting at the Coalition Forces aircraft patrolling the UN-mandated No-Fly Zones. Now they have 100% voter registration in Anbar and western Iraq is virtually free of AQ influence.

Many of my friends served in Anbar. The turn around there is a modern military miracle.

And the 100,000 Iraqis that we killed "promoting democracy"?

MahiMike
10-18-2008, 01:28 PM
Wrong.
The No Fly Zones, mandated by the UN, were attacked over 500 times in 2002 alone while Hans Blix was conducting his charade of WMD inspections. 90,000 US forces were deployed in the region to contain Saddam (compare to 135,000 average of American troops deployed in Iraq 2003-2008).

The people in Iraq are very thankful for removing Saddam - a dictator who's reign and sons gave the people ZERO hope. I was there in February of 2008 - when was the last time you were there, Mr. tiptap?

A Saddam-free Iraq changes the equation of the world. But I guess that is lost on people who with one side of their mouhs condemn Rumsfeld for meeting with Saddam and the other side of their mouth cry what an unjust action it was to depose the butcher of Baghdad.

I'm tired of hearing whiners with no experience in OIF dictate to us vets what the truth is. Unless you have walked the streets of Baghdad you can not possibly know what the ground view looks like.

You're perfect for the military. So brainwashed you don't know any better. Just the way they like 'em.

Logical
10-18-2008, 02:29 PM
Iraq is now a US ally. Trade relations between Iraq and the US will be wide open. Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party's pan -Arab movement is gone. Iran is neutralized. Relations between Shiite groups in the region and the US are opened up. The Kurds and the Shia are free from the threat of WMD that Saddam used on them.

No Iraqi-produced WMD is in the hands of AQ or other Islamic terrorists to use against the USA thanks to our intervention in Iraq.

All Arab regimes in the region are respectful of the US's capability to rapidly conduct a forced entry into their countries and remove a rogue leader.

You may sit comfortably on your cozy liberal asses but US troops have bled and died to keep you safe and secure while you mock and condemn our efforts. A free Iraq = a better world, no matter what your squirrely little liberal diatribes purport.

We kicked Saddam's ass and you are better off for it. Be a man and admit it.Allies as long as we are giving them10-12 billion a month while they have an 80 billion surplus they are not spending.

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 04:57 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uugewEDPuIQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uugewEDPuIQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Good stuff right here.

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 05:20 AM
And the 100,000 Iraqis that we killed "promoting democracy"?

OK, let's put this to rest right now.

According to most estimates, between 88,000-96,000 'civilians' have lost their lives in Iraq since March 2003.

These figures are not what they appear. First of all, enemy combatants are included in the figures. That's right, those trying to kill Coalition Forces and Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are counted by these groups as 'civilian' deaths. Why? Because insurgents blend in with the population and wear no uniforms.

Secondly, the primary killers of real Iraqi civilians are other Iraqis. This is through suicide bombings, IEDs (roadside bombs), kidnappings, assassinations of doctors, police, military leaders, educators, etc... Anyone who knows anything about insurgencies knows that the enemy targets those esteemed to be collaborators with the 'occupier' (which we are not).

Lastly, sectarian violence fomented by Al Qaeda and other Sunni terrorist groups claimed a significant amount of lives in Iraqi-on-Iraqi fighting and terrorism. Terrorists have killed the most people in Iraq since 2003.

Only a tiny percentage of Iraqi innocent civilians were collaterally/accidentally killed by us and our partners since 2003. Each one of these civilian deaths is a massive tradgedy and we Soldiers hate to see it happen. It definitely makes everything we do that much more difficult.

And just FYI, under Saddam's dictatorship, the average Iraqi was four times as likely to die at the hands of his own government than by all the means explained above combined. So living during invasion, regime change, sectarian warfare, insurgency and terrorists attacks is actually safer than living under Saddam Hussein and his bloodthirsty sons.

So the next time you see people waving this 100,000 number around, point them to the real truth.

irishjayhawk
10-19-2008, 08:08 PM
This what we call "victory with honor" in the US Military.

If we hadn't gone in, Saddam and his sons would still be torturing and gassing his own people while bilking the UN for billions and shooting at the Coalition Forces aircraft patrolling the UN-mandated No-Fly Zones. Now they have 100% voter registration in Anbar and western Iraq is virtually free of AQ influence.

Many of my friends served in Anbar. The turn around there is a modern military miracle.

