michaeljohn

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Violent attacks are down, and citizens are turning against al-Qaeda.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/major-...S00010000000001

thread to be copied to BOTH.

___________________________________________

supersatch

More fuel to the fire:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...3th_meu_070722/

“This was a safe place for insurgents. We obviously wanted to have a presence here before, but we just didn’t have the resources. Now, there is influence in this area,” Chandler said.

CD

Whatever. If you still think Iraq is better today then it was with Saddam in power, you are sadly mistaken.

Four suicide bombings kill 175 in Iraq <- click link

Yep... that link pretty much destroys your previous link from yesterday.

___________________________________________

odinme

boy... am i damn glad i got out while i did... otherwise i may well have been one of those

CD

I'm sorry finley... they are now claiming at least 500 deaths... my 175 was way off.

___________________________________________

ringo

All hail the US police state!

ddoubleez

One of the biggest arguments to leave IS so the people in the region will eradicate al quedia, because we are interfering with them securing their own borders.... When we leave they will focus on those that have lengthen the occupation.

Question, if most of the insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia, why are we fighting them in Iraq?

You do understand that the pentagon DID NOT support the administration's decision to send more troops... The pentagon has not supported much of ANYTHING that the administration has done with war, and the administration has actually undermined what the pentagon.





And Finley, it is obvious that you have a thing for Muslims, but you should investigate news sources to see how they are manipulating their story. To think you are having success, by bringing down the number of car bombs after the worst year but still having the second worst trends the war has seen does not seem successful to me... It just sounds like you are desperate to justify your presidents violent appetite...

PS we are tracking a 66% increase of civilian deaths.

ryster

I would hardly say Bush has a violent appetite. I do think that the administration could've handled the war better, and I certainly don't think Bush is the greatest president ever. Its a shame though, because time is a' tickin and I don't know what will happen after the election. I would hate to see all we've done over there go to waste - and I do think it was the right thing to do to (send troops over) in the first place.

I don't feel like digging up research, so I'm going to stick to matters more related to principle for now, but I wanted to address the 'coalition-caused' civilian deaths. I just want to point out that we are in war, and no matter how hard you try things like this will happen. This is especially difficult because the insurgency wants this to happen. Thats why they aren't wearing uniforms, and hide amongst civilian families, and themselves target civilians. What can you do? I know that our guys over there aren't trying to kill innocent people, they are trying to root out the terrorists.

Also, I gotta ask ddoubleez, where did you get that second quote? It seems poorly written to be honest, I'd just like to see reference.

My biggest problem with all this is just that pulling troops out will do nothing good. Terrorists will file back into Iraq, some other dictator might show up, and it'll be back to training insurgents to hate freedom and anything but their own religion. Its almost like people forget that they attacked us, for (at least) the third damn time. We weren't bothering them, and hell, if it weren't for their dictator, we (along with everyone else who buys any oil from them) would definitely have been helping their economy.

But that doesn't matter to anyone, because even after all the lives lost and all the years spent trying to get it under control, we had no right to invade another country, we, the world police (what does that make the goddamn UN?), should have just tried harder. It is, after all, our fault they hate us - right?

facepeeler

there's the thing....they didn't attack us....no factions from Iraq attacked on 9/11, none of them were Iraqi.

and Al Qaeda in Iraq is a completely different group from Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. One of their founders even acknowledged that they have no real association with Al Qaeda, other than the propaganda that they spew in their videos. Matter of fact, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who was one of the original founders of Al Qaeda in Iraq, just renamed his extremist organization after we invaded.

and Saddam wasn't bothering anybody outside his country anyway. He was just playing mind games, and he happened to screw with the wrong person, because 'Dubya' has a chip on his shoulder from the first Gulf War, and he wanted to have a war on his presidency, just like almost every other President.

Now, I never disagreed with going into Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda, because they are the ones responsible for the attacks. And even the Taliban, because they were giving safe haven to them, so they needed to go. But Iraq? Come on, what were they attacking? Saddam might have been a cold blooded bastard, but he kept the place in check. And the justification for invading Iraq was bogus, that's been known since the first day troops rolled across the berm.

