|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818 |
You see, what our government "tells us" is just how great and how fine our "troop surge is working". What they DO NOT TELL YOU, is that this "troop surge" just so happenned to coincide with the Shia Maisia agreeing to a cease fire back in August. Point being, when the militias and factions AREN"T SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER AND BLOWING UP BOMBS, the death count goes down......................sugre or NO surge! So NOW that this cease fire is breaking down and the militias seem to be upping the violence yet once again, the death count is once again rising. On a daily basis, about the same as BEFORE the surge. The surge ONLY WORKED in conjunction with the Shia malitias cease fire in place. Well DUH! But now? We'll see just how much "the surge really helped".  _________________________________________________ US-LED coalition warplanes dropped bombs on Shia militia positions in Basra yesterday, directly entering the fray for the first time since the Iraqi army launched a crackdown in the southern port city. The hammer of the coalition intervention was followed by a carrot from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who last night offered the Shia militants a cash-for-weapons deal after four days of heavy fighting. Saboteurs blew up one of Iraq's two main oil pipelines from Basra, cutting at least a third of the exports from the city that provides 80 per cent of government revenue. Crude prices rose above $US107 ($116) on the London market and traders predicted further attacks could have a lasting impact on prices. As coalition forces shut down the crossings on the Iraq-Iran border to prevent smuggling of weapons to the militants fighting Iraqi troops in Basra, Mr Maliki extended by 10 days the deadline for the gunmen to surrender their heavy and medium weapons. Basra has become the theatre of a turf war between the 60,000-strong Mahdi Army, led by radical shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and two rival Shia factions - the powerful Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council of Hakim and the smaller Fadhila Party. More than 130 people have been killed since the Government launched the offensive on Tuesday against Mahdi militiamen. Mr Maliki's move extending the deadline from tonight to April 8 is part of a three-pronged effort to break militia resistance, along with the imposition of a three-day curfew in Baghdad and coalition precision bombing. British military spokesman Tom Holloway said last night two bombing missions had been conducted on rocket crews and concentrated militia positions in Basra. The mayhem in Basra has left a question mark over the British military's decision to withdraw its troops to an airport base just outside the city last December, leaving security in the hands of the Iraqi army. Under the present strategy, the 4100 British troops still in Iraq are to remain at the airport and join Iraqi forces only when requested. Major Holloway said British troops were unlikely to support ground operations but were ready to do so if called in by the Iraqi military. British Defence Ministry officials admitted yesterday they were no longer thinking about cutting troop numbers to 2500this year, as outlined by Prime Minister Gordon Brown last October. Major Holloway said that coalition forces had also been providing air support, surveillance and were refuelling Iraqi helicopters and transport planes. Coalition forces rather than the Iraqi army were directing the air support. "Coalition forces are providing capability in those niche areas that the Iraqi armed forces don't have," he said. "Particularly, we are providing them air power over the top of the city." Parliamentary speaker Mahmoud Mashhadani said representatives of Shia and Sunni parties, including politicians loyal to Sadr, had agreed to attend an emergency session of parliament overnight. Sadr, who helped install Mr Maliki in power after an election in 2005 but later broke with him, has called for talks with the Government. While the Mahdi Army has not officially renounced its six-month ceasefire, a key component in the recent security gains, on the ground its fighters were chasing police and soldiers from their positions across Baghdad. Fighting has raged in other Shia strongholds such as the central city of Kut, Nasiriyah in the south and Hilla. Mr Maliki has gambled everything on the success of his operation to sweep illegal militias out of Basra. It has targeted neighbourhoods where the Mahdi Army dominates, prompting intense fighting in the narrow, fetid alleyways of Basra. In retaliation, Mahdi militia took over neighbourhood after neighbourhood in Baghdad, some amid heavy fighting, others without firing a shot. One witness saw Iraqi Shia policemen rip off their uniform shirts and run for shelter with local Sunni neighbourhood patrols, most of them made up of former insurgents wooed by theUS military into fighting al-Qa'ida. But if the Iraqi forces fail to stamp out the militias and Iraq sinks into a new bout of infighting, US and British forces may be forced to weigh in, sparking a new round of bloodletting ahead of US elections and scuttling British plans for an early withdrawal. Mr Maliki's offensive drew praise from US President George W. Bush, who called the fighting in Basra a "positive moment" for the development of Iraqi security forces and proof the Iraqi Government could defend itself. AFP, The Times http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23449799-15084,00.html And as we can see, without us "entering the frey", the Iraqi army can't handle it. Even though we've been training them to "stand up for themselves" for what, about four and a half years now?????  Maybe after another decade we can teach them to "fight for themselves"? I doubt it though. Why would they want to? After all, they can just break our economy and have our soldiers dying while "we do it for them" and KEEP all their oil money. I mean, they got it just the way they want it. A select few in power lining their pockets while the American tax payers fund their ability to do so. Why would they want that to change? 
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
You do realize that the uprisings started again on Easter Sunday right? The troop surge has helped and I can tell you that from FIRST HAND knowledge not some guy writing an article. Do you know many, I mean many attacks were stopped because of the troop surge? I see those numbers were conveniently left out. The fact is when we went back to war with Iraq, and had that right even without finding WMD's since they were breaking sanctions that were placed upon them on a daily basis, and also were aiding and abetting terrorists and terrorism prior and after 9-11, it was because they needed to be stopped. Were doing that, and knew it was going to be a long war, we were told that. I don't agree with how we went about it, since we should have just bombed the hell out of the rat bastards until the sand turned to glass, but that wasn't my call. I will support our men and women over there serving and the majority of our troops support this war since they have seen first hand the terrible treatment these people received from the past regime, and want them to have a better life in which they can live in peace. Maybe yopu should try to support our troops, instead of bashing them because I am sure you have received help from one before. Oh and just an FYI building an Army doesn't happen overnight, it does take years to accomplish such a mission.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
Quote:
You do realize that the uprisings started again on Easter Sunday right? The troop surge has helped and I can tell you that from FIRST HAND knowledge not some guy writing an article.