I'm sorry but who exactly can mandate a No Fly zone. If an unwanted country's military jet flies over my country, I will fire at them.

Screw the UN.

irishjayhawk
10-19-2008, 08:12 PM
Whether you agree with the original invasion or not, what we gained by seeing it through is invaluable. Weakness invites conflict. If Barack Obama wins the election, I suspect we'll get another lesson on this topic sooner or later.

For someone who hates how Obama doesn't give specifics, this is a pretty laughable answer.

It's just that too many people apparently don't know what honor is. Honor isn't declaring victory and then running away with your tail between your legs.

Is it the same as declaring "Mission Accomplished" and 5 years later talk about victory as something not yet achieved? Is that honorable?

Is Obama going to let that happen because it won't happen under John McCain.

BTW, was WWII and the removal of Hitler a failure because it spawned the Cold War?

Fear. Republican playbook 101.

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 10:39 PM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by MahiMike http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5126996#post5126996)
And the 100,000 Iraqis that we killed "promoting democracy"?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
OK, let's put this to rest right now.

According to most estimates, between 88,000-96,000 'civilians' have lost their lives in Iraq since March 2003.

These figures are not what they appear. First of all, enemy combatants are included in the figures. That's right, those trying to kill Coalition Forces and Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are counted by these groups as 'civilian' deaths. Why? Because insurgents blend in with the population and wear no uniforms.

Secondly, the primary killers of real Iraqi civilians are other Iraqis. This is through suicide bombings, IEDs (roadside bombs), kidnappings, assassinations of doctors, police, military leaders, educators, etc... Anyone who knows anything about insurgencies knows that the enemy targets those esteemed to be collaborators with the 'occupier' (which we are not).

Lastly, sectarian violence fomented by Al Qaeda and other Sunni terrorist groups claimed a significant amount of lives in Iraqi-on-Iraqi fighting and terrorism. Terrorists have killed the most people in Iraq since 2003.

Only a tiny percentage of Iraqi innocent civilians were collaterally/accidentally killed by us and our partners since 2003. Each one of these civilian deaths is a massive tradgedy and we Soldiers hate to see it happen. It definitely makes everything we do that much more difficult.

And just FYI, under Saddam's dictatorship, the average Iraqi was four times as likely to die at the hands of his own government than by all the means explained above combined. So living during invasion, regime change, sectarian warfare, insurgency and terrorists attacks is actually safer than living under Saddam Hussein and his bloodthirsty sons.

So the next time you see people waving this 100,000 number around, point them to the real truth.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

jAZ
10-19-2008, 10:44 PM
Did you just post a blog from your wife as if it's news and try to hide source by embedding the link ?

That's the craziest stunt I've ever seen anyone try to pull on this board.

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 10:51 PM
You wouldn't be trying to change the subject now would you? You lefties get an awful lot of mileage out of the disinformation about Iraqi civilian casulaties.

The article in the thread topic is attributed to its author.

Logical
10-19-2008, 11:03 PM
You wouldn't be trying to change the subject now would you? You lefties get an awful lot of mileage out of the disinformation about Iraqi civilian casulaties.

The article in the thread topic is attributed to its author.The real number of Iraqi casualties appears to be between 392000 and 1.2 million by an unbiased source. This was only through Dec 2007

Updated: 20th December
Casualty data analysed to: November 2007
Duration of war: 4 years, 8 months
Estimates of violent civilian deaths:
78,280 - 95,817
Estimates of total excess Iraqi deaths:
392,979 - 1,131,831
Total Iraqi casualties: no data available

The extent of the death toll resulting from the US-led invasion of Iraq and the following occupation and insurgency, continues to be the subject of debate. Ever since 2003, scientific discussion (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7491/550), heated debate (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/misuse-of-data-only-constant-in-iraq-war/2007/03/19/1174152970810.html) in the media, and political spin (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm) and manipulation, have all been prominent as various stakeholders have strived to define a figure for the human cost to the Iraqi people.As claims mount about the success of the <st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region> military surge in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> it appears that there is real evidence that the Iraqi casualty rate may be falling. Welcome news indeed. To try and gauge what the extent to which this is true we are pulling together various estimates and data sources on casualties, both civilian and combatant.