___________________________________________


Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net

CD

1) You might be right, but tell that to Odell Barnes. He was sentenced to death from his blood that was placed there by police. How do I know this? The blood had preservatives in it, and the blood samples they took from him after his arrest were unaccounted for. So with forensic proof of his innocence The Government of France and The European Union pleaded with Bush to release him, but he became Bush's 122nd execution.
Or how about the execution of Miguel Flores against International Law, under the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights?

2) What have we done over there? I know that we've sure built a lot of military bases. We've also given contracts to Halliburton (which specializes in military base building as well as all things oil). So Halliburton will make $millions and that money will have to come from somewhere... how about from Iraqi oil? You know, cause we've taken it over. I believe now, that about 20% of the oil pumped from that country can go to the citizens of that country... the rest is basically ours. How would you feel if China or some other country started building military bases in the US and also took 80% of Wall Streets stocks? If this country's leaders could get their head out of the asses of lobbyists and could get back on track financially, there wouldn't be a need to do this sort of illegal activity in the middle east.

3) So let me get this straight... on a much smaller scale, if someone were to go to your house, knock on the door and punch you in the face and declare war on your family, even though you never did anything to that person(s), innocent neighbors dying would be ok? You know, cause shit happens.

4) So you'd rather have us put the dictator in charge and arm them, only for them to realize we only care about short term US gains and could care less about anyone in the middle east? (aka Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, etc...)

5) When did Iraq attack us? Last I heard, all 16 intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion... Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Must be nice to be the Bush Administration... you can use those agencies when you want, and dismiss them when your goals are different.

6) It probably is. We fuck with pretty much the entire world now-a-days...
Case in point. Hear stories about the missile base we are trying to get in Czech? Yeah, I'm sure the Russians love that idea. That'd be like the Russians trying to set up a missile base in Mexico (or Cuba for that matter), and the American people going along with it. Not only that but the Czech people HATE the idea. The only ones for it would be the Czech government, and probably only cause Bush & Co. want to give them a ton of money to make it happen. Will that money go to the people? No... which is why they don't like it.

I'm putting this up now, cause I don't like how facts are getting twisted in the Bush Era... Bush and his cabinet could execute your family and put a spin on it that would have people just like you supporting his decision. God Bless the Patriot Act!

___________________________________________

ryster

Firstly, wheres the article's saying none of the many terrorists trained in Saddam's camps had anything to do with attacking us? People seem to forget that we aren't waging war on Iraq (whatever the media dubs the war), we are fighting terrorists. They are spread through the middle east. Afghanistan harbored Bin Laden, and his little group was the one that headed up the 9/11 attacks (I don't know much about the first twin towers bombing or the USS Cole, but they were definitely Al Qaeda). So we deployed in Afghanistan to clear them up. Saddam had training camps, and with all his oil-rooted wealth he was able to adequately supply the more prominent terrorist factions. Moreover, we had plenty of suspicious evidence (satellite images for instance) pointing towards WMD - we never saw any (thats if you don't count the Halabja poison gas attack), but we did find facilities designed to store them. Saddam could've just let our people look for the WMD's and get the hell out, but nope, he would have nothing of it. So we head to Iraq to search for WMDs, clear out any terrorists, and that means that Saddam had got to go. So anyway's, among other things, I wouldn't say our justification for going into Iraq was bogus. I do, however, think that Bush should've added that we were going to clear out the terrorists and their facilities. I think he was probably worried that the only thing that could get our country worked up enough to support another war is the WMD's, but he was sadly mistaken - most of us supported the war in Afghanistan and there was enough patriotism left from 9/11 to keep our vote for heading to Iraq. And I daresay support for the war now would've been much higher, because I think the lack of WMD's definitely hurt Bush's credibility.




Fair enough, but its unrelated to the war and its justification, even if it does show something of Bush's character.



