Iraq News Thread

[lulldapull]

Order your free first sample copy right here:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/

Believe me folks this is a good publication. A totally unbiased view of politics in America. These guys neither support the right wing chimps, nor the left wing liars!

See for yourself.....

[Confed999]

A totally unbiased view of politics in America. These guys neither support the right wing chimps, nor the left wing liars!

The draft story, above, is very left. It's also false.

[smilingassassin]

"man I go away for a couple of hours and all of you boys get hard ons???

Comeon now, be a little patient. Unlike you cheez pumpers, I have a real job!"




Lull, why do you insist on insulting other posters? I does not influence people to read your posts.

I still haven't seen a post that answers confeds questions....

Why was the war elligal?
Where is the lie?

[Confed999]

Why was the war illegal?
Where is the lie?

And what is a neocon really?

They're all catch phrases, there is no proof.

[smilingassassin]

Lull seems to think its an "elligal war" when the U.S. takes on a dictator who has used WMD's on three separate nations (including his own), Fired skuds at a Nuetral nation (Israel) in the first gulf war, defied the UN for 12 years, constantly defied the terms of the end of hostility's, conspired to assassinate a former U.S. president, and supported countless terrorist groups. Yet when terrorists crash planes (full of people) into buildings (full of many more people) or behead inocent civilians, or explode bombs in crowded market places, trains and Christian church's it ok. Lull is clearly a bigot who embraces the violence in the middle east and how dare any civilized nation oppose tyrany!!

I've got news for ya lull, sooner or later the gloves will truely come off, and the sad thing is many in the ME will pay the price for you and your "hero's" actions.

Take a good look at Lull folks....he's a fair weather terrorist. He may not be attacking us with bombs but he's spouting his hate at anyone who disagrees with him, and that helps terrorist thugs alot knowing they have one more Islamofacist to back them up morally.

[lulldapull]

Hey lower caste draftee, before you go on about the righteousness of illegal interventions throughout the world, let me remind you that it was the same Rumsfeld and these neocons back in the 80's who looked the other way when the world federalists willingly supplied Saddam with mustard and Nerve agents!

It was buffoons like you who didn't say nothing when he gassed all them Kurds! because back in the day he was doin your bidding.

Now don't bullshit man, I never said that Saddam was a good boy. My contention here is that we gotto quit this ridiculous policy of pitting one camel jockey against the other. And minding our own god-damn business. And as far as crashing planes into buildings, don't confuse yourself, Saddam had nothing to do with that.

Besides pal, since when has the u.S. become the champion of 'freedom'??? Since 9-11? god-damn jokers......

P.S. Tomorrow when your sorry ass gets drafted to go to Iraq, then I will ask you this same question. Is it worth it?

[Confed999]

First, both of ya' quit with the insults.

illegal interventions

It wasn't illegal. Prove it was, or stop spreading lies.

let me remind you that it was the same Rumsfeld and these neocons back in the 80's who looked the other way when the world federalists willingly supplied Saddam with mustard and Nerve agents!

So we should continue looking the other way? I don't understand your logic, you want to do something, yet do nothing. (Zionists, Federalists and Commies! Oh my! Better be off to see the Wizard!)

It was buffoons like you who didn't say nothing when he gassed all them Kurds!

You're the one preaching nothing should be done now, and we're talking about the same guy. Looks like you called yourself a "buffoon" to me. Personally, I was pissed when he gassed the Iranians. BTW, were you old enough to know what was happening back then?

And minding our own god-damn business.

Isolationism allways turned out so well in the past too.

as far as crashing planes into buildings, don't confuse yourself, Saddam had nothing to do with that.

Who said he did?

since when has the u.S. become the champion of 'freedom'??? Since 9-11? god-damn jokers......