You're over there, now? I thought you were in the business of overcharging people for home repairs? No?
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Oh Quote:
So NOW that this cease fire is breaking down and the militias seem to be upping the violence yet once again, the death count is once again rising.
Silly conclusion to come to, since the uprisings just started last Sunday.
I highly doubt that this will continue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
LMAO overcharging for putting a 150 pound wreath 30 feet up? Thats not overcharging, I actually was the lowest bidder. Sorry but take your nonsense elsewhere.
Yes I have first hand knowledge, I was there during the first war, and have had many people close to me, family and friends over there since the second war, and know of the deplorable conditions these people live in. So go make your wise ass comments to someone who cares.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
Uhmmmm......actually, you said that the uprisings started on Easter Sunday and that you had first hand knowledge..............meaning you were there at the time.
Anyway..........I was just asking because that seemed to contradict an earlier statement you made.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Actually, I see what your saying and how it could sound like I was there at that time frame but thats not what I meant, I guess that was a poor choice of wording (I am bad at that at times, LOL). Thanks for pointing it out and clearing it up for others who might read it the same as you did. Sorry for any confusion, that wasn't my intended point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
No problem. I was wondering if you were still active and just home for the holidays during Christmas.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Nope I am considered disabled because of my knee's but that isn't combat related, more like I went in 100% and came out 75% so pretty much I get free medical, my wife and many of my friends are in and have seen the differences from the start of this war till now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
The troop surge has helped
I'm so sick of 'the surge isn't working' or 'the surge is working'. Both are entirely idiotic comments.
For those who say the surge isn't working...the purpose of said 'surge' is based on the theory that more boots on the ground means more stability...and it does.
For those who say the surge is working...working at what? It's momentarily stabilizing a volatile area until...oh, yeah we forgot the until.
Quote:
The fact is when we went back to war with Iraq, and had that right even without finding WMD's since they were breaking sanctions that were placed upon them on a daily basis
What sanctions? U.N. sanctions?
Do you think violating U.N. sanctions is justification for war? Or just in America's case?
Quote:
and also were aiding and abetting terrorists and terrorism prior and after 9-11
We have and we still do.
Again, does that justify someone invading our soil?
Quote:
I don't agree with how we went about it, since we should have just bombed the hell out of the rat bastards until the sand turned to glass, but that wasn't my call.
Yeah, historically genocide has always been a solid plan.
Quote:
Oh and just an FYI building an Army doesn't happen overnight, it does take years to accomplish such a mission.
Especially when you dismantle it to begin with.
Quote:
Maybe yopu should try to support our troops, instead of bashing them because I am sure you have received help from one before.
Maybe you should turn off the Lee Greenwood...where has anyone bashed the troops in this thread?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
"...Maybe you should turn off the Lee Greenwood...where has anyone bashed the troops in this thread? "
And since you can't your frustration level must be "surging".
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
You know what gets tiring? Guys like you that equate disagreeing with the war to somehow disrespecting the soldiers that are involved.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board or in the general population for that matter that has actually "bashed" the troops.
If you can't make a cogent point against someone's point of view leave the character assassination at home would be my advice.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
You know what gets tiring? Guys like you that equate disagreeing with the war to somehow disrespecting the soldiers that are involved.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board or in the general population for that matter that has actually "bashed" the troops.
If you can't make a cogent point against someone's point of view leave the character assassination at home would be my advice.
That stuff drives me nuts. Especially seeing "i support the troops" on someone's SUV or Hummer. Using a car that uses so much oil, putting more money in the pockets of terrorists. If you want to support the troops, why don't you go over there yourself so they can come home. What a bunch of crap.
you know what? Every taxpayer in this nation supports the troops. We don't have a choice. Why is anyone else doing extra? Praying for them? How about volunteering your paycheck to the government so they can by proper equipment instead. How about demanding our government get them out of there so they are blown to pieces over nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
Quote:
How about demanding our government get them out of there so they are blown to pieces over nothing.
I'm not going to go into politics or my personal view on the war(s), but claiming that soldiers are dieing over nothing is ignorant.
Firstly and unfortunatley the U.S. has two choices.
One: Leave the middle-east alone and let dictatorships that support anti-western terroism run rampant. By doing this you increase the chances of a large scale terroist operation. When I mean large I'm talking nuclear or chemical weapons, if something like that happens 100,000's or even millions of americans could die.
Secondly: You go to war, you fight who you can and who you have the best shot of beating in the Middle East and force the terrorists to fight on their turf. Soldiers will die, maybe even up to 7 or 8 thousand. But it forces the terrorists to focus on us over there, and it keeps the pressure on them because we are on their trail 24/7.
I think alot of people beleive that if the U.S. leaves the middle east the terrorists will stop hating us. Look they hate us not because we are over there, they hate us because they are jealous, they are taught we are infadels. Some radical muslims are taught from birth to hate the western way of living, and as everybody knows, they beleive they will be rewarded if they kill westerners. Leaving the middle east means nothing to these people. they don't think like we do in the western world. In the U.S., if you leave us alone we leave you alone. You can't be diplomatic with radicals, you can't tak or negoiate with them. The only thing they understand is war, if you dont kill them they will kill you.
