posted on January 30, 2007 01:12:47 AM
I know this article may be a little over the heads of many who frequent this board but I'll post it all the same.
If you need anything explained, just ask me, I’ll do what I can.
If you want something to debate, this is great fodder. If you want to go on with your inane rants....go right ahead..
The author is Victor Davis Hanson, it was written for the National Review Online.
[b]If We Fail…
Been there, done that.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Most Americans accept that if the United States cannot stabilize Iraq, and, in frustration and acrimony, withdraws in defeat, crises follow. The only disagreement is over how bad they will be.
Some point to the aftermath of Vietnam and, mirabile dictu, think the world eventually went on pretty much the same. In this rosy view, the preordained end of the Cold War made the communist postwar Vietnamese increasingly entrepreneurial, and thus more pro-American than friendly to their erstwhile Chinese patrons.
Others, more soberly I think, recall instead in the interval the million-plus of boat-people, exiles, the executed, and detained — and the aftershocks that killed millions more in Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Central America, once it was established that the United States would not, or could not, thwart Communist aggression. The Iranian hostage-taking and the rise of radical Islam itself were predicated on the idea that a post-Vietnam America would not intervene against terrorists, whether in Tehran or Lebanon. And Vietnam, of course, today is no South Korea, as millions there without freedom could attest.
The Ripple Effect
Be that as it may, we sometimes forget that there are also more insidious ripples that can emanate from Iraq. I can think of three for starters, all with post-Vietnam echoes.
The first will be the effect on the Democratic party itself, now riding high in its antiwar invective. Yet for a quarter century after Vietnam its antiwar hysteria warped its stance on issues such as the military, retaliation abroad for attacks on America, and the use of force in general.
Jimmy Carter’s paralysis during the hostage taking, the sending of Ramsey Clark to beg Tehran for a reprieve, Bill Clinton’s half-hearted responses to the attacks from the first World Trade Center to the USS Cole, all this, rightly or wrongly was seen as the legacy of the party that had imploded after Vietnam.
Now again we have gone from sizable majorities in the Congress, warning about Saddam all during the 1990s and voting to remove him in October 2002, to essentially a single Joe Lieberman sticking through the messy reconstruction. Instead Howard Dean’s once-pathetic yeehawing has now infected the likes of Senators Boxer, Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Rockefeller, who have respectively rebuked Condoleezza Rice for childlessness, compared our troops to Pol Pot, Nazis, and terrorists, assured that our soldiers are no different from Baathist killers at Abu Ghraib, and suggested that things in Iraq were once better under Saddam.
All that may, like Vietnam-era street theater, play well to the media. But eventually Iraq, also like Vietnam, will be over — while the protocols and culture of hysteria and derangement, like low-lying marsh gas, will linger and smell. A Henry Jackson or JFK would have had nothing to do with a Michael Moore, who now has entrée with the Democratic elite. If the Republicans were once embarrassed of the Buchanan Right, and the Democrats of the Cindy Sheehan Left, now the Democrats have apparently both of them in their antiwar camp. Good luck…
Much also has been written about the post-Vietnam War military, as it struggled after the draft, the drugs, and the odor of defeat. I worry in the same vein about a similar loss of confidence in our ground forces. Before Iraq, wild-eyed reformers talked of a new military paradigm of sanitized war, following from wins in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Panama, or Serbia. Bombing from on high with GPS ordinance and a few paratroopers or special forces were the supposed future — not old fashioned, everyday artillery, armor, and infantry.
That either/or dichotomy was, of course, absurd. But if we withdraw defeated from Iraq, like it or not, there will be the charge made that the United States should not commit sizable Army and Marine forces abroad on the ground — period, under any circumstances, at any time.
Vietnam and now Iraq will substantiate in greater detail what we tasted in Lebanon and Mogadishu — the impossibility of using large conventional forces in chaotic conflicts that will inevitably turn asymmetrical and terrorist. In that regard, an army on the shelf will fossilize, as we lose confidence that it can ever achieve anything worth its losses. Generals will promise victories in the sort of rare conventional wars they can easily win, and decline the more common messy ones they cannot.
In contrast, stabilize Iraq under horrific conditions, and the world is reminded that there is nothing that a brilliantly led and highly trained American infantry cannot accomplish. Win in Iraq, and there will be fewer future calls on the Army and Marines to repeat their victory; lose — and there will be far more need to do what they cannot.
George W. Bush, True Democrat
Third, there is a weird furor growing, on a bipartisan basis, at the Iraqis in general and the Arab world in particular. Prior to Iraq, there was some American guilt over past realism, whether stopping before Baghdad in 1991, playing Iran off Iraq, cozying up to dictatorships, or predicating American Middle East foreign policy solely on either oil or anti-Communism. Read the liberal literature of the 1990s and it was essentially a call for what George Bush is now doing — and being damned for. Then the liberal bogeyman was not Paul Wolfowitz, but Jim Baker (“jobs, jobs, jobs”/”F—- the Jews”). Now the latter is the model of Republican sobriety.
