 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:29 AM Mishawaka surgeon discusses his view of Iraq What he saw there changed his life, he says. January 26. 2009 Oral surgeon Russell Linman has no qualms about being blunt during his lectures about the war in Iraq. He shows people pictures of amputees and of soldiers' faces before he did his best to reconstruct them. "It gives people a better idea of what is going on over there," Linman said. Linman, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, served in a military hospital in Balad, north of Baghdad, from May to September 2005. Linman, 47, was with other surgeons in the 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group. His job was to perform major reconstructive surgery, specializing in serious facial injuries. What he saw changed his life forever, he said. Linman, who works in Mishawaka, has lectured almost a dozen times on his experiences in Iraq. His next lecture will be at 8 p.m. Tuesday at the VFW at 1750 W. Plymouth St. in Bremen. The speech is open to the public. Linman recently sat down with Tribune staff writer Tom Moor and talked about what it was like to serve in Iraq........................ Q: What do you try and teach people during your lecture? A: I try and show people war has changed, because it's a terror-based war. There's not two combatant armies going against each other. I don't know what it was like in Vietnam, but I think what's going on over there is quite a bit different. Soldiers have better armor now, so there's not as many casualties. I never felt like I was going to die, although mortars were coming in. I felt I had good support in the U.S. compared to other wars. ... I feel like people are somewhat misled about what's going on over there. The surge, I was in support for it to begin with, and it worked. http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090126/News01/901260305 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:55 AM USA Today January 22, 2009: ......At the time, sectarian violence was raging. American troops were dying at a rate of about 100 a month. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared the war lost. Obama and other Democrats favored a timetable for withdrawal as a way, they said, to force warring Sunnis and Shiites to make peace. President Bush rejected that approach and went in the other direction, surging more troops in Iraq and deploying them in neighborhoods. The surge, along with the turning of many Sunni groups against the insurgency, produced a dramatic reduction in casualties and violence. After refusing at first to state the obvious — that the surge worked — Obama acknowledged that it had succeeded beyond expectations. By the first presidential debate, his promise to "remove" troops had become to "reduce" them. Now that he's president, Obama has to do what's best for the nation. In the case of Iraq, that means disengaging in a way that preserves hard-won gains and vital U.S. interests. If the cost of a stable Iraq involves narrowing the definition of "combat" troops and leaving thousands as "trainers" or "advisers," it is a price worth paying. Ironically, Bush's surge made it far more likely that Obama's drawdown will be able to proceed on the new president's 16-month timeline. So, too, will an agreement already made between Iraq and the U.S. for a pullout of troops on a longer schedule, by the end of 2011. Iraq is on an apparent path to greater stability. Provincial elections are scheduled for the end of this month, national elections for later in the year.......... First withdrawal. Then reduce the number of troops. Then withdrawal in 16 months. Then withdrawal in 3 years. Then????????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 31 Jan 09 - 11:14 AM David Quinn Friday January 23 2009 The surge worked, and he was one of the very few who supported it. Barack Obama opposed it. John McCain, to his credit, also supported it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 31 Jan 09 - 01:03 PM It's amazing how the military mindset has controlled the debate on Iraq by distorting the facts, promulgating their ideologies and beating their chests. The truth is that Bush lied us into Iraq, murdered our troops, inculcated torture and belongs in the dock of the World Court for treason. Sometimes the bagpipe becomes a windbag. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:28 PM Sawz: The assertion that the surge was successful is like a doctor bragging that amputating the leg stopped the gangrene, not mentioning that it was the doctor who had caused the gangrene infection in the first place. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:44 PM Amos, when the details of the election come in remember this: - Highest ever voter turn out in the USA was 64% - No MNF Troops were used in the patroling or policing of voting stations - This is the third free democratic election that the Iraqi People have been able to participate in thanks entirely to GWB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:57 PM Teribus: I concur; it is the one bright spot in the whole mess of Bush's foreign policy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: robomatic Date: 31 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM Wow, I want to mark this occasion of agreement. Now, let's see how long it lasts after our troops are out of there and the issue of Kursish sovereignty comes to the fore. I can't wait to see how folks here line up on it. I predict it will depend on whether folks identify the Kurds with Israelis, a dispossed people taking what once was theirs for their own no matter what the world thinks, or whether they will identify the Kurds as palestinians, a folk uprooted from their homes and villages by interlopers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 09 - 07:54 PM Oh, fir sure, roboz... Like I said, historians will sort out the Surge-Lie and the future will sort out a bunch of the other Bush-Lies... