Sign in to follow this  
H8tank

Hate our Iraqi cuase?

Recommended Posts

There must be another typo...these articles keep saying AlQueda in Iraq. I thought there weren't any bad guys in Iraq...just peace loving innocent people that wouldn't even think of doing harm to anyone. Silly America. I am going to move to this peaceful Iraq and raise my kids there. :D

You are simply never going to get it are you? One more college try:

 

There were no Al-Qaeda organized terrorist cells in Iraq PRIOR to the war. Bin Laden had declared Hussein an apostate, which is about as bad as it gets in the religious language of Islam. Now there are thousands of terrorists. Ergo, the catalyst for this explosion in the number of terrorists in Iraq and, by obvious extension, the catalyst for massively increased recruitment, was the invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There were no Al-Qaeda organized terrorist cells in Iraq PRIOR to the war.

 

I'll bet that there were quite a few, just like there were quite a few in America prior to 9/11. I imagine that people like al Sadr were running cells. That said, it's difficult to connect them to Saddam.

 

Now there are thousands of terrorists. Ergo, the catalyst for this explosion in the number of terrorists in Iraq and, by obvious extension, the catalyst for massively increased recruitment, was the invasion.

 

No doubt there's truth to that, but you also have to consider Iran and Syria running their thugs across the border to destabilize the country and undermine what we're doing. Hell, we've already found weapons that have been traced back to Iran. That's a major part of the problem as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are simply never going to get it are you? One more college try:

 

There were no Al-Qaeda organized terrorist cells in Iraq PRIOR to the war. Bin Laden had declared Hussein an apostate, which is about as bad as it gets in the religious language of Islam. Now there are thousands of terrorists. Ergo, the catalyst for this explosion in the number of terrorists in Iraq and, by obvious extension, the catalyst for massively increased recruitment, was the invasion.

 

Ursa, your wasting your time and patience trying to respond to a totally dufus post like ballas'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd support your wars on oil rich countries if you'd tell the truth about why you're there

 

or go there yourselves and fight instead of sending the National Guard.

 

The Guard does not belong in foreign countries unless there is an emergency and this war doesn't count.

 

Just tell the truth next time-"We want the oil"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and what was the date of that article?....3 years after the war was pretty much over?..

 

and that is 1......1 AL QAEDA "terrorist"

 

We got Saddam. The mastermind of the USS bombing and 9/11. Oh wait, that Bin Laden. All those camel jockeys look a like to me burning in hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ursa as stated don't waste your time ..some have head buried in sand and are totally clueless

 

Iraq was and is a disaster which we never needed to invade ..we made it worse than it ever was

 

9/11 had zero to do with iraq and this is a fact

 

Al qaeda was never wiped out and is back and strong as ever and we did not do enough about them as we have wasted billions and military unnecessarily in iraq

 

This adminstration is the worst in our countries history

 

That's about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just tell the truth next time-"We want the oil"

 

If that was all that we wanted, we would've invaded Iran. Iran has a hell of a lot more oil than Iraq.

 

The truth is that a pro-American government in Iraq would be beneficial to us - and the Iraqis as well, in many ways. Too bad the brainwashing and poverty has clouded their judgement.

Edited by Bill Swerski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This adminstration is the worst in our countries history

 

Holy Hypebole, Batman!

 

Apparently you've never heard of James Buchanan, Warren Harding, or Ulysses S. Grant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy Hypebole, Batman!

 

Apparently you've never heard of James Buchanan, Warren Harding, or Ulysses S. Grant.

 

Before my time ..learned about them in school ..still think bush and company are the worst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before my time ..learned about them in school

 

Apparently not

 

..still think bush and company are the worst

 

Most Presidential scholars disagree with you...

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently not

Most Presidential scholars disagree with you...

 

:D

It appears that the most recent results they have from the "scholar" survey are from 2005 and a lot has happened since 2005 and not much of it is good for the president.

 

(Although even with a survey today, George W. Bush wouldn't be ranked as the worst president--although I would be that he would be ranked in the bottom 5-10.)

Edited by wiegie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

 

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."

One of his top aides, meanwhile, accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."

 

Al-Maliki sought to display confidence at a time when pressure is mounting in Congress for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces. On Thursday, the House passed a measure calling for the U.S. to withdraw its troops by spring, hours after the White House reported mixed progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting 18 benchmarks.

 

During a press conference, al-Maliki shrugged off the progress report, saying that difficulty in enacting the reforms was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.

 

"We are not talking about a government in a stable political environment but one in the shadow of huge challenges," al-Maliki said. "So when we talk about the presence of some negative points in the political process, that's fairly natural."

 

Al-Maliki said his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks — "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

 

But he said if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.

 

"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he said.

 

One of al-Maliki's close advisers, Athenae lawmaker Hassan al-Suneid, bristled over the American pressure, telling The Associated Press that "the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."

 

He sharply criticized the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations and embarrassing the Iraqi government through such tactics as building a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and launching repeated raids on suspected Athenae militiamen in the capital's slum of Sadr City.