<o:p></o:p>When undertaking this review it quickly becomes apparent that there is still no one definitive or completely reliable source. We have previously reviewed (http://www.casualty-monitor.org/2007/08/iraqi-casualty-monitor-one-million.html) the limitations of the available data sources on casualties. To illustrate the range of estimates that exist we have constructed a graph of some of the publicly available estimates, drawing on the following sources:
Brookings Iraq Index (http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx)
Lancet 2006 Mortality Survey (http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf)
Coalition Casualty Count
Foreign Policy Estimate (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html)
Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbKav9-xrvwvm2twmld2GGENMuegD8T8SKAG0)
Iraq Body Count
(http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iraqbodycount.org%2F&ei=OqxiR6OSNp6WwgGjtvnRDQ&usg=AFQjCNHEeGCqX0KnEOcYLgyVvTL4visxuw&sig2=ZzvMtVu2scV5Wbw0wqpmnA)UNAMI (http://www.uniraq.org/)
In the first graph we show monthly mortality estimates from 3 passive surveillance systems. Complete coverage of the war time period is only available from Iraq Body Count. However, it is worth noting that the estimates achieved by this project seem to be systematically lower than those from the Brooking Institute, which made adjustments to the IBC estimates using Iraqi Ministry of health data. The data from the Coalition Casualty Count is clearly presented on their site as being an incomplete underestimate of Iraqi deaths. Indeed, all three passive surveillance systems are almost certain to be seriously underestimating Iraqi mortality. This is not unexpected and is not a criticism of their methods per se. It just need to be clearly acknowledged, as it is by the Coalition Casualty Count project.

It is very important when looking at different estimates to bear in mind that they are not all trying to to measure the same thing. Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) for example, which monitors media reports and some other sources to derive its estimate, is concerned with only civilian and police deaths and so will exclude deaths of members of the armed forces, militia, resistance, or terrorists. Other studies, such as the Lancet mortality surveys, have attempted to estimate the entire death toll including all categories of people. Therefore, even if their figures were representative of the entire population there is no reason to suppose that the estimates of deaths would be the same.When trying to unravel the various sources of information on war deaths it is useful to distinguish between different types and causes of mortality. Death is as certain as taxation so in all populations there will be a 'normal' rate of mortality caused by causes such as chronic disease, old age, and traffic accidents. However, when an event such as a war occurs there will be additional deaths. These deaths are referred to as 'excess' mortality.
In Iraq, this excess mortality consists of deaths caused directly by war-related violence and deaths caused indirectly by the breakdown in infrastructure, law and order, and public health during and following the invasion.

Deaths are also measured in different population groups. Different methods distinguish in various, and not always consistent ways, between members of the previous Iraq military forces, occupation Forces, civilians, Iraq security forces and insurgents.
http://www.zen111450.zen.co.uk/casualty_monitor/iraqi-casualties-1a.jpg

The second graph presents 4 estimates of total Iraqi fatalities. Bear in mind that these are estimates of different things. However, it is well known by epidemiologists that passive surveillance systems will tend to underestimate mortality compared to active approaches such as population surveys.

...http://www.casualty-monitor.org/2007/12/iraqi-casualty-monitor.html

Taco John
10-19-2008, 11:09 PM
You wouldn't be trying to change the subject now would you? You lefties get an awful lot of mileage out of the disinformation about Iraqi civilian casulaties.

The article in the thread topic is attributed to its author.



Just out of curiosity - how many dead Iraqi innocents would you estimate you've seen with your own eyes? A dozen? Two dozen? More? What would you put your own personal estimate at?

KCJohnny
10-20-2008, 12:37 AM
Just out of curiosity - how many dead Iraqi innocents would you estimate you've seen with your own eyes? A dozen? Two dozen? More? What would you put your own personal estimate at?

I've seen a few. My personal estimate is worth very little. The main thing is to realize who is doing the killing - and CF are doing a very small fraction of it.

Again, just FYI, under Saddam's dictatorship, the average Iraqi was four times as likely to die at the hands of his own government than by invasion, regime change, sectarian warfare, insurgency and terrorists attacks. An Iraqi is actually more likely to survive today than when living under Saddam Hussein and his bloodthirsty sons.

irishjayhawk
10-20-2008, 12:47 AM
I've seen a few. My personal estimate is worth very little. The main thing is to realize who is doing the killing - and CF are doing a very small fraction of it.

Again, just FYI, under Saddam's dictatorship, the average Iraqi was four times as likely to die at the hands of his own government than by invasion, regime change, sectarian warfare, insurgency and terrorists attacks. An Iraqi is actually more likely to survive today than when living under Saddam Hussein and his bloodthirsty sons.