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Feb 09 - 04:06 PM The voter turnout in Iraq was a quagmire with hundreds of candidates. It afforded no legitimate consensus and was manipulated by the Bush Administration in the same was as was done in the Ukraine. True democracy has a hands-off policy by foreign powers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 01 Feb 09 - 04:51 PM True democracy is also dependent on an informed electorate... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 01 Feb 09 - 06:00 PM I suppose Stringsinger you preferred it as it was before when the electorate turned up and received their pre-arked voting forms. So there was confusion. Not surprising its only the third time that they have ever done this, thanks to GWB. 51% turn out for "local" elections. That's not too bad compared to most countries. Tell us Stringsinger and Bobert what was the percentage poll turn out for your last elections?? Most important of all was the increase in the Sunni vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Feb 09 - 03:00 AM True democracy is also dependent on an informed electorate... If only those ignorant Arabs knew as much about their own country as you do. They do have a free press now, and access to all the international news agencies via satellite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Feb 09 - 08:00 AM Define free... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Feb 09 - 09:19 AM As in they can print what they like without politicians interfering. A bit like our press. Do you want me to define international news agencies, satellites and the internet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 02 Feb 09 - 11:37 AM "Define free.." - Bobert The freedom to throw shoes at visiting heads of State without being immediately executed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Feb 09 - 12:44 PM Teribus, you have ignored that the man in question was practically beaten to death for his "infraction". This is not freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Feb 09 - 04:23 PM We don't have a fee press right here in the good 'ol US of A... What we have is a press perfectly willing to the the master's bidding... It no surprise that Governor Blagovitch tried to get some editiorial writers fired for sayin' bad stuff about him... That what politicans think they can get away with... Why would he think that??? (Geeze, Bobert... He might have been the only politican who ever tried to use his power to influnece the press??? Ya' ever think about that???) Well, yeah, right after I bought that "bridge to nowhere"... I mean, lets get real... The governemnt does influence the press.... What story wazs it that the Bush administration pushed the New York Times around over??? IT will come to me... But closer to home... Right after 9/11 the Bush administration scared the heck outta the Washington Post so bad that Post just went ahead an reported what the Bushite's wanted... I mean, day after day, week after week... Then a year and half later (on page A-17) the Washington Post printed a story which admitted to having not doen the hard work on questioning the Bush run-up-to-war... The Post said that it had fallen into a "culture"... What the Hell does "culture" mean??? So I wrote the Post and asked them what they had done to correct a situation where they could be swept into a "culture" again... That was 4 years ago and I'm still waiting for their answer... Then we read that part of the money for the Iraq war goes into paying writers in Iraq to write and publish propaganda??? Like what's that all about??? LIke I said, there ain't no free press... That is a mirage... A complete fairy tale... Don't Bogart that joint, my friend... Pass it over to me... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Feb 09 - 04:51 PM Does that make you too ill-informed to vote? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 02 Feb 09 - 05:40 PM Now now Frank don't exaggerate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Feb 09 - 07:43 AM Typical Bobert response... "First of all, don't call me "Blowhard Bobert" again 'er I'll hunt you down and extract a few of yer teeth... Got it??? Good..." I guess failure to accept Bobert's opinions, unproven and un-substantiated, is reason enough to warrent physical threats. I would think that threats of physical attack over mere words would definitely prove that Bobert does not have the right to exist. Or does he only apply such to others, and not to the Ubermensch, himslf? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Feb 09 - 08:24 AM Ain't no place fir name-callin', bb... If I can argue a point without resorting to it then others can, as well... Okay, I teasingly will refer to groups of people as knotheads but I don't go personalizing... Like if I called you "Blowhard Bruce" that would be out-of-bounds... Sawz knew that when he personalized his attack... Even you know the difference, bb, as you have quit that "liar" phase you were going thru... Far as can see that personalizing with the "Blowhard Bobert" is a form of cyber-bullying... I don't take kindly to folks trying to bully me here any more than I do in the real world and as I have done with you when you were going thru yer "liar" phase I stood up[ to Sawz little attempt to cyber bully me here... Ya' see, if I didn't call him on it then he would have thought it was perfectly okay to just persoanliz the discussion from here out so rather that try to get the toothpaste back in the tube I nipped it in the bud before it gained traction... See the various "bullying" threads... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:04 AM And I only call people who are lying "liars" When they stop being liars, I stop calling them that. So physical threats are ok, whenever you go over the line towards others???? Just want to be sure I understand what YOU are saying here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:52 AM As reported in the Guardian no less: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/03/comment-iraq-elections |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Feb 09 - 06:37 PM Yeah, bb, physical threats are okay when you have a cyber-bully thinking that jus' because when they write what they write they are doing it from the satety of their own home... Bullying and name calling are forms of violence and, hey, in martial arts you don't go looking for fights but you are allowed to defend yourself... You wouldn't like it if I persoanlized the discussion here and started calling you "Blowhard Bruce"... That would be disrespectfull... There are lines here in cyber world, especially here in a site devoted to folk music, that should never be crossed... You croosed it the first time you called me a "liar" and Sawx crossed it when he thought he could just get by callin' me Blowhard Bobert"... I won't allow either of those rude behaviors to go un-challenged... If you can't argue/debate an issue without resorting to cyber bullying/violence then you have a problem... Especially here... There are plenty of other places in cyber world where that's all folks do but... ... not here... It disrespects Mudcat... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:31 PM I never called you a liar Bobert but how many times have you called someone else a liar? The term was used because you refused to answer. And exactly what does blowhard mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Feb 09 - 07:19 AM Bobert, "You croosed it the first time you called me a "liar"" When you choose to make a statement that you cannot support with facts, repeating it after being informed it is not true ( and given sources for that assessment) and persist in telling us we must accept it because you say so, even when the "Bobert Fact" is physically impossible, YOU ARE TELLING A LIE. (Yelling intended, since you seem to think you are God, and have problems hearing what you do not agree with. That makes you a liar in THAT circumstance: False statement pointed out, sources given as to it being false, and you continueing to insist that it must be so because you want it to be. "hey, in martial arts you don't go looking for fights but you are allowed to defend yourself..." Except that you do not allow others to defend themselves from your false statements and accusations, without making physical threats against them. As for calling names, you seem quite happy doing so yourself. Better look at that 2x4 in your own eye, friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 04 Feb 09 - 11:26 AM Hey Bobert, here's the latest on your "source" for the one million dead Iraqi civilians - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7869317.stm Even the guy who came out with the article never mentioned one million - "the Lancet medical journal in 2006 that 650,000 civilians had died since 2003." BBC item also goes on: "The AAPOR's executive council said in a statement carried by the Associated Press news agency: "When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused." It said it wanted to know the wording of questions asked and instructions and explanations given to respondents. "Dr Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research," said Mary Losch, chair of the association's standards committee. She added that Dr Burnham's refusal to co-operate "violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research." Hey Bobert guess what?? One million Iraqi's HAVE NOT BEEN killed. Next time you trot out that complete and utter falsehood without substantive proof there will be someone else crossing that line and calling you a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Feb 09 - 11:35 AM Actually, T, I would cut Bobert slack on that- 650,000 does round up to 1 million... But as fro 4 million Palestinian refugees in 1948 ( greater than the ENTIRE population (including Jews) of Palestine, including the West Bank) and the non-existant "nuclear bunker buster" being given to Israel, Bobert has a long way before I can accept anything he says as true without reliable source information. Except when he talks about the Blues, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 04 Feb 09 - 05:43 PM No, T, that is not my source... My source is http;//www.justforiegnpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html ...which has the death count at well over a million now... BTW, I don't recall mentioning "4 million Palestianian refugees in 1948"... I do recalll the bunker buster bomb and am not convinced that the US didn't spike it with a little nuclear material... Yeah, I know the "official" version is that the plan was scrapped... But the Bush administration wasn't the most forcoming in telling the truth so... ...who knows... We do know that it was "officially" talked about... What else... Oh yeah... Thanks, bb, for them nice words about my knowledge of blues... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 04 Feb 09 - 07:08 PM Now we got this from Bobert: "No, T, that is not my source... My source is http;//www.justforiegnpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html ...which has the death count at well over a million now..." Now the source that was mentioned in the link that I provided contained the following - "the Lancet medical journal in 2006 that 650,000 civilians had died since 2003." This is what Bobert's source says in its opening lines: "The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003. That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006." Yet Bobert states that the figures given in the Lancet article, figures that were taken from the John Hopkins Study are not his source. While Bobert's source clearly states that their figures are based on the same incorrect and incomplete study that lacks all credibility that John Hopkins had published in the Lancet. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html Same study Bobert, ONE MILLION IRAQIS HAVE NOT BEEN KILLED. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 04 Feb 09 - 07:26 PM First of all, I recognize that the Lancet study is probably a little high at 1.3 million but I also doubt very much the figures that the propagandists (governemnt) are putting out... Whereas it does really matter to every family memeber who has lost a loved one lets just for one minute take the propagandists numbers... If we do that then the new story is 130,000 Iraqis have been killed for nothing... Does that make you any happier, T??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 09 - 01:39 AM You doing a bit of research and coming out with the truth for once and checking your facts would make me happy Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 05 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM This from the guy who bought every dnaged kie that Bush abd Blair told him??? LOL, T... You are the one who has been proven to be on the wrong side of history and thr truth... You cannnot dodge that reality... Too many folk here *have* been paying attention... You must think that evryone here was born last night... Denial, denial, denial... Shame on you for continuing to rationalize supporting this war... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 09 - 05:24 PM Bobert I can assure you that I have never a single dnaged kie in my life let alone every dnaged kie. Not knowing what, or how big a dnaged kie is, I wouldn't know if I had enough space to keep them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:35 AM Now, don't gey me wrong. Some is purdy cool, ahhh,, like Amos, Little Hawk, Bee-Dubya, Kendall, Jerry Rassmussen, Nicole, CarolC and JtS, but most of collectively add up to a big ol, ahhhh, snore! Except the big jerks like Teribus, troll and DougR, who think that George Junior is God.... Enough, let me go on over there, light a stink bomb and skeee-adddle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Feb 09 - 07:49 AM You go right ahead, Sawz... Light one fir me, too, while yer at it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 06 Feb 09 - 12:45 PM From a March 2008 Guardian Article on exactly this controversy (meaning Lancet vs. IBC vs. ORB vs. WHOI et. al.): "The controversy will clearly run and run, probably long after the Iraq war eventually ends. One thing is certain, and it provides no comfort for Bush, Blair and other occupation supporters. They continue to claim that, whatever errors may have been committed since the invasion, the judgment of history will be that the toppling of a brutal dictatorship was an unmitigated benefit. That alone means the invasion was a blessing for the people of Iraq. Alas for Bush and Blair, most statisticians do not support their case. Nor can any journalist or other independent witness who has seen the pain of the bereaved still living in post-invasion Iraq or the millions who have escaped to Jordan and Syria. Estimates of the Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam's regime amount to a maximum of one million over a 35-year period (100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign in the 1980s; 400,000 in the war against Iran; 100,000 Shias in the suppressed uprising of 1991; and an unknown number executed in his prisons and torture chambers). Averaged over his time in power, the annual rate does not exceed 29,000. Only the conservatively calculated Iraq Body Count death toll credits the occupation with an average annual rate that is less than that - some 18,000 deaths in the five years so far. Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure. Those who claim Saddam's toppling made life safer for Iraqis have a lot of explaining to do." full article with discussion of the merits and flaws of the various counts is here a lot of 'splainin' to do..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:03 PM Now let's see using your figures TIA in 24 years Saddam killed 1 million. In six years the strategic bombing of Germany resulted in just under 600,000 deaths. This involved the worlds first ever fleets of strategic bombers numbering hundreds in individual raids on Germany dropping thousands of tons of bombs. We are now asked to believe that in three years the US killed 1,000,000 with far fewer aircraft and about 1/100th of the forces available to Eisenhower?? Somehow those sums just do not add up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:30 PM Bobert brags about lighting stink bombs like this thread, calls people jerks, and accuses others of being a troll. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:04 PM There are no accurate figures available on the slaughter of Iraqis. This has been grossly bandied about for political reasons. Bushies were inconsistent in their reporting. We just do not know. We do know this, though. There have been too many losses. There is no democracy in Iraq or any other reason to justify this slaughter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:13 PM You must really be bored, Sawz... Thanks fir the link, TIA... And right you are, Stringz... There is no justification now that we know the real truth... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 06 Feb 09 - 10:22 PM Acyually, there is a partial democracy in Iraq, a sort of tribal/cultist/thugee democracy. Better than what they had. But at the price? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Feb 09 - 10:36 PM 1) Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only. 2) As George Bush has said many times, the war on terrorism CANNOT BE WON without stopping rogue nations from supporting terrorist groups. Since we had more than a decade of experience that showed it was impossible to reason with Saddam, it was clear that war was the only way to stop him from supporting terrorists. In other words, as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power, the war on terrorism would have been unwinnable. 3) As Vladimir Putin revealed, Russian intelligence believed Saddam was planning terrorist attacks inside the US, "I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received...information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations." Because George Bush acted, we may have been spared Iraqi terrorist attacks here in the United States. 4) One of the likely reasons that we've seen such a decrease in Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel is because Saddam is no longer around to pay the families of suicide bombers $25,000 per homicide bombing. How many buses and pizza parlors full of Israeli women and children would have been blown into chunks by now if John Kerry had his way and Saddam were left in power? 5) While Iraq has not been implicated in the 9/11 attacks, Iraq has had ties to Al-Qaeda for more than a decade. The evidence of this is irrefutable and the people who are denying it are doing so for political purposes. Here are just a couple of quotes that prove what I'm saying... "(Abu Musab al) Zarqawi was said to have received medical treatment in Baghdad in May and June of 2002 after being wounded in Afghanistan during the war. His leg was amputated, U.S. officials say, by a surgeon in Iraq. Before the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi's al Qaeda-affiliated group that he said was operating inside Baghdad, as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Today, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was in Iraq before the war began, is leading terrorist attacks against the Coalition and Iraqi people. "Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002 6) Because we're fighting in the Middle-East, terrorists who might otherwise be coming to America to kill civilians are coming into Iraq to fight our troops. George Bush prefers it that way. He'd rather have the best trained soldiers ever to walk the planet fighting the terrorists in Iraq rather than here at home. If John Kerry had his way, we might have civilians being attacked by those same terrorists in the streets of New York, LA, or Chicago. Which makes more sense; soldiers fighting the terrorists in Iraq or civilians being attacked by them here in the US? 7) Even though the Deulfer report has revealed there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, it also says that they were waiting for an opportunity to produce them, "ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin." What the Deulfer report is saying echoes what the man Deulfer replaced, David Kay, said earlier, "Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed." Weren't we better off taking Saddam out when he didn't have WMDs than waiting until he did have them in stock? 8) Iraq was not completely free of WMDs. "10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells" have been found. Furthermore, it's of course possible that there are more we haven't found yet. There was also plenty of radioactive material Saddam could have given to terrorists to make a dirty bomb. So did Saddam Hussein have the capability of giving WMDs to terrorists? Yes, he did. Apparently, John Kerry has no problem with that. 9) Because we invaded Iraq, nations like Iran and North Korea cannot blithely disregard the idea that we will attack them and they'll be much more likely to make a deal with us, just as Libya did. As Mark Steyn said, "You don't invade Iraq in order to invade everywhere else, you invade Iraq so you don't have to invade everywhere else." 10) Obviously Saddam had such poor judgement that it was dangerous to allow him to stay in power. Just look at this quote... "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world....He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ...We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future." You know who said that back on 10/09/02? John Kerry. He was right the first time. 11) By taking out Saddam Hussein, we freed more than 25 million Iraqis and are helping them towards Democracy. This is no small thing given that Democrats justified military intervention in places like Bosnia and Haiti SOLELY on humanitarian grounds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Feb 09 - 08:27 AM Why not just assasinate him, Sawz??