 

He also criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala provinces, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. "These are gangs of killers," he said.

 

In addition, he said that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, who he said works along a "purely American vision."

 

"There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," al-Suneid said.

 

Al-Suneid's comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki's inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Athenae, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the U.S.-drawn list of benchmarks.

 

But the U.S. focus on the benchmarks has rankled the deep sense of Iraqi pride, even among those who share the goals set forth by the Americans.

 

U.S. forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring calm to the capital while al-Maliki enacts the political reforms, intended to give Sunni Arabs a greater role in the government and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.

 

But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Athenae, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one-month vacation — a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through reforms while American soldiers are dying.

 

Two more American soldiers were killed Saturday in bombings in the Baghdad area, the U.S. military reported. One of the bombs used was an explosively formed penetrator — high-tech devices that the U.S. military believes are smuggled from Iran. The Iranians deny the charge.

 

In other violence, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police said.

 

Also Saturday, the U.S. military said it captured an alleged high-level al-Qaida in Iraq cell leader at Baghdad's international airport. The suspect, believed to have organized mortar and roadside bomb attacks in the capital and nearby area, surrendered "without a struggle," the military said in a statement.

 

It did not give details on the suspect or say whether he was traveling in or out of the country when seized.

 

The Reuters news agency said one of its Iraqi translators was shot to death in Baghdad on Wednesday along with two of his brothers, apparent victims of sectarian death squads. He was the third employee of the news agency killed in Baghdad this week.

 

An Iraqi reporter for The New York Times, Khalid W. Hassan, was killed by gunmen Friday as he drove to work in southern Baghdad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears that the most recent results they have from the "scholar" survey are from 2005 and a lot has happened since 2005 and not much of it is good for the president. (Although even with a survey today, George W. Bush wouldn't be ranked as the worst president--although I would be that he would be ranked in the bottom 5-10.)

 

Outside of the veto of the Stem Cell bill, I don't see how much has changed in the past year and a half. Iraq has pretty much stayed the same. :D

 

Bottom 5? No way. That's Harding/Grant territory. But I could easily seem him being somewhere around 30th (in the Hoover/Nixon range).

 

It's also nice to see these guys giving some props to Lyndon Johnson. Dude did a tremendous amount for civil rights and doesn't get the recognition that he deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think we lost?

No, I think we just won.

 

Time to bring our boys home and throw them a parade!!!!

 

Jul 14, 6:22 PM EDT

Iraq PM: Country Can Manage Without U.S.

By BASSEM MROUE

Associated Press Writer

 

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRA...-07-14-15-42-21

 

:D:D:tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iraq has pretty much stayed the same.

You don't think that would be considered as a negative? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't think that would be considered as a negative? :D

 

Not a massive one. If that were the case, LBJ and Nixon should be considered massive failures for making zero progress in Vietnam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll bet that there were quite a few, just like there were quite a few in America prior to 9/11. I imagine that people like al Sadr were running cells. That said, it's difficult to connect them to Saddam.

 

I bet there are a few in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. etc....and we're not running their leader out of the country and occupying the country....

 

of course Iran has been rumored to be our next target.....but how many times can you cry wolf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We got Saddam. The mastermind of the USS bombing and 9/11. Oh wait, that Bin Laden. All those camel jockeys look a like to me burning in hell.

 

that's how racist our country is...

 

one organized group of people attack us and we attack anyone that looks like them...because they 'could' be a terrorist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently not

Most Presidential scholars disagree with you...

 

:D

 

Bush is doing way more damage on a grander scale of things...

 

not that they wouldn't do worse....but the fact is the sh!t hit the fan almost as soon as he walked into office..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush is doing way more damage on a grander scale of things...

 

not that they wouldn't do worse....but the fact is the sh!t hit the fan almost as soon as he walked into office..

 

Yeah, all of the sh!t that the previous administration swept under the rug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's what I want to see...now let's get out of there...

 

Given that we still have troops in South Korea over 50 years after that war ended, we're not "getting out" of Iraq any time soon. There will be a U.S. military presence there for a long time.

 

That said, I'd love to see us slowly begin to move out and let them take over. They deserve the chance to sink or swim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, all of the sh!t that the previous administration swept under the rug.

 

mhm...now that response was plain absurd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that we still have troops in South Korea over 50 years after that war ended, we're not "getting out" of Iraq any time soon. There will be a U.S. military presence there for a long time.

 

That said, I'd love to see us slowly begin to move out and let them take over. They deserve the chance to sink or swim.

 

exactly...but we have a dominant presence in Iraq....

 

when we stop occupying their country, then we will be 'gone'...

 

not literally as you put it....so I have to put it specifically I guess...

 

we are always going to have some sort of presence in Iraq....this is only common knowledge at this point, but the level that we've pretty much invaded this country can be taken down about 70%....

 

we're just leaving our troops there until it's time to come home or they die.....and even then they just get sent back again and again until they eventually do die...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.