So to say soldiers are dieing for no reason is wrong, they are dieing for a cuase. They are protecting us by fighting it over there, either way theres going to be a fight. It's up to us where its fought...too many people will not acceptthese facts ever.
As for the president and government, was this war thought out correctly? No it had serious holes. alot of people are all over the weapons as mass destruction..If you are niave enough to think that Saddam Hussein didnt have or was extremely close to having WMD's you have issues. Just because we didn't find them in Iraq doesn't mean they weren't there.
The popular notion is its an oil war, if we are over there for oil, then why didnt we attack Iran?
We didnt attack Iran because they are at the moment just stable enough we arent deeming them a major threat.
I don't agree with everything done about terrorism, the president, or the war..however I think many people don't realize what might have(be) happening if we weren't fighting in Iraq today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,124
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,124 |
BrownsFanZ... This is one of the best posts I've read in a long time on this board, thanks. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
Actually I never said that you were bashing the troops...no my point was that
many liberal anti-war folks wish they could bash the troops but realize how unpopular it is in America.
Early on when the war first started all we heard was about these soldiers who had no other options but joining the army to fight in Iraq. We heard how they were the least qualified of their age group and that it was a last resort of sorts.
Then after it was shown that the average voluntary enlisted man in this conflict had a greater education basis than in any previous conflict the remarks about their intelligence and options stopped temporarily.
Then the leftists began telling us how the soldiers were tricked into signing up and then being forced into the ME conflict. Soon after the reenlistment goals were being met and suddenly that incorrect claim stopped.
We are in Iraq to stay for several more years until our executive leaders change the strategy...if the leftists are able to capture the White House they may or may not pull the troops. The longer the leftists claim that the war is lost and our nation's great reputation has been destroyed for a gallon of oil the more likely that Mr. and Mrs. Middle America will get tired of the bitching when brave Americans are fighting overseas.
The Dems have shown time and time and time again that the only fighting they want to be involved with is with Republicans... and America is still more interested in defeating terrorists than claiming victory at Congressional snowball fights.
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
One: Leave the middle-east alone and let dictatorships that support anti-western terroism run rampant.
We already let dictators that support anti-Western terrorism run rampant. So long as they do what we say when we say.
Make no mistake about it -- America could care less if you rape, pillage, oppress and murder, so long as you do what we say.
Quote:
The popular notion is its an oil war, if we are over there for oil, then why didnt we attack Iran?
In short? America in post-WW2 will not attack any enemy they feel will put up a fight.
Quote:
We didnt attack Iran because they are at the moment just stable enough we arent deeming them a major threat.
Iran is not a threat to our national security. They are, however, way, way, way more of a threat than Iraq was or is.
Quote:
But it forces the terrorists to focus on us over there, and it keeps the pressure on them because we are on their trail 24/7.
No, it forces us to fight a war on two fronts -- against the terrorists and the people. It also gives credence to their propoganda.
Quote:
Look they hate us not because we are over there, they hate us because they are jealous
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818 |
Quote:
You do realize that the uprisings started again on Easter Sunday right? The troop surge has helped and I can tell you that from FIRST HAND knowledge not some guy writing an article. Do you know many, I mean many attacks were stopped because of the troop surge? I see those numbers were conveniently left out.
Here's what "you can tell". As long as the Shias honored their cease fire the surge has worked. But now that the Shia have once again began their attacks, the death tolls are right back to the levels as before the surge.
I'm sorry that addition and logic are not used by you. Let me simplify this.......................................When the Shia militia DON'T SHOOT, people DON'T DIE. When the Shia militia DO SHOOT, people DO DIE!
The ENTIRE PERIOD OF TIME that people claimed "the troop surge worked", is the EXACT SAME TIME FRAME that the Shias agreed and abided by their cease fire.
Luckily I have not been programmed by our government to believe everything they spew out of their mouths. I don't blindly follow without using logic and basic math. So we reach different conclusions.
Quote:
The fact is when we went back to war with Iraq, and had that right even without finding WMD's since they were breaking sanctions that were placed upon them on a daily basis,
Once again a myth aspoused by the blind followers. They were U.N. Sanctions. And the U.N. decided the violations were NOT severe enough to start a war over. They voted DOWN military force. But some how, the blind followers decided that even though the U.N. voted DOWN military action and it was THEIR SANCTIONS, that we have the right to tell them and the rest of the world to kiss our hind ends and do whatever the hell we want to wheather they like it or not. That "John Wayne diplomacy" has made our nation look like fools.
The fact is, they HAD TO make up the WMD and a nuclear weapons program to our citizens in order to "scare them into" supporting an "unneeded war".
Quote:
and also were aiding and abetting terrorists and terrorism prior and after 9-11, it was because they needed to be stopped. Were doing that, and knew it was going to be a long war, we were told that.
Aiding terrorists? You mean like Syria, Pakistan, Iran and Libya do? Like Saudi Arabias elite families do? You mean like WE HAVE DONE in the past to reach a means to an end? Maybe we should attack ourselves as well?
We were told that "the war on terror" would be a long war. NOT the war in Iraq. You seem to have selective memory. And for someone you "support so strongly in their decisions" ( Bush ), you don't even know exactly what it is he DID SAY?
Quote:
I don't agree with how we went about it, since we should have just bombed the hell out of the rat bastards until the sand turned to glass, but that wasn't my call.
Well, since you're so "military savy" then, you know as well as I do that we went into both Afghanastan and Iraq with insufficiant troop numbers. This is yet another "political war". You know, you want to fight a war on two fronts, yet you lack the troop strength to do it.