Arab intellectuals and much of the Western Left once decried Bakerism and called for a new muscular idealism that put us on the side of the powerless reformers and not with the entrenched authoritarians. But if we fail in Iraq, then again, fairly or not, the verdict will be far more sweeping than simply the incompetence of the Bremer proconsulship or the impotence of the Maliki government.
Rather, the conventional wisdom will arise that an infantile Middle East ipso facto — whether due to Islamism, tribalism, gender apartheid, sectarianism, engrained dictatorship, or corruption — is simply incapable at this time of consensual government. Anyone who seeks such reform, whether in the Gulf, Palestine, Lebanon, or Egypt, is to be written off not only as naïve, but as reckless as well. A Libyan dissident, a feminist writer in Egypt, or an Iraqi intellectual who decries Western indifference to their plight or American tolerance of regional dictatorships will be told to quit whining and get a life, by a been-there/done-that American public.
Both carping hothouse Arab intellectuals and Western liberals should be put on notice of this change to come. However imperfect, however flawed, however improperly explained our efforts in Iraq were, they nevertheless represented a costly American about-face to offer something in the Middle East other than theocracy or dictatorship — something we are not likely to see again in our lifetime.
Democrats and liberals should likewise realize that for all their hatred of George Bush and the partisan points to be gained by coddling up to the libertarian and paleo-conservative Right, George Bush’s embrace of freedom was far closer to their own past rhetoric than almost any Republican administration in history. And such an effort to foster democracy was in the long run smart as well, since ultimately a free Iraq would be the worst nightmare of the Islamic jihadists — as we read repeatedly in the rantings of Dr. Zawahiri.
In short, the next Democratic president who wishes to do something about the genocide in Darfur or another mass murderer in the Middle East, will find no support from Republicans, or — in no small part due to liberals’ slurs against the war they voted for — from the country at large.
Yes, we may see thousands killed, displaced, and maimed if the United States flees from Iraq. And that tremor in the foundations of American power may embolden everyone from Hugo Chavez to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
But that is only the half of it.
Leaving Iraq prematurely will also damage the credibility of the Democratic party, the reputation of American ground forces, and the idealism of American foreign policy — just those principles that the critics of the war oddly claim they will be saving by fleeing.[/b]
posted on January 30, 2007 05:00:51 AM
1/30/07 update on BUSHY'S IRAQ INVASION.
3,081 Dead American Troops in Bushy's Iraq invasion up 1 since yesterday.
3,081 GOOD AMERICAN LIVES GONE ALL BECAUSE OF OUR COMMANDER AND FAILURE INVASION OF IRAQ.
AMERICA HAS SPENT 362,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS ON BUSHY's FAILED IRAQ INVASION.
01/30/07 CBS/AP: Suicide bomber kills 12, wounds 40 in Mandali
About an hour later, a suicide bomber blew himself up near the entrance of a Shiite mosque in Mandali, a predominantly Shiite city also near the Iranian border. At least 12 people were killed and 40 wounded in that attack, police said.
01/30/07 CBS/AP: 13 people were by bomb left in a garbage can
At least 13 people were killed Tuesday after a bomb left in a garbage can struck Shiites during ceremonies marking Ashoura in a town near the Iranian border, police said. At least 39 were wounded.
posted on January 30, 2007 11:08:51 PM
Peabrain,
I didn't think you would be able to read the post I left let alone understand it. I'n not surprised.
We lost 600,000 American service men and women in the second world war.
If he had entered the war in 1938 or 39, we may have lost far less. We may have saved tens of millions of lives.
Instead we gave Hitler and the Japanese time to build up, time to murder millions. Our mistake.
We can’t afford to make that mistake again. The Islamic Fascist are here, now, to take everything you hold sacred, your freedom being the most important.
We entered WWII with arms and armor that was left over from the First world war, some from long before that.
There’s was little or no bitching about the boots that didn’t fit properly, the lack of state of the art weaponry or anything else for that matter.
As a nation we have become soft.
The once unheard meek and cowardly are now at the forefront of the “stop the war” movement, only to make themselves look less a coward.
We had a nation of hero's back then, not the leftist whining cowards that proliferate this board today.
posted on January 31, 2007 10:20:58 AM
Colin,
I update BUSHY's failed INVASION of IRAQ and will continue to do so. If I am posting facts about Iraq that are untrue prove it.