And that helped me out how?

Taco John
10-20-2008, 01:22 AM
I've seen a few. My personal estimate is worth very little.


Perhaps to you.

It must mean more than you're willing to admit given your refusal to answer the question. That actually speaks loudly to me.

I was just curious about what the answer might be.

KCJohnny
10-20-2008, 02:38 AM
Perhaps to you.

It must mean more than you're willing to admit given your refusal to answer the question. That actually speaks loudly to me.

I was just curious about what the answer might be.

When I was in Baghdad, a man brought his 8 year old son to our combat outpost gate seeking medical treatment for his son. His son had a 7.62mm round lodged in his skull from Iraqi celebratory fire - not Coalition Forces (CF) activity. I was the sergeant of the guard that day and was able to process him to the Brigade Surgeon who in turn got him the help from CF field hospitals.

I also witnessed dozens of enemy combatants being cared for in our Combat Support Hospital (perhaps you saw the documentary Baghdad ER?) even though they had tried to kill our Soldiers. They received the same level of care as our boys.

There was a Soldier in our artillery battalion who shot a young man who refused to cease from what appeared to be setting an IED on the side of the road. It was just a trash bag, not an IED. Our paratrooper artilleryman was so distrought over this incident that he changed into civilian clothes, snuck off the base and found the family and begged for forgiveness. He was nearly shot by our own friendly patrol when he refused to halt (he didn't want to be caught off base in civilian clothes unauthorized).

I personally saved two sons of a local Iraqi policemen by happening upon a car jacking - and the MPs in the convoy I commanded apprehended the assailants and we brought them to the police not knowing the police station commander was the father of the victims. I was under no orders to break up crimes in Iraq between Iraqis. My little convoy could have very quickly been overwhelmed by the gathering crowds.

Below is a snapshot of me in front of Sts Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Doora. When we arrived in May 2003, the Church had six trailer borne surface to air missiles (SAMs) deployed around its complex wall. Saddam did this so that we would drop a 500 lb bomb on the Church.

I really don't think I have to defend anything we did or are doing in Iraq. Everyone who has been there knows we operate under the strictest rules-of-engagement that overwhelmingly favor Iraqis. Everyone knows that each innocent civilian killed makes our job over there that much more difficult and dangerous.

Iraq was ruled by a rapacious dictator who gassed his own people, murdered hundreds of thousands, committed uncountable acts of mass torture and attacked three of its neighboring nations. Don't talk to me about collateral damage. Our forces are the finest, most professional, compassionate in the world. You should see the Iraqi police forces that we trained in action today - nothing like the gangs and goon squads that abused the people under the Baathist Socialist regime.

Taco John
10-20-2008, 04:10 AM
You have this idea that I don't believe that our troops have done some good things in Iraq. It's faulty. I'm sure we've done plenty of wonderful things. I still don't believe in the mission. I wish that our soldiers weren't putting their lives on the line for the Iraq mission.

I believe in self-determination, and in Liberty. And by Liberty, I mean the right to choose your destiny through individual action (which may or may not snowball into collective action). It's my belief that our intervention in Iraq robbed the Iraqi people of their self-determined destiny, and I believe we did it for selfish reasons that have nothing to do with their so-called "liberation."

It is my personal belief that you rob a fundamental cultural pride from a sociological collective when you intervene, rather than allowing them to make the proper thought adjustments that lead to revolution. I believe that by stealing this opportunity for spiritual evolution from them, we have created a more dangerous world over the long run. I believe that our intervention has made their society more easily prone to corruption, and more open to the promised comforts of socialism.

I didn't ask you to defend anything that you did in Iraq. I don't believe that's your place to do so. You didn't make the decision to go to Iraq. I don't blame any soldier for their role in Iraq. My heart is broken for the soldiers who have lost so much of themselves for a mission that Americans don't care about. I wish it wasn't this way - I wish that this war wasn't such a tragedy - and I do hope that the Iraqi people will be able salvage something from this whole mess that is worth the loss of life and pride that has been thrust upon them.