If you start up the draft, you commit political suicide, PLUS at that point, your political constituants start losing their children in this war "involuntarily" and your political career is OVER! So common sense dictates that IF you "start wars on two fronts" you need the draft. OR, you do what Bush has done, try to fight two wars with not NEARLY enough troop strength and it gets drawn out forever. You know this as well as I do. And yes, wiping out an entire nation through genocide is such a noble way to fight a war.
Quote:
I will support our men and women over there serving and the majority of our troops support this war since they have seen first hand the terrible treatment these people received from the past regime, and want them to have a better life in which they can live in peace.
Let's try that "basic math" again. Let's see, we have a "volunteer army". So it would stand to reason that if you "volunteer to fight this war" that you probably "believe in it". Did the light come on for you there?
My way of "supporting our troops" is to try to get them out of an "unwinnable situation". Not to just be there for "target practice" for their enemy. Because you know as well as I do that we lack the troop strength to "truely secure" Iraq. And because of the lies that were perpetuated on the American people to garner support for a war fought with a strategy I can only imagine Elmer Fudd himself came up with.
Quote:
Maybe yopu should try to support our troops, instead of bashing them because I am sure you have received help from one before.
I've never "bashed" our troops. I actually feel sorry for them. Who is "their enemy"? Al Queda in Iraq? The Shia malitias? The Sunni militias?
Al Sadre holds the cards here, not us. So far, Al Sadre has played along and it's made "the surge look good". Because this past week, he's decided NOT TO play along and everything looks pretty much like it did BEFORE the surge!
Al Sadre will decide how this war goes, not the U.S. government nor its military.
Quote:
Oh and just an FYI building an Army doesn't happen overnight, it does take years to accomplish such a mission.
Well, when you completly dismantle their entire military FIRST, you are right. Another BLUNDER by this administration. Sorry, but I don't support inneptness on the part of this administration. But I do support our troops. To suggest otherwise is just more double talk Mr. Rove......
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818 |
Here we go. Al Sadr is offering to "make us look good again" if we meet his demands. I'm sure a deal will be reached with him because this administration can't afford not to. Oh that's right, they don't "deal with terrorists". We'll see about that........... _________________________________________________ Al-Sadr offers to pull fighters off Iraq's streets Shiite cleric demands halt to raids against followers, freedom for prisoners DEVELOPING STORY MSNBC News Services updated 9:12 a.m. ET, Sun., March. 30, 2008 BAGHDAD - Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr offered Sunday to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge. The offer was contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf. An Iraqi government spokesman welcomed al-Sadr's order, saying it was "positive and responsive." Al-Sadr demanded that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also "disavows" anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices."Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed, and to maintain the unity of Iraq and to put an end to this sedition that the occupiers and their followers want to spread among the Iraqi people, we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces," al-Sadr's statement said. "Anyone carrying a weapon and targeting government institutions will not be one of us," the statement said. Iraqi government troops have been battling fighters loyal to al-Sadr in Basra for six days. The fighting has spread to other towns in southern Iraq and neighborhoods of Baghdad, exposing a deep rift with Iraq's majority Shiite community. The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23866765/
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
Quote:
Soldiers will die, maybe even up to 7 or 8 thousand. But it forces the terrorists to focus on us over there, and it keeps the pressure on them because we are on their trail 24/7.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
Quote:
no my point was that many liberal anti-war folks wish they could bash the troops but realize how unpopular it is in America.
The King of Labels and false statements. You never disappoint.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818 |
Quote:
Actually I never said that you were bashing the troops...no my point was that
many liberal anti-war folks wish they could bash the troops but realize how unpopular it is in America.
My question to you Ralphie is................Do you honestly believe that?
Not saying there aren't a few nut jobs who may feel that way, but I'd say VERY FEW!
Why can't you give your fellow country men a little credit for a change?
In all honesty, I have been a news buff since I was a kid. I remember as a child worrying about Vietnam. I was only 12 years old in 1970, but from my earliest memory, there was "always Vietnam".
So since I was against the war in Vietnam, I was always asking myself the question, "What will I do when I'm drafted"? And even at the age of 12, I knew what I would do. I would serve my country if called upon to do so.
Yet I sort of sympathised and understood those who oposed the war and refused to fight it. I felt and shared many of the same feelings they did.....................................until our troops came home.
When I saw people booing them, spitting on them and cursing at them? Calling them baby killers, etc....?
It was at that point that I grew a great disdain for those protesters. Didn't they understand that these troops were merely "fullfilling their duty to their country"? That these troops were NOT the ones "responsible" for that war?
I see it differently than you Ralphie. I believe my generation, and I taught my children the same thing, to NOT use "misplaced blame". To NOT blame those doing their duty, but blame those responsible for handing out the orders. The ones who "deployed them".
It was a sickenning sight to see how those Vietnam Vets were treated when they came home. I believe that by and large, even though it was a terrible thing, that our country learned and grew from that experience so much so, that it will never be repeated.
Obviously, you see it differently. And I think that's very sad. I wonder if talk radio could be considered an addiction?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818 |
Quote:
Oh and just an FYI building an Army doesn't happen overnight, it does take years to accomplish such a mission.
Basra fighting highlights Iraqi army’s struggles
Self-sufficiency as distant as ever in war’s 6th year; 2008 dropped as target
By Charles J. Hanley
AP Special Correspondent
updated 3:41 a.m. ET, Sun., March. 30, 2008
Iraq’s new army is “developing steadily,” with “strong Iraqi leaders out front,” the chief U.S. trainer assured the American people.
That was three-plus years ago, the U.S. Army general was David H. Petraeus, and some of those Iraqi officials at the time were busy embezzling more than $1 billion allotted for the new army’s weapons, according to investigators.
The 2004-05 Defense Ministry scandal was just one in an unending series of setbacks in the five-year struggle to “stand up” an Iraqi military and allow hard-pressed U.S. forces to “stand down” from Iraq.
