Iraq War Inquiry

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2007 12:45 PM GMT
    I heard on the news this morning that Al-Qaeda is on the run and how great the war is going in Iraq. What I have read elsewhere but never hear reported in tandem with the report I hear this morning is that the UK has withdrawn nearly all their troops, if not all of them. I wonder if the UK withdrawal, off-set by the US troop surge still left a remaining balance of less troops, from outside force, in Iraq? Perhaps this is the real impetus behind the positive news we are hearing regarding Iraq, but that our media attributes to US efforts. Any thoughts?
  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Nov 21, 2007 1:37 PM GMT
    The Uk hasn't withdrawn all it's troops. Though is committed to a gradual withdrawal when/if things improve over there.

    I think Bush would like the situation over there to appear to be resolved so he can getting to bombing Iran.

    As people seem to be dying daily over there, due to continuing unrest, I don't think we should be arranging a celebration party just yet.

    Loz
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2007 4:34 PM GMT
    Depends upon who you want to listen to.

    Republicans will say things are great.

    Democrats will say things are bad.

    I think it is somewhere in between.

    Good news doesn't sell air time on CNN.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2007 12:20 AM GMT
    Where are the WMD's again?

    Right... It's about saving country from a dictator. Only applies to the middle east. African tyranny isn't our concern until they discover oil.

    Oh right I forgot, its cool to invade a country under a lie. After all we learned that from Korea.

    Just wave the american flag and call all anti-war types dirty unpatriotic traitors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2007 12:23 AM GMT
    the wmds are in the white house signing things
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2007 2:04 AM GMT
    We need not rehearse the reasons why Britain and later the U.S. have been determined to control the gulf region. It's enough to note state department observations in 1945 that the resources of the region are a stupendous source of strategic power.

    Besides, Iraq has already been branded with our imperial seal: capitalism.

    l_7c7e41ef25f58372bf9c3e689405a1b7.jpg

    Happy meals come with IEDs for the kids.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 22, 2007 2:31 AM GMT
    Things are goin great, huh?
    So - like we should start gettin the hell outta Dodge?
    Sorry...the Sunnis and Shia are no closer to any agreement than they were before
    Baghdad is an ehthnically cleansed city where most of the Sunni neighborhoods have Shiites squating in Sunni houses
    whats gonna happen when they wanna come back?
    and in the meantime we're still building the largest embassy complex there in the world
    don't hold your breath
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2007 2:43 AM GMT
    All US military troops are suppose to be heading to Afgan this year and the next, at least that's what my military friends tell me icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2007 2:50 AM GMT
    Iraq is about the most drastic situation the US could possibly be in, its kind of "damned if we do, and damned if we don't" (get out that is) I'm hoping the Dems stick to what they said last week and send no more funding until there is a withdrawel date set, and not one that Bush can wiggle out of with a signing statement. Impeachment of Cheney (God how I hope it happens) would put an end to their going and bombing Iran, I've also read that there are many career Generals/CIA doing everything they can to discourage any actions against Iran. I don't think there are many more than 5,000 UK soldiers left in Iraq, does anyone have a real figure on that? At any rate it hurts to think of one more of our guys/girls over there getting killed for no good reason, and Hopefully there will be less killing by and between sects over there once the hated Occupiers (US) are gone, maybe our leaving will reduce the tension and get them to solve their problems on their own, but then they've hated each other for hundreds of years and fought amongst each other, Bush and Company were warned that Iraq was an unwinnable fight !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2007 3:13 AM GMT
    It sucked when I was there last Spring.

    Well, I truthfully don't know anything except what my employees report; and that's still not good.

    Since it seems I have to go over in January I will let you know when I get back.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2007 4:18 AM GMT
    In Iraq we have the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds that don't get along, but were forced to live together by Saddam who was a tyrant. I remember when Iraq and Iran were at war we liked Saddam much the way we support dictators in Africa and the Saudi Royal family. W decides to knock Saddam out and make Iraq a demoracy. Well surprise surprise the sunnis win and each group starts to elimate the others. Meanwhile the Kurds start stirring the pot with Kurds in Turkey and the Turks, our current friends, threaten to invade Iraq. w's invasion of Iraq gives al qaeda a fertile recruiting ground in a country that did not have terrorists before the invasion. Iran also stirs the pot and sends supplies to Iraq to keep the civil war going and works on a nuclear bomb ( a word w can not seem to pronounce) Pakistan, a country run by a dictator we like, is becoming unstable and has a nuclear bomb as does India and Israel who are both nervous. Daily our terrific young men and women are being killed. The world depends on middle east oil. boys we have a MESS on our hands. I don't think we can leave, but we can't afford to stay. I kind of long for the days of the cold war where we at least knew our enemy. I hope that it is true things are improving over there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2007 4:38 AM GMT
    COmale, you make a claim that is wholly false. A country that did not have terrorists before the invasion? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal? How do you think Zarqawi got to Iraq in the first place? Even the man responsible for the arranging of chemicals for the 1993 WTC bombing was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, Abdul Rahman Yasin. It is irrefutable that terrorist activities were within the Iraqi borders prior to the invasion. Whoever denies it simply knows nothing about the situation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2007 5:24 AM GMT
    And toward whom was Abu Nidal's terrorism directed, Tool?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 22, 2007 4:21 PM GMT
    Sorry Tool...
    the link to Al queda and Al queda in Iraq is by name only
    the amt of foreign fighters in Iraq was WAY over blown by this gov't
    Al queda in Iraq was and is basically a home grown Sunni insurgency element
    they used the name because it sounded good to them and supposedly gave them legitimacy or illegitimacy as the case maybe
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2007 4:40 PM GMT
    No, Tool is right that Iraq's government protected Abu Nidal, a Palestinian terrorist, but, as I recall -- he'll quickly correct me if I'm wrong -- they also ended up killing him. The story of Abdul Rahman Yasin similarly flip-flops.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2007 7:28 PM GMT
    Abu Nidal, regardless if there was a flip-flop, which occurred in 2002, conspicuously after 9/11, was being housed by the Iraqi government in government facilities - then the most wanted terrorist in the world. It is pure ignorance to deny Iraq had some connection with terrorist activities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2007 7:54 PM GMT
    Hussein himself could be called a terrorist. His sons certainly could be, too.