1775

[smilingassassin]

Nicestrawman Lull, we supported Saddam, for the same reason we supported the Russians in world war two. You can't tackle all the worlds tyrants with limited resorces. After WW2 we engaged russia in the cold war. One of the side effects of the cold war was siding with some nasty charactors because letting them side with Russia would have cost us dearly. Which is the bigger threat Lull, terrorism or nuclear anialation? Now that the cold war is over reason has steped in again.

"buffoons" like me did not support the gasing of the Kurds, but Buffoons like you whined enough about the war then to shift public support onto ostrich mode and Bush senior relented.

Don't call me "Pal" lull, I don't consider mice of your ilk worthy of freindship, you pick and choose your morals to suit your own self preservation, and then have the gaule to suggest we won't lay our lines out on the line in Iraq.

Remember Clinton did little to tackle terrorism beyond containment, another self presevation move.

The war was not elligal.......get over it. I suggest you read up on history Lull, you might acctually learn something and look at events that last longer than 5 years.

[Ray]

Smiling,

If I may correct you. In WW II, you supported USSR from a military standpoint. Germany faced the situation on TWO fronts. Actually three, if you count Africa as a Front.

As they say - tough tittie for Germany!

Deutschland Uber Alles!

[Ray]

What is a 'cheese pumper' and 'rat's ass'?

[smilingassassin]

I think you missunderstood my post Ray. What I meant was we just as easily could have been fighting the Russians alongside the Nazi's had things gone differently. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler if not worse, and yet we allied with him (yes militarily). Using Lulls logic we should have let the two slug it out and let either side gain the spoils of war only to threaten us later even stronger that they were before.

Pre-emptive strikes do work, ask the Japanese. The U.S. could have swiftly brought its might to bear against the Japanese if not for Pearl Harbour. If roles were reversed, Japan would have been out of the war before it even started.

Pre-emptive strikes are also legal if ones nation is threatened, saddam posed a threat to all of the civilized country's by his support of terrorism as a means to enslave his own citizens. Dictators like Saddam deflect from their own failures by blaming the hardships they create on other scapegoats like Israel and the U.S.

Thats changing real fast, and these dictators are realizing that you don't fuck with the free world, we may have alot of crocks like Micheal Moore but threaten our freedom with cold murder and you'll get quite a shock. Containment dosn't work, espeacially when your supposed allies are setting known terrorists free after the murder inocent civilians and giving them a slap on the wrist.

Germany, France and Belgium are the worst offenders, their weak, thats why the UN route failed, the UN is made up of the sum of its european parts, the UN is also weak. Using only the rule of law dosn't work against terrorists, they are nationless except for the fact the are supported by tyrants like Saddam and Arafat.

Thats why Saddam was taken out, not because of WMD's, that was the pitifull excuse that France and the UN needed to take action. saddam was taken out for his active support of, and lack of effort to hunt down, terrorists.

The "with us or against us" speach was VERY simple peaple, either you with the free and civilized world, a world that dosn't murder inocent civilians for pleasure or your with the terrorists. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which side Saddam was on, ask his own people.

Terrorism has been steadily been getting worse and worse after the cold war, and 9/11 should have been a wake up call for the world, containment and appeasement dosn't work, you only prolong the inevitable. Prolonging the war on terrorism would one day mean that terrorists would aquire a nuclear weapon for far greater effect. We won the cold war because we showed the Russians we were not going to back down and that our system of govt. was better because we were free, we will defeat the terrorists the same way.

Seeing as Lull is against the war in Iraq he is either for, A prolonging the inevitable and as a result have an even far greater human sacrifice be made, or B acctually supports the terrorists killing civilians maliciously for sport.

[Ray]

Terrorism has been steadily been getting worse and worse after the cold war, and 9/11 should have been a wake up call for the world, containment and appeasement dosn't work, you only prolong the inevitable. Prolonging the war on terrorism would one day mean that terrorists would aquire a nuclear weapon for far greater effect. We won the cold war because we showed the Russians we were not going to back down and that our system of govt. was better because we were free, we will defeat the terrorists the same way.