Further, I understand that my point of view is an anathema to the type of Republican who favors a very liberal use of our military. I understand, also, why many people believe that a militaristic foreign policy is the best thing for us. But that understanding doesn't lend itself to agreement. I certainly don't understand how anyone could believe that the victims of the fallout of our militaristic foreign policy are somehow irrelevant - your sterilized word for them, "collateral damage." As a follower of Christ, I don't personally find much spiritual merit in that point of view. But further, It's a core philosophical belief of mine that force, rather than fostering spiritual gain, retards it - ultimately leading to instability, and potentially to violent collapse.

So finally, I understand why you might choose not to be open about the answer to my question, but it's my sincere hope that you might be willing to put aside your ideological resistance, and just give me an honest answer: How many dead Iraqi innocents would you estimate you've seen with your own eyes? A dozen? Two dozen? More? What would you put your own personal estimate at? I am curious at just how much innocent blood our soldiers see spilt around them - not that they're the ones spilling it - just that it's getting spilt and they are having to witness it around them.

Radar Chief
10-20-2008, 07:44 AM
Just out of curiosity - how many dead Iraqi innocents would you estimate you've seen with your own eyes? A dozen? Two dozen? More? What would you put your own personal estimate at?

Just out of curiosity, what does an “innocent” Iraqi look like?
Are they wearing uniforms?

jidar
10-20-2008, 08:55 AM
Wrong.
Hans Blix was conducting his charade of WMD inspections.


ROFL
Cause you know, it turns out they had tons of those lying around so the inspections were obviously a charade.

patteeu
10-20-2008, 09:00 AM
I'm sorry but who exactly can mandate a No Fly zone. If an unwanted country's military jet flies over my country, I will fire at them.

Screw the UN.

That's the kind of undesirable thing that happens to you when you lose a war, but don't let that stop you from continuing to argue that we should voluntarily lose ours.

KCJohnny
10-20-2008, 09:01 AM
You have this idea that I don't believe that our troops have done some good things in Iraq. It's faulty. I'm sure we've done plenty of wonderful things. I still don't believe in the mission. I wish that our soldiers weren't putting their lives on the line for the Iraq mission.


Well, you are in disagreement with Soldiers and Marines then. Reenlistments are at record levels despite all the hardships and dangers. Why? We believe in the mission.

I believe in self-determination, and in Liberty. And by Liberty, I mean the right to choose your destiny through individual action (which may or may not snowball into collective action). It's my belief that our intervention in Iraq robbed the Iraqi people of their self-determined destiny, and I believe we did it for selfish reasons that have nothing to do with their so-called "liberation."

It is my personal belief that you rob a fundamental cultural pride from a sociological collective when you intervene, rather than allowing them to make the proper thought adjustments that lead to revolution. I believe that by stealing this opportunity for spiritual evolution from them, we have created a more dangerous world over the long run. I believe that our intervention has made their society more easily prone to corruption, and more open to the promised comforts of socialism.

OK, I'm trying to be polite here. Do you think the Iraqi people had a snowball's chance in hell of attaining LIBERTY under Saddam???? Do you realize that Saddam was the target of hundreds of assassination attempts? That his people hated him? That the Shiites and Kurds did their level best to take his regime down? Our intervention has made their society more easily prone to corruption????? Dude, you are living in a dream world. Iraq was one massive chunk of mafia-styled corruption and slavery under Hussein. You can't possibly be serious. Our intervention led to free and fair elections, humane courts, professional police and law enforcement, civil administration accountable to the voters, etc... You are very, very, very badly mistaken about the conditions inside Iraq prior to the invasion. And BTW, Iraq under Saddam was ruled by the Ba'ath Socialist Party. See that? Socialist.


My heart is broken for the soldiers who have lost so much of themselves for a mission that Americans don't care about.


Complete and utter fabrication. Speak for yourself. Every American I talk to sees themselves as a stakeholder in the outcome of Iraq.

As a follower of Christ, I don't personally find much spiritual merit in that point of view. But further, It's a core philosophical belief of mine that force, rather than fostering spiritual gain, retards it - ultimately leading to instability, and potentially to violent collapse.

You are welcome to your philosophy. The Christians in Iraq do not agree with you and they have suffered 1,000x as much as you over the war.


So finally, I understand why you might choose not to be open about the answer to my question, but it's my sincere hope that you might be willing to put aside your ideological resistance, and just give me an honest answer: How many dead Iraqi innocents would you estimate you've seen with your own eyes? A dozen? Two dozen? More? What would you put your own personal estimate at? I am curious at just how much innocent blood our soldiers see spilt around them - not that they're the ones spilling it - just that it's getting spilt and they are having to witness it around them.