Firstly, we've done a lot more than you seem to understand. I feel like looking about for specifics, but, from talking to people who have been there, I can say that we're working hard to train the Iraqis and get them to work with us. It'll be a long time till they are anything more than a militia, but its effects are great regardless - if we can get the civilians to form up against the terrorists, than the terrorists won't be able to come hide amongst them. We can secure a village, train and arm its locals, then leave. They aren't going to let a bunch of terrorists come in and take over now that they have a reasonable lifestyle with some enjoyable freedoms, and a future much greater than their past. And this oil crap, I just don't get where everyone gets it? Have our oil-related prices changed any more so then they should given that we are at war? What proof do you offer that we are over their sucking up oil and taking it from its owner. Maybe we do get 80% of their oil, but we are a much larger country and use more than they do. And the profits they reap from such contracts are like the lifeline of their economy (one could go so far to say country as well) - it is their bargaining chip at the table. Having the US, who's economy is relatively healthy (meaning there money isn't going to all the sudden be worthless), buying mass amounts of oil from a country like Iraq is great for them. And the China analogy is just very flawed, not really a comparable situation at all.

3) So let me get this straight... on a much smaller scale, if someone were to go to your house, knock on the door and punch you in the face and declare war on your family, even though you never did anything to that person(s), innocent neighbors dying would be ok? You know, cause shit happens.

Again, thats a flawed analogy. But to humor you..

Firstly, my neighbors would be other countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. And it would start out more like I (the terrorists - from the wording of what you said) would go over to someones house (USA), and attack it on a number of different occasions. They would go to the police repeatedly, but the police (UN) would say that we just need to be nicer to them, perhaps ask them to stop nicely. And so the the person I attacked tries to be nice, but I hate them simply from the fundamental beliefs they hold, and decide to attack again. This time I kill one of their kids (innocence - nobody in 9/11 was a militant). They go to the police, the police give them the same old crap, so they decide its finally time to take things into their own hands - they are, after all, the ones being attacked (nobody has attacked the police). They come over to my house, and try to get rid of me. I pull my daughter in front of me and she gets shot. Then they kill me. Afterwards they try to help the rest of my family out by giving them some money and helping to rebuild my now recked house. They start to see that it was in really poor condition to start with - its foundations are crumbling. So my family and the family that I attacked tear it down to build a new one.

I could go on, but perhaps you get the point.



So when we go into a country and try to reform its government into a more stable form, democracy, its unecessary and cruel and controlling (besides the fact that we wouldn't have ever touched Iraq if it weren't for their actions against us). But when we go in, do what we were asked to do (kick Iraq out of Kuwait) and just let them handle their own business from that point, its selfish, inhumane, and mean. That doesn't make sense, explain please.



Wrong. We fuck with people who fuck with us. A country isn't like a person, a new leader isn't necessarily like a new life. Trends continue, and old grudges don't die. If it means butting our asses in someones business because we think their pointing nukes at us, then honestly, why the hell not. Is it worth the loss of lives. We would never use a WMD unless we had to (ie. in the long run it would save lives) but other countries aren't as honorable.

And the missile base isn't for offensive use. Its meant to serve as an early warning and protection establishment to intercept missiles launched from Russia or the far east in general towards the US. They might not want it there because it perhaps makes their country a target to those who dislike the US. But the amount of protection they gain from befriending us far outweighs that.

And if it takes us giving them a mother load of money to do it, why not? It boosts their economy, meaning that less taxes are needed to maintain the country (an immediate, and damn near direct, positive impact on the citizens); and from our point of view, are the potential lives saved (think in the up tens of thousands to hundred thousands) from intercepting a nuke worth the money? I would say so.

ddoubleez

How many would you like and why did you not google?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

And if you like, I can tell you why they were from Saudi Arabia....... The mean income earned in saudi arabia in the early to mid 90's was 27000 USD. It is now around 6000 and unemployment, child birth and education are showing record numbers.... The ruling family is a non-elected, non-Democratic totalitarian regime. They keep power by oppressing their dissidents with US backed and trained royal guards and US supplied weapons. The people of Saudi Arabia understand that we are keeping a monarchy in power, in exchange for the only substantial resource... We are experiencing blow back, just as Ron Paul pointed out and was ridiculed for....