The latest discouraging episode was unfolding this weekend in bloody Basra, the southern city where Iraqi government forces — in their toughest test yet — were still struggling to gain the upper hand in a five-day-old battle with Shiite Muslim militias.
Year by year, the goal of deploying a capable, free-standing Iraqi army has seemed always to slip further into the future. In the latest shift, with Petraeus now U.S. commander in Iraq, the Pentagon’s new quarterly status report quietly drops any prediction of when homegrown units will take over security responsibility nationwide, after last year’s reports had forecast a transition in 2008.
Earlier, in January last year, President Bush said Iraqi forces would take charge in all 18 Iraqi provinces by November 2007. Four months past that deadline, they control only half the 18.
Not enough resources?
Responsibility for these ever-unfulfilled goals lies in Washington, contends retired Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who preceded Petraeus as chief trainer in Iraq.
“We continue to fail to properly resource and build the very force that will enable a responsible drawdown of our forces,” Eaton told The Associated Press.
Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a West Point professor and frequent Iraq visitor, also sees insufficient “energy” in the U.S. effort. “Even now, there is no Iraqi air force; there’s no national military medical system; there’s no maintenance system,” he told a New York audience on March 13.
The current chief trainer counters that his Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, known as MNSTC-I, has made “huge progress in many areas, quality and quantity.”
“But we’re not free of difficulties,” Lt. Gen. James Dubik told reporters on March 4.
Many reversals
A look back by the AP, as the Iraq conflict enters its sixth year, finds the $22 billion training effort has been a story of uncertain steps and policy reversals, corruption, questionable numbers and distrust, ending with an Iraqi military with narrow capabilities and years more “standing up” ahead.
The first reversal came even before the 2003 U.S. invasion, when the Pentagon discarded prewar plans that called for restructuring the 400,000-man Saddam Hussein-era army into a postwar force of 150,000 to 200,000.
Instead, U.S. occupation chief L. Paul Bremer ordered the old army disbanded, and the Bush administration opted for a token military force to guard Iraq’s borders — an “afterthought,” said Eaton.
“President Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’ on 1 May, and on 9 May I get a phone call, ’Get thee to Iraq and rebuild the Iraqi army.’ I looked at my wife and she said, ’A little late for that.’ You would have expected this to be an ongoing program,” Eaton recalled.
The makeshift plan envisioned putting one 700-man battalion at a time through a nine-week training course — a rate that would have produced a mere 8,000 troops over two years.
Eaton persuaded Defense Department officials to raise that target to 40,000 troops by late 2004, but even that was a “patently inadequate force,” says Ali Allawi, later Iraq’s defense minister.
“Deep suspicions began to be harbored as to the true intentions” of the Americans, Allawi writes in his memoir, “The Occupation of Iraq.”
Abdulwahab al-Qassab, a retired Iraqi major general who observed developments from a post at Baghdad University, contends the Americans never wanted to rebuild a solid Iraqi army.
“It wasn’t welcomed by the Israelis, the Kurdish factions that used to fight the Iraqi army, and some of the Shiites,” al-Qassab said in an interview.
Walter B. Slocombe, who was Bremer’s chief defense aide, denied to the AP that Israel’s interests influenced U.S. actions, but he and other U.S. officials have acknowledged that the animosity of Iraq’s Kurds and Shiites to the old Iraqi army helped shape those early decisions.
As 2003 wore on, Vinnell Corp., the U.S. military contractor hired to do the training, proved unequal to the task. The first Iraqi battalion, graduating in October, quickly fell apart because of desertions, and the second battalion refused to fight against insurgents in Fallujah in April 2004. The Jordanian army, meanwhile, was asked to take over training Iraqi officers.
As of June 2004, when Bremer’s occupation authority gave way to a sovereign Iraqi government, the military still numbered only 7,000 men, as the focus shifted to fielding Iraqi police. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, predicted — incorrectly — the Iraqis could soon “take local control of the cities.”
Plagued with problems
The evolving training program, now a mixed U.S.-Iraqi effort, was plagued with problems. Petraeus’ new MNSTC-I was slow to be staffed. Meanwhile, top Defense Ministry officials, including the minister, Hazem Shaalan, were methodically looting the procurement budget of at least $1.3 billion, Iraqi investigators allege. Shaalan, who denies the accusations, and most of the others left the country by mid-2005.
By then the Pentagon was reporting 60,000 “trained and equipped” Iraqi troops available, a number achieved only by integrating lightly armed national guard units into the army. American commanders “do not report reliable data” on training and equipping Iraqi forces, U.S. government auditors complained. By late 2005, the U.S. command had to acknowledge that only one of 86 Iraqi army battalions was ready to fight on its own.
The Iraqis still were not given artillery, big mortars or other heavy weapons. Iraq’s political unpredictability and dangerous sectarian-political divides clearly made the Americans wary that heavy weapons might be turned against them, concludes Arab military analyst Nizar Adul Kader.
“This could have been one of the fears that Americans had to take into consideration,” said Kader, a retired Lebanese major general.
Weapons passed to insurgents?
Auditors also found that the training command kept such poor records on distribution of personal weapons to Iraqi soldiers that some may have been passed on to insurgents or anti-American militias.
When Sunni-Shiite hostilities exploded into a bloodbath in 2006 — up to 60 civilian killings a day in Baghdad alone — it exposed the unreliability of the Iraqi military, some of whose units, paralyzed by desertions and reluctant officers and troops, failed to back up U.S. operations.
The U.S. command’s goals for a homegrown takeover of most Iraqi security slipped — from spring 2006, to late summer, and then beyond. In November 2006, the Pentagon forecast that all 18 provinces would come under Iraqi security control “in 2007.”