I have been totally transparent. I have summoned painful memories from the combat zone. Just what is it I am not open about, Mr. Taco?

I saw fewer than 3 innocent Iraqi deaths. You can try to pigeon-hole me and my fellow servicemembers into the image the MSM portrays, but its just not accurrate. We do not target innocent civilains. Al Qaeda does. JaM does. Other insurgent and terrorist groups do. Its obvious you have been taught by our liberal public education system to blame America, accuse Americans, and give all the enemies of freedom every benefit of the doubt. Sad.

Iraqis were traumatized by 35 years of Ba'athist rule that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. They had seen much, much more bloodshed under Saddam than anything close to what occurred in Iraq after March 2003. Iraqis also now have something they could never have under Saddam: hope.

patteeu
10-20-2008, 09:05 AM
Did you just post a blog from your wife as if it's news and try to hide source by embedding the link ?

That's the craziest stunt I've ever seen anyone try to pull on this board.

Hide?

jidar
10-20-2008, 09:09 AM
My opposition to the war stems from the fact that we were never told we went there to free the Iraqi people, we were told they were a terrorist threat. After that, the war was ran terribly for the first half dozen years by an administration who insisted that career politicians knew more about war than career military men.

Preemptive war I cannot get behind, liberating a country from an evil dictator, maybe I can.

Well, my feelings about the matter aside, finger pointing is not going to do us any good at this point. I just hope that finally creating a democracy in Iraq isn't considered justification for the multitude of failures and deceit that led us into this war in the first place.

All of that said, It's good that we're seeing the kind of progress that is going to allow us to bring our soldiers home. I hope Iraq has some lasting peace after this. A democratic Islamic country in the middle east might be a big benefit to the whole world.

Iowanian
10-20-2008, 09:10 AM
Good News.

Radar Chief
10-20-2008, 09:15 AM
My opposition to the war stems from the fact that we were never told we went there to free the Iraqi people,


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

........
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.
.................

Chief Henry
10-20-2008, 09:20 AM
Good News.


I have a nephew in the Air Force driving trucks in and out of Iraq (Mosul) from Kuwait, supply missions from what I gather. He responded to an email I sent him about 2 weeks ago. He's not seen any action the intire times he's been there and he sounds bored. He's not been shot at and he's not seen any IED's. He thinks he'll be state side by the end of November.

Nice thread KCJ.

patteeu
10-20-2008, 09:21 AM
My opposition to the war stems from the fact that we were never told we went there to free the Iraqi people, we were told they were a terrorist threat. After that, the war was ran terribly for the first half dozen years by an administration who insisted that career politicians knew more about war than career military men.

Preemptive war I cannot get behind, liberating a country from an evil dictator, maybe I can.

Well, my feelings about the matter aside, finger pointing is not going to do us any good at this point. I just hope that finally creating a democracy in Iraq isn't considered justification for the multitude of failures and deceit that led us into this war in the first place.

All of that said, It's good that we're seeing the kind of progress that is going to allow us to bring our soldiers home. I hope Iraq has some lasting peace after this. A democratic Islamic country in the middle east might be a big benefit to the whole world.

You're entitled to your own opinion, of course, but not your own facts. Liberating the Iraqi people was one of the many arguments advanced for our invasion prior to the commencement of hostilities.

From President Bush's 2003 SOTU address:

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

...

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

Edit: I see now that Radar Chief already took care of this, but as you can see, the argument was not only made, it was made repeatedly.

tooge
10-20-2008, 09:28 AM
Wow, great news. They have new schools, new hospitals, a functioning government, a government surplus, and all the oil in the world. cool. Meanwhile, the US has the largest debt in history, health care is a mess, hospitals are understaffed and access stinks, and teachers are underpaid while schools are understaffed. Awesome, we take from us and give to them! Way to go Bush

jidar
10-20-2008, 09:32 AM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

It's a 15 minutes of talking about how Iraq is going to destroy the world, followed by one line that amounts to "oh by the way, Iraqis will be better off too" at the end.

I think you'll have to forgive me for not feeling like that was the goal. Maybe if they hadn't spent weeks going on TV talking about how dangerous Iraq was and how we needed to invade them without evidence because if we wait for evidence the smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

KCJohnny
10-20-2008, 09:37 AM
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998



The misnomer that Operation Iraqi Freedom is "Bush's War" is a farce. The war in Iraq is simply U.S. policy formally instituted. As far back as the early 1990’s, the United States has been funding groups within Iraq to overthrow Saddam. They were unsuccessful because of Saddam's brutality and the fear his people had of him.