    When people say Iraq wasn't harboring terrorists, they mean they weren't cooperating with al Qaeda. Hussein's enmity toward bin Laden is well known.

    The point is that Iraq posed no threat to America.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2007 8:04 PM GMT
    At least not any overt threat.

    But do I like theocratic suicide murderers? No, I do not.

    It is far too complex a situation to even begin to draw out the lines. Years of sectarian violence and territorial disputes certainly make the objective far more difficult.

    On the one side, I find myself supporting the invasion because a regime that served as a safe-haven for terrorists can no longer function as one.

    But on the other, what was the necessity of it? Could they actually pose a threat, perhaps not now but in the distant future?

    And apparently, we do not play that guessing game anymore. Preventive war strategies seem to be the way of it now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2007 8:32 PM GMT
    But I do say one thing - if Saddam Hussein were given the presumption of innocence, remember who you will have to face if you're wrong, remember what you will have to live with if you're wrong. No sensible, responsible person would have taken that risk. Certainly not an appeal to fear, because any claim can be justified by anyone with access to a search engine.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 24, 2007 3:08 AM GMT
    No he wasn't protected by the Iraqi "government" because he was hiding out in the Northern part of Iraq...
    which wasn't in Saddam's control for when he was there
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2007 8:13 PM GMT
    Abu Nidal, not protected by the Iraqi government? Are you kidding me? This is purely historically romantic...

    He was an envoy of the Iraqi government and sheltered in government facilities where he would be interviewed.

    How can you deny this when the facts are readily available?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2007 8:56 PM GMT

    The reality of what is happening on the ground in Iraq is never easy to determine. I have close friends who immigrated to the U.S. from Egypt in 1975. We often watch Al Jazeera satellite TV. The footage you see carried there is dramatically different than you see on western TV. The commnetary from all news agencies is biased.

    All I know is that the war is a long term money sink.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2007 9:41 PM GMT
    I am by far and large very much against this war of aggression. The thought process that got us into Iraq is twofold. a) regional power/control and resource control (oil), and b) the possible thought police.

    The decision and plan to invade Iraq occurred long before 9/11. It's documented, it's discussed, it's historical fact. 9/11 was a convenient tool to sway public opinion.

    Iraq had terrorists pre-9/11, yes. So did the US. Overtly? no. The US has and does support subversion and terrorism beneath the radar. We have since the CIA and other like organizations were created. This too is undisputable, documented, historical.

    Regardless of how blissful the repugnicans are about progress in Iraq, daily photos and stories of death and destruction continue. This ... is not progress.

    Regardless of how horrific naysayers expound about the atrocities, facts and figures can be inflated. There are good things happening in Iraq that in and of themselves are progress. The quality of man construction projects or whatnot may be indisputably questionable but there _are_ things being accomplished.

    Yes, it's true this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't point in time. If we pulled every serviceman out of the quagmire today, they would return home with their lives. But we've made one fucking hell of a mess and it _is_ our responsibility to clean it up.

    Unfortunately the "christian/bush" way of cleaning up borders on genocide, greedy power grabbing, and resource arrogation.

    Since these fucks are still running the nation, scores of men and women in the service are going to lose their lives. Hundreds of thousands more Iraqis will too.

    Mankind is still mankind, that means nobody is capable of manning up and -only- fixing things instead of more ass-hattery.

    p.s. The opium export industry of Afghanistan is the highest it has ever been courtesy of US interference.

    Happy Thanksgiving to each and all on both sides of the fence and I just wish more people tried much harder to resolve issues rather than cause bloodshed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2007 10:35 PM GMT
    Abu Nidal died in 2002 and as I recall probably was killed on the orders of Saddam
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2007 2:15 AM GMT
    ITjock !!!! You have to go back to Iraq this January? I will keep you in my thoughts for your safety, You cannot have read my comment without knowing that I am totally against this war, but put that aside, because you soldiers have my respect in your situation of having to follow orders. I wish you Safety while there and a safe return !!!!! Bless you man !!!!! Back to topic (IRAQ WAR) there was a remark that Sadaam needed to be removed because of the attrocities that he performed. Dubya and Cheney need to be removed for the attrocities they purpetrated on Iraq !!!! But that doesn't mean I would suggest going into Washington DC and bomb the whole place to remove them from office at the peril of the community residents, and of buildings/private property. I hope you can follow my reasoning here, there really isn't any difference, misdeeds done by Dubya/Cheney are no less heiness than Sadaam's are they? If we were put on this earth to remove all despotic rulers in the world, why did Dubya/Cheney stop with Iraq? ITS THE OIL !!!!!! Thats the difference !!!!! Sure there are some improvements now after the surge, so while its getting better lets start getting out of there, and direct our mission to completing training for Iraqy soldiers, until then I think our presence there is exacerbating the problems because the common man over there wants the "OCCUPIERS" (the US military) out of their country, and can you blame them?
    out of their way