Reviews in 2007, by a congressionally mandated commission, by Government Accountability Office analysts, by the Pentagon itself, found that Iraq’s sectarian animosities had permeated and weakened army units, heavily Shiite and Kurdish. A civil war among Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni factions could shatter the military.
Last November, GAO auditors again sharply questioned Pentagon claims on the number of Iraqi battalions able to operate “independently,” since such units often depend on U.S. fuel, ammunition and other supplies, American advisers and intelligence, and U.S. air support.
Desertions persisted. In its latest quarterly report, in early March, the Pentagon says some 197,000 military personnel have now been trained, but that number includes the equivalent of two divisions — 27,000 men — estimated to have gone AWOL in 2007. Some 224,000 police are listed as trained, including an unknown number who left their posts.
Long list of unmet needs
The Iraqi military’s list of unmet needs remains long: artillery and modern armor; advanced communications and intelligence systems; a logistics network able to supply everything from food and fuel to transport and ammunition; combat hospitals; airpower.
“This is not a balanced fighting force,” said al-Qassab, the retired Iraqi general. “It’s only people armed with assault rifles and pickup trucks and they go and raid like a militia.”
The Iraqis and Americans are working to make Iraqi logistics self-sufficient by mid-2009. But as for “fire support,” training command spokesman Lt. Col. Dan Williams said, “heavier artillery is still a ways down the road.”
Regarding Iraq’s tiny air force, a handful of helicopters, old transports and light planes, “in my opinion, we were late to start on this,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Robert R. Allardice told the AP last June, as he took over aviation training in Baghdad.
Today, as he leaves the command, Allardice confirms there are still no plans for modern jet fighters for the Iraqis, only small, propeller-driven attack planes.
Chief trainer Dubik, meanwhile, is troubled by a shortage of midlevel Iraqi officers. The Pentagon’s March report says this shortage “will take years to close.”
It looks like years, not months, will be the measure of progress. After a half-decade of war, Dubik says Iraqi defense officials don’t expect to take over internal security until as late as 2012, and won’t be able to defend Iraq’s borders until 2018.
© 2008 The Associated Press.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23864495/
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,758
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,758 |
Quote:
That stuff drives me nuts. Especially seeing "i support the troops" on someone's SUV or Hummer. Using a car that uses so much oil, putting more money in the pockets of terrorists. If you want to support the troops, why don't you go over there yourself so they can come home. What a bunch of crap.
Yeah a family with 4 kids who may support the troops are funding terrorists b/c they need a bigger car. Right  Thats a pretty wild statement you made there. .
Our honor defend, we will fight to the end, for OHIO! GO BUCKS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Quote:
That stuff drives me nuts. Especially seeing "i support the troops" on someone's SUV or Hummer. Using a car that uses so much oil, putting more money in the pockets of terrorists. If you want to support the troops, why don't you go over there yourself so they can come home. What a bunch of crap.
Yeah a family with 4 kids who may support the troops are funding terrorists b/c they need a bigger car. Right Thats a pretty wild statement you made there. .
Can't tell you how many hummers and suvs i see with one person in them. You don't need an SUV if you have a family of four. A station wagon, or a hybrid minivan will work much better. A very small percentage of people who have suvs really need them. Cadillac Escalade? See many of those touring the wilderness? Give me a break.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
They are dying for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
Are you really defending Fletch's point that people who drive SUVs are funding terrorists?
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Havint had 2 family members killed in this war, your comments infuriate me. Be glad you are safely behind a keyboard disrespecting the sacrifice that other's loved ones have made for a cuase they believed in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
Wow after reading so many of these posts..I am truly shocked at the state of most peoples brains. Everyone is just a sponge to the media whether liberal or conservative. Whatever they hear on foxnews or cnn they run with, never stop to think or use common sense. People want to buy into any conspriracy put out there by some nut reporter. People love lies and hate truth.
Plus the total ignorance of the state of the world outside our borders and how people in our countries and cultures think. People are just beyond ignorant...
I ust don't think people get it, they certainly do after a terrorist attack, then 2 weeks later go back to their ignorant media run selves.
Quite sad to see...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Are you really defending Fletch's point that people who drive SUVs are funding terrorists?
yes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Havint had 2 family members killed in this war, your comments infuriate me. Be glad you are safely behind a keyboard disrespecting the sacrifice that other's loved ones have made for a cuase they believed in.
That's what is so sad. They believed in it, you believe in it, and it's a lie. And you cling to that so hard that it infuriates you to want to commit violence on someone else over words. Your anger shouldn't be at me, it should be at the people who profited from this unnecessary war and 2 of your family member's deaths. They didn't die for our freedom, for our safety, or for justice against Al Queda. We are less free, less safe, and nowhere closer to stopping Al Queda. But Dick Cheney's buddies sure made a lot of money.
If I were to say that someone who died in WWII, died for nothing, people would roll their eyes and just think I was stupid. If I were to say the same thing about Vietnam, people who lost someone get mad, because it's true. Eventually, with Vietnam, most people realized that it was a wasted sacrafice and demanded we get out of there. A lot of those peopel are still mad at the government about it.
Which war does this one feel more like to you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
Actually it is more like WWII, I know this will disapoint you.
The U.S. is fighting an enemy unlike the Nazi's in shape and form, but just as dangerous. The Nazis were like a big grizzly bear, easy to see and it was easy to see how to kill it. Even though it was big and tough we knew exactly how to take it.