Valid.

All I say is check you resources and then go ahead.

Everyone is overstretched. Each mission remain half accomplished, giving the adversary the glee that they have 'contained' the war on terror.

It leads them to get bolder and bolder.

What is important are:

1. Selection and Maintenence of Aim.
2. Concentration of Combat Power.
3. Narrow Front.

The plan to attack Iraq without finishing the business of Afghanistan where the fountainhead of evil, Osama was hold up in, has only left unfinished business and dissipation of the combat power.

The resultant? Rightly or Wrongly, it is appearing that the terrorist fundoos are winning.

The American indignation that other countries are not joining in and instead spewing pious platitudes on the sideline and firing the gun over the US shoulders, is justified.

But then countries like mine have their political susceptibility. They will lose their governance since a large majority are of communties that have commanlity with those targeted in the war of terror.

This is what is called in our country as 'vote bank' politics.

Unfortunate, but a reality!

[smilingassassin]

Even if the U.S. was content to consintrate on Iraq and Afganistan, this alone would greatly improve the situation. Iraq is smack dab in the middle of the Middle East, if iraq works out as planned country's like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia will benifit. Other nations like Pakistan and Libya are already turning over a new leaf and I'm sure others will soon follow if Iraq succeeds.

I don't see how it appears the Terrorists are winning, Iraq and Afganistan have lost govt's freindly to terrorists, as a result of this several more country's are helping us hunt down terrorists.

Germany no longer is vocally anti-American, now that Shroeder has been re-elected and Russia is now embroiled in its own terrorism issues. This leaves France floundering like a whale on the beach, espeacially after their initial denial of atrocity's in the Sudan.

The war on terrorism is not winable, because "war" defines conflict with a state. Terrorists have no state, thats why the "struggle" against terrorism is winable and is going our way, because we respond to terrorist acts by attempting to improve the standard of living for country's rife with terrorists. Terrorists respond to U.S. and other nations actions by carring out more acts of terror, which win no simpathy from the bulk of us living in civilized stable countrys.

The fact that the way of life for Iraqi's now isn't as rosey as we thought it would be is due to the fact that country's like Iran and Syria are supporting muslim fundimentalists, who in their death throws, are now attacking Iraqi's themselves.
Iraqi's are proud people, they won't take it for too much longer. Sooner or later the foriegn jihadi's will outstay their welcome and Iraqi's will kick them out, with force if nessassary.

Eventually Iraqi's will regain control of their country and terrorists will have one less nation to operate freely in.

[Ray]

True, but the so called jihadis are making a monkey out of everyone.

It is time to take off the velvet glove from the iron fist.

They have also let loose a bomb on the Australian Embassy in Indonesia.

Hostage taking has become an Olympic sport. It is time to take some of them as hostages and demand ransom as they do. May pay for the war!

[Ray]

A deeply pessimistic US intelligence assessment of the situation in Iraq has cast further doubts over the Bush administration's attempt to rebuild the country, .....     A new National Intelligence Estimate, drawn up in July and representing the distilled wisdom of the entire US intelligence community, sketches out three scenarios for Iraq.     

The grimmest is a descent into civil war; but even the most favourable of the three foresees no better than a precarious stability, under threat at any moment.  [url]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3592293&thesection=news&thesubsection=world[/url]

This is most alarming.

While the TV pictures don't suggest pleasant news, but then TV pictures never show the better side of life, nor the print media. Things were on the mend but the NIE broods over difficult times ahead.

I personally am not too sure that it will boil down to a civil war and should that type of situation nearly comes to pass, it would be better to have Iraq as a Confederation of Kurdish, Sunni and Shia states with foreign policy, finance and defence being centrally controlled.

But then who knows, things may not be as bad as the NIE wants to project. Could they be playing safe now that there earlier NIE in WMD has come a cropper?