In 1998, then President Bill Clinton signed into law The Iraq Liberation Act (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf) which committed U.S. money to supporting the overthrow of a dangerous Saddam Hussein and laid out U.S. policy as supporting a free Iraq. The policy included regime change, a free and democratic government in Iraq as well as total disarmament of WMD.

The Iraq Liberation Act (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf)



<CENTER>October 31, 1998 </CENTER><CENTER>STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT </CENTER><CENTER>THE WHITE HOUSE </CENTER><CENTER>Office of the Press Secretary </CENTER><CENTER>For Immediate Release </CENTER><CENTER></CENTER>STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

http://www.johnnyproctor.com/amy/clinton_sad.jpgToday I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.

jidar
10-20-2008, 09:37 AM
You're entitled to your own opinion, of course, but not your own facts. Liberating the Iraqi people was one of the many arguments advanced for our invasion prior to the commencement of hostilities.

From President Bush's 2003 SOTU address:



Edit: I see now that Radar Chief already took care of this, but as you can see, the argument was not only made, it was made repeatedly.

So you've quoted just a couple of lines that allude to helping the Iraqis out of context from lengthy speeches that continually and constantly talk about the threat Iraq was to us.

So I take it you've been born in the last few years then?
Because otherwise I don't see how you could have lived through the lead up to that invasion and still thought it was a humanitarian mission. I sure as hell know that nobody I knew thought we were going there just to liberate Iraq. Everyone I knew, myself included, thought this was to stop Iraq from getting nukes and because they probably had something to do with Al Qaeda. Regime change in the name of saving our bacon is what the entire country thought we were doing. For you to say otherwise is extremely disingenuous.

Sully
10-20-2008, 09:40 AM
Can we borrow some money from them on the way out?

KCJohnny
10-20-2008, 09:45 AM
So you've quoted just a couple of lines that allude to helping the Iraqis out of context from lengthy speeches that continually and constantly talk about the threat Iraq was to us.

So I take it you've been born in the last few years then?
Because otherwise I don't see how you could have lived through the lead up to that invasion and still thought it was a humanitarian mission. I sure as hell know that nobody I knew thought we were going there just to liberate Iraq. Everyone I knew, myself included, thought this was to stop Iraq from getting nukes and because they probably had something to do with Al Qaeda. Regime change in the name of saving our bacon is what the entire country thought we were doing. For you to say otherwise is extremely disingenuous.

So, correct me if I am wrong, we should have left Saddam in power with the ability to sell WMD technology to AQ? We should have just trusted in Saddam that he would behave, even though he attacked Coalition aircraft enforcing the UN-mandated No-Fly Zones over 500x in 2002 alone? The $20 billion he bilked from the UN food-for-oil program should have been a gift? If you were were president you would have waited for another attack before doing something about an existing war with Iraq, a UN Security Council mandate that was rebelled against, and left 90,000 US forces in the region to 'contain' Saddam while we fought a global war against terrorism? What would you do with an Iraq that was still led by Saddam or his sons today? What can you point to in history that leads us to believe Saddam would have played nice while we spent billions containing him? And why is Iraqi blood so cheap to you? Should we not have defended Iraqis from the wholesale slaughter of Iraqi civilians when we caused the suffering of so many with the liberation of Kuwait that led to massive repercussions against the Kurds and Shiites?

Radar Chief
10-20-2008, 09:46 AM
It's a 15 minutes of talking about how Iraq is going to destroy the world, followed by one line that amounts to "oh by the way, Iraqis will be better off too" at the end.

I think you'll have to forgive me for not feeling like that was the goal. Maybe if they hadn't spent weeks going on TV talking about how dangerous Iraq was and how we needed to invade them without evidence because if we wait for evidence the smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Just come out and say you believe what you want to believe in spite of the evidence, not because of it, and we’ll be fine.

Radar Chief
10-20-2008, 09:54 AM
Can we borrow some money from them on the way out?

I’d be fine with them picking up their own tab. They apparently have enough to do so.

vailpass
10-20-2008, 10:01 AM
Send lawyers, guns and money.......

irishjayhawk
10-20-2008, 10:03 AM
That's the kind of undesirable thing that happens to you when you lose a war, but don't let that stop you from continuing to argue that we should voluntarily lose ours.