Today we fight a swarm of killerbees, not as easy to see to some, in fact when spread out you can't see the danger until a few hundred sting you. Then everyone sees the danger. After awhile, people don't see the whole swarm anymore they only see a few bees and whine about fighting a few bees here and there. However the danger is real, and the results while not the same as WWII could be just as bad for the U.S. if the enenmy isnt hounded.
I guess I still wonder about people, whether or not you agree with the war, deny that the war makes america safer because it does. If we were not in Iraq, and Afganistan we would have had several terrorist attacks.
As long as we are chasing them, they can't sit around and develop any plans. Plus gettng rid of Saddam also got rid of a major risk, mainly because he lacked ties to other countries. Some of the other middle east countries have to many alliances and are making too much money off the U.S. to harm us with a nuclear bomb.
Saddam has nobody and would have used his nuc the second he could mobilzed it.
So yes this war, while unfortunate, is fighting direct enemies of the U.S. like WWII and not someone elses fight like Veitnam.
Ironically people during the WWII era protested the U.S. involvment right up until pearl harbor. Why? They didnt see the danger until it had already attacked.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
What is sad is you are basing your inflammatory remarks on groundless accusations. We had just been attacked by terrorists and 3 INDEPENDANT intellegience agencies reported Iraq had WMDs. My family members went and fought to protect this country from another attack. They gave their lives to ensure your safety. Then you spout groundless accusations about the reason for the war that disrespects their sacrifice. As I told mac, I'd prefer you say thank you and take off the tin foil hat you wear as you type yoiur nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
What is sad is you are basing your inflammatory remarks on groundless accusations. We had just been attacked by terrorists and 3 INDEPENDANT intellegience agencies reported Iraq had WMDs. My family members went and fought to protect this country from another attack. They gave their lives to ensure your safety. Then you spout groundless accusations about the reason for the war that disrespects their sacrifice. As I told mac, I'd prefer you say thank you and take off the tin foil hat you wear as you type yoiur nonsense.
first of all, i've lost family members to this stupid thing myself, so everyone can get off the horse in that department. and he died for nothing, and it makes me sad.
Second of all, we were attacked by terrorists. Agreed. I was there. The question is, what does that have to do with Iraq? There was ZERO evidence al queda was in Iraq. ZERO. Even if Iraq had WMDs, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia posed bigger threats, and still do.
We went into Afghanistan. i fully supported it. Even spoke with the army about enlisting at my old age. What makes me angry is that we then left to attack someone who hadn't attacked us, and the operation in Afghanistan was sacrificed and is now failing. We should have finished the job there. Now Afghanistan is worse AND Iraq is worse. We are not safer. There are more terrorists now than there were. We have less freedoms now than we did. That's the Patriot Act. And these boys and girls have sacrificed their lives for nothing.
You know, that terrorist attack we all refer too killed less than 3000 people. over 4000 have now died in Iraq plus the tens of thousands of causualties. We are LOSING over there. and we will never "win," if we even know what that is. The president is a disgrace to every man or woman who ever put on a uniform. Iraq was not a threat. Understand that? NOT a threat. Al queda, was, and still is. Sadaam didn't attack the US, bin Laden did. Bin Laden is still alive, Saddam isn't. We're fighting the wrong people. And now, thanks to our efforts, al queda has expanded and is now in Iraq. We brought them there.
These accusations are not groundless. Open your eyes. There hasn't been a big terrorist attack for many reasons, including the aforementioned patriot act. the war in Iraq is not one of them. We're not "hounding" anyone and keeping them on the run. They've been on the run from the begining. They were running from Saddam Hussein, when he was in power. That's why they weren't in Iraq.
When we attacked Afghanistan, Al Queda was weakened. When we attacked Iraq, they got stronger. So tell me how we're safer? Your family, my family, and many other familes have lost their loved ones due to this useless war. They are lost for nothing. There sacrifice was in vain. If you upset at that, go after the people who have really insulted you. They are presently in the white house. Bush, cheney, and the rest of that corrupt group should spend the rest of their lives in prison for treason.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
That you think this war is more like WWII than Vietnam shows how incredibly blind you've become.
We were not attacked by Iraq. They didn't declare war on us. That's difference number one.
Difference number 2. The people we are "liberating" don't want us there. Remember the parades in WWII that Bush thought we'd see in Iraq. yeah, still waiting for that footage to get here.
difference number 3. Iraq wasn't a threat to it's neighbors. When they attacked Kuwait, we responded. That's the last time tehy attacked someone. The Nazis wanted to take over the world.
difference number 4. The rest of the world acknowledges that this is wrong.
difference number 5. There is no clear enemy, and we're getting picked off little by little, and we end up killing as many innocents as enemy. Sound familiar?
difference number 6. We don't know what winning looks like. In germany, there was an objective. Overthrow the Nazis. What's our objective here? Does anyone know? We over threw Saddam, that big threat. What are we still doing there? Oh, that's right, Saddam wasn't the problem for the Iraqis, was he?
Starting to get it yet? WWII, this ain't. not even close. Jesus, even bush himself said this was more like Vietnam than WWII.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
I forgot to mention this. When i was living in New york after the attack, we, all of us, supported the War in Afghanistan. When we attacked Iraq, we were all against it. New York City hates this war. Now, why would the people who are the most vulnerable to attack be against something that makes them safer? Because they know this isn't making them safer. it's making them LESS safe.
Check out the people in other targets. Like LA, Miami, Washington DC. They're all against this war. It's the people in all those red states, none of which have anything to worry about anyway, who are all in a panic and believe what this idiot president tells us. Should that say something to you? that the people, educated, worldly people, many of whom's business is about international things, hell, the UN is there, that these people think this war is making them less safe?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Actually it is more like WWII, I know this will disapoint you.