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Feb 09 - 11:36 AM The Promise In Iraq's Rebirth The Washington Post February 7, 2009; Page A13 By Samir Sumaida'ie Iraq's ambassador to the United States. When the United States went into Iraq in 2003, Americans had a very limited understanding of the country. Political pundits tended to reduce Iraq to neat categories: an oppressed Shiite majority; a Sunni minority linked to Saddam Hussein's regime; and the Kurds, who had no interest in remaining in Iraq. The strife between these supposedly monolithic communities was often portrayed as permanent and violent. Much has happened since 2003. Iraq has emerged as a complex and sophisticated society with layers of identity and a diversity of loyalties and interests, all of which are in a dynamic state of change as the country makes an untidy yet fundamental transition from absolute dictatorship, through occupation and violence, to the beginning of a functioning parliamentary democracy. The significance of the recent local elections must be understood within the context of this transition and change. What these elections reveal is far more than the relative strength or popularity of the various political players -- though this is important and should be studied carefully. These elections have shown that, finally, those who refused to accept the new order and were determined to defeat it by rendering the country ungovernable through violence have come to realize that they have lost; that the political process is the only game in town and that it is in their best interest to play by the new rules. ad_icon Those who had descended upon Iraq to defeat the United States through terrorism, initially finding favor and support from the "rejectionists," have themselves been rejected by the Iraqi people. Their strategy to ignite a sectarian civil war has failed. And though they still pose a threat to security, those extremist Islamists were comprehensively and strategically defeated in a Muslim country, a development of profound significance. The elements in Iraq who thought that they could dominate and create a new form of dictatorship with the trappings of democracy have discovered that they must accept the principles of power sharing. Furthermore, the elections have proved wrong those who had claimed that Iraqis could not comprehend democracy and therefore could not abide by its rules. The world watched as millions of ordinary Iraqis, proudly displaying their purple forefingers, declared their desire to choose their leaders, and the leaders themselves demonstrated their ability to make adjustments and compromises.This is not to say that Iraq has finally and irrevocably arrived at a perfect form of democracy. Far from it. Iraq is still beset by daunting external and internal challenges. It does, however, mean that after defeating the extremists and terrorists among its people and demonstrating a repulsion for sectarianism and a will to stay united, Iraq is set to consolidate all that it has achieved, with considerable help from the United States and others. At the most critical junctures of this transition, Iraqis have demonstrated their independence and unity. This has given them more confidence in their future. Those who thought that they could dominate Iraq from outside, directly or by proxy, surely have realized that their influence will always be limited. Looking ahead, the exact speed with which American troops are withdrawn must be determined by joint consultations between the political and military leaders of both countries within the parameters of the status-of-forces agreement. But the continued engagement of the United States in Iraq will be vital to ensuring that what has been achieved is not jeopardized, though the emphasis will inevitably shift from military issues to economic and diplomatic matters. Our nations have mutual interests in Iraq's future. The success of Iraq would be an outstanding success of American foreign policy. If Iraq succeeds, it has the potential to become one of the most important assets and allies of the United States. This is the beginning of a new era in our relationship, one that opens the way to a flourishing economic, cultural, political and diplomatic partnership that augurs well for the future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Feb 09 - 11:55 AM Bobert: Assuming that you are referring to Saddam Hussein: In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination: 5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination. Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination. In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition: 2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 08 Feb 09 - 03:07 PM There is a lot of misinformation being bandied about here which obscures the problem with Iraq. They don't want the US there. The US is an occupier. Although there are a handful of so-called terrorist leaders in many countries, terrorism is not as major a problem as poverty, corruption in government, overarching militarism and the malfeasance of the defense industry including the introduction of mercenaries such as Blackwater. Triple Canopy and other "privatized" organizations. Saddam was placed in command by the US as a reaction to Iran. The US set him up and knocked down. I question the veracity of long-winded statements which in themselves require hours of rebuttal. Blanketing the issue with these pompous pronouncements do not promote a healthy discussion of this issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Feb 09 - 04:19 PM So Iraq is a complex and layered society??? Duhhh??? Is that a surprise to anyone... It has been for hundreds of years and was doing okay until colonialists thought that it needed their intervention... As to executive orders... Are you really telling me it's okay to invade a soveriegn nation, kill upwards of a million people but noy okay to kill just one guy, Sawz??? Think about just how narrow minded that sounds... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Feb 09 - 04:24 PM Sounds like a pompous statement to me. Trite. You can always present some correct information. |