I gotta say the PR machine behind "lose the war" is pretty effective for mainstream America but damn is it one of the stupidest lines of logic ever.

Taco John
10-20-2008, 10:16 AM
Liberating the Iraqi people was one of the many arguments advanced for our invasion prior to the commencement of hostilities.



What a lie. It might have been a minorly sold side reason, but it wasn't a highlight reason.

Taco John
10-20-2008, 10:23 AM
Complete and utter fabrication. Speak for yourself. Every American I talk to sees themselves as a stakeholder in the outcome of Iraq.


It's fine with me that you believe that Americans feel invested in the outcome of Iraq. I guess well see on Big Tuesday in November just how right you are. I suspect that the guy who is trying to get us out of Iraq is going to win though, and Americans will have their referendum on just how much they feel invested.

patteeu
10-20-2008, 10:37 AM
So you've quoted just a couple of lines that allude to helping the Iraqis out of context from lengthy speeches that continually and constantly talk about the threat Iraq was to us.

So I take it you've been born in the last few years then?
Because otherwise I don't see how you could have lived through the lead up to that invasion and still thought it was a humanitarian mission. I sure as hell know that nobody I knew thought we were going there just to liberate Iraq. Everyone I knew, myself included, thought this was to stop Iraq from getting nukes and because they probably had something to do with Al Qaeda. Regime change in the name of saving our bacon is what the entire country thought we were doing. For you to say otherwise is extremely disingenuous.

I'm just pointing out the facts to you. I wasn't moved by the liberation argument either but I recognize that it was one of a wide variety of arguments made and that it was made repeatedly.

But I get it. You want to live the lie that you've built for yourself so knock yourself out.

Taco John
10-20-2008, 10:44 AM
...and...it was made repeatedly.



By who?

patteeu
10-20-2008, 10:45 AM
What a lie. It might have been a minorly sold side reason, but it wasn't a highlight reason.

Your post is self-contradictory. It reminds me of the confusion that leads you to swing between support for Obama and Ron Paul.

My assertion has already been proven in this thread. The fact that it wasn't the centerpiece argument for the war is irrelevant.

patteeu
10-20-2008, 10:45 AM
By who?

By the Bush administration among others. Did you read the thread?

patteeu
10-20-2008, 10:47 AM
It's fine with me that you believe that Americans feel invested in the outcome of Iraq. I guess well see on Big Tuesday in November just how right you are. I suspect that the guy who is trying to get us out of Iraq is going to win though, and Americans will have their referendum on just how much they feel invested.

:LOL: Until the biggest economic tsunami of our lifetimes hit, McCain looked like he was on his way to victory. To the extent that Iraq has played a role in this fall's election, it's been a benefit to McCain. How did that anti-war position work for Ron Paul's campaign?

Taco John
10-20-2008, 11:56 AM
Your post is self-contradictory. It reminds me of the confusion that leads you to swing between support for Obama and Ron Paul.

My assertion has already been proven in this thread. The fact that it wasn't the centerpiece argument for the war is irrelevant.


You're absolutely right that this war caused me the kind of confusion that caused me to support Obama and Ron Paul.

I'm looking forward to seeing the referendum on this war fail, and the people who deceived Americans into it thrown out of power.

Taco John
10-20-2008, 12:02 PM
It shouldn't come as a shock to me that you could possibly be this disconnected from reality:


:LOL: Until the biggest economic tsunami of our lifetimes hit, McCain looked like he was on his way to victory.

Iowanian
10-20-2008, 02:34 PM
Bring home the brigades we can, get the equipment refurbished, well rested, and start training and equiping them for what we feel will be the next fight.

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 08:39 AM
Amen.

mlyonsd
10-21-2008, 12:25 PM
Bring home the brigades we can, get the equipment refurbished, well rested, and start training and equiping them for what we feel will be the next fight.

Better hurry. According to Biden we have until next July at the latest before they might be needed again.

Iowanian
10-21-2008, 01:44 PM
Relax.

Obama is just going to take a vacation in Jan 09, where he's going to Pakistan to single handedly pull Osama out of his cave by his whiskers and shout "Police your MOUSTAAAAAAAAAACHE!!!" as he kicks his ass to the row boat on the coast.

Thats what he's talking about.