Actually, neither situation is very relevant to Iraq. WWII was essentially a war that we were drawn into when an ally of the Nazis attacked us. Vietnam was essentially a civil war that we entered to spite Soviet interests. Iraq was an invasion of sovereign nation under the pretense of pre-emptive defense.
Quote:
The U.S. is fighting an enemy unlike the Nazi's in shape and form, but just as dangerous.
It would be funnier if I didn't think that you truly believed this.
The Nazi regime was a powerful, well-oiled machine that could tear through damn near any army in the world. We're fighting fringe religious fanatics whose only leg to stand on is support from Saudi Arabia. We've also involved ourselves with fighting fed up countrymen.
I mean, really? 
Quote:
Today we fight a swarm of killerbees, not as easy to see to some, in fact when spread out you can't see the danger until a few hundred sting you. Then everyone sees the danger. After awhile, people don't see the whole swarm anymore they only see a few bees and whine about fighting a few bees here and there. However the danger is real, and the results while not the same as WWII could be just as bad for the U.S. if the enenmy isnt hounded.
None of this makes any logical points.
Quote:
If we were not in Iraq, and Afganistan we would have had several terrorist attacks.
And I have a blue sweater that prevents me from getting cancer.
Quote:
As long as we are chasing them, they can't sit around and develop any plans. Plus gettng rid of Saddam also got rid of a major risk, mainly because he lacked ties to other countries.
Dude, Hussein had strong ties with the French, the Germans, and was on the waning side of a long partnership with the United States. His had allies in Asia, Europe and Africa...are you that ill informed?
Quote:
Some of the other middle east countries have to many alliances and are making too much money off the U.S. to harm us with a nuclear bomb.
Some? Pretty close to all.
I can't think of a country in the world who would harm the United States with a nuclear bomb. Every powerful leader has one goal and one goal only -- to stay rich and powerful. And behind every tyrannical or despotic regime is a very rich and powerful man. It's amazing to me how paranoid Americans are...
Quote:
Saddam has nobody and would have used his nuc the second he could mobilzed it.
If Saddam Hussein had ever obtained a nuclear weapon (which he never came close to doing), and decided to use it, he would've used it against Iran.
Quote:
Ironically people during the WWII era protested the U.S. involvment right up until pearl harbor. Why?
Because Americans don't give a rat's ass what happens anywhere in the world but at home...which is actually a huge reason we're in the situation we're in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
and 3 INDEPENDANT intellegience agencies reported Iraq had WMDs
Interested in naming them?
We can compare notes with the entities that did not report this. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Keep denying the truth, Phil. The intelligence reports are public knowledge and you refuse to accept that they were there. Of course, yourr revisionist history will never change, but neither will the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,818 |
Quote:
Actually it is more like WWII, I know this will disapoint you.
This is NOTHING like WW2. Can you tell me what countries Sadaam was currently attacking, had invaded or was showing aggression towards when we invaded Iraq? In case you've forgotten, the answer is............................none.
Quote:
The U.S. is fighting an enemy unlike the Nazi's in shape and form, but just as dangerous. The Nazis were like a big grizzly bear, easy to see and it was easy to see how to kill it. Even though it was big and tough we knew exactly how to take it.
What enemy? WE brought Al Queada to Iraq. Not the other way around.
Quote:
I guess I still wonder about people, whether or not you agree with the war, deny that the war makes america safer because it does. If we were not in Iraq, and Afganistan we would have had several terrorist attacks.
Iraq had NO AL Queada there when we invaded. Sadaam was NO direct threat to anyone. He lacked the weaponry or logistics to be a serious threat to anyone.
I feel it is YOU who "doesn't get it". You see, not all of us who opose the war in Iraq, opose the war in Afghanastan. I fully support the war in Afghanastan. The war in Afghanastan was a "necassary war". It was a war against Al Queda. You remember? The ones actually "responsible for 9/11"?
But that has nothing to do with Iraq. Nothing what so ever.
Quote:
Saddam has nobody and would have used his nuc the second he could mobilzed it.
So yes this war, while unfortunate, is fighting direct enemies of the U.S. like WWII and not someone elses fight like Veitnam.
Which "direct enemy" were we trying to fight when we invaded Iraq? The Sunnis? The shias? The Kerds? Because there was NO Al Queada in Iraq!
And are you seriously naive enough to think that they can't spare another 15 people to plan a terrorist attack just because we're over there?
BTW- You better do a little "fact checking".
Sadaam had NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS NOR a NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM! Kind of hard for him to use a nuc he never had isn't it? Not only that, he never posessed those "tons of stockpiles of WMD" we were told about either. That was all BS to scare the American people into supporting the war in Iraq.
You seriously need to get your facts together because your post is laughable at best. And you say OTHERS "listen to the media too much"? I think you listen blindly to the propeganda this administration has spoon fed you. Even AFTER it's been proven false.
Quote:
Ironically people during the WWII era protested the U.S. involvment right up until pearl harbor. Why? They didnt see the danger until it had already attacked
And ironicly, people supported Vietnam until they figured out our government had no business going there in the first place.
Invading Afghanastan was legitimate and needed. Iraq? Sadaams army was in shambles. It still had not NEARLY built itself back up from the Gulf War.
He had no nucs. He had no stockpiles of WMD. It was all BS Bud. And until we invaded, there was no Al Queada in Iraq either. We created the "need" for them to go there and be there.
Meanwhile, Afghanastan is going backwards and is understaffed. You know, our REAL enemy? Instead, two thirds of our troops were diverted to Iraq. Where they didn't need to be in the first place. You SERIOUSLY need to get your facts in order IMO.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Coalition jets pound militias
(Shia Cease Fire Cracking)
|
|