Secondly, I believe new-cons like you are UN-American and bad for this country. I have zero respect for your thoughts or posts. Simply put I am your political enemy. I am only one of millions that are putting your thoughts in the minority without power.
The only thing I don't understand is why new-cons like you are so STUPID that you don't get what I just said.
Just remember new-con we are all around your kind now and watching every move you make. Its called the political death of new-con power.
posted on January 31, 2007 10:40:01 AM
Bigpeepa, consider the source....colon thinks people like Chuck Hagel are meek and cowardly...talk about screwed up !
The neocons don't have brain power so , like cavemen, they believe the answer to EVERYTHING is violence (especially when someone ELSE is doing it for them !!!)....it's so much simpler and easier for them than trying to think
Its not only the new-con thinking about Bushy's failed invasion of Iraq that I completely disrespect. Its also their whole mindset about their fellow Americans that I find equally disgusting.
The good news is we have stripped them of 80% of their political power with more of their downfall coming in 2008.
--------------------------------------------
1/31/07 update on BUSHY'S IRAQ INVASION.
3,084 Dead American Troops in Bushy's failed Iraq invasion up 3 since yesterday.
3,084 GOOD AMERICAN LIVES GONE ALL BECAUSE OF OUR COMMANDER AND FAILURE.
AMERICA HAS SPENT 362,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS ON BUSHY's FAILED IRAQ INVASION.
HEY NEW-CONS IF I POSTED ANY FACTS ABOUT IRAQ THAT ARE NOT TRUE PROVE IT.
posted on February 2, 2007 07:22:54 PM
2/02/07 update on BUSHY'S IRAQ INVASION.
3,092 Dead American Troops in Bushy's failed Iraq invasion up 7 since yesterday.
3,092 GOOD AMERICAN LIVES GONE ALL BECAUSE OF OUR COMMANDER AND FAILURE BUSHY.
AMERICA HAS SPENT 362,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS ON BUSHY's FAILED IRAQ INVASION.
HEY NEW-CONS IF I POST ANY FACTS ABOUT IRAQ THAT ARE NOT TRUE CORRECT ME. SEE BELOW.
IF THE REPORT BELOW TURNS OUT TO BE TRUE I BELIEVE WE WILL HAVE A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2008.
02/02/07 NPR: NIE Report - Iraq Not Likely to Be Stable by 2008
The situation in Iraq is very bad and getting worse. That's the judgment of a new National Intelligence Estimate that represents the views of all 16 U.S. spy agencies. The report also says that Iraqi leaders will be "hard pressed" to stabilize...
posted on February 2, 2007 08:01:21 PM
800 + USGI troops KIA in all of Iraq in 2006.
462 + AMERICAN CIVILIANS KILLED IN PHILLY, PA alone in 2006.
By BaBaSheepa the tax evader's "logic" WHY haven't we withdrawn all federal assistance to Philly.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
The blast was the worst attack since coordinated car bombings in the Baghdad Shiite neighbourhood of Sadr City on November 23 killed at least 202 people.
Another 305 people were wounded in the massive attack in central Baghdad's Al-Sadriya district, the latest in a rash of insurgent bombings of shopping districts as US troop reinforcements ready a much-heralded security crackdown.
The Iraqi government pointed the finger at militants infiltrating from neighbouring Syria, with which it restored diplomatic relations only late last year. The White House pledged that Washington "stands with the people of Iraq."
"A suicide truck bomb exploded in the Sadriya market, in central Baghdad on the east bank of the Tigris River. At least 130 people were killed and 305 wounded," a security source told AFP.
An Iraqi bomb expert told state television that the truck was packed with one tonne of explosives.
An AFP photographer said terrified survivors threw stones at police who had cordoned off the area and prevented ambulances from reaching the scene amid rumours of another bomb in an ambulance.
Police transported the victims in all available police vehicles, but one policeman who was evacuating wounded in his blood-spattered pick-up truck was beaten by shocked survivors.
There were chaotic scenes at local hospitals as volunteers rushed in the wounded while charred bodies lay in trucks and corridors that became makeshift mortuaries.
The blast also collapsed nearby houses, and many people were reportedly trapped in the debris.
A series of smaller blasts could be heard across the city later, possibly retaliatory strikes to avenge the attack.
posted on February 3, 2007 04:23:45 PM
All the latest attack PROVES is that the terrorists are finding Iraqi citizens easier to attack than US troops.
Bombs are a weapon of opportunity for those that are too afraid to face the troops face to face.
Again you demomorons are attacking the wrong side.
{PS sheepa, saving up for your inmate trust fund yet?)
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
Its called Civil War. From you post I see you need to read up on what it happening in Iraq. See below.
Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause
By Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy took a slow look around the east Baghdad neighborhood that he and his men were patrolling. He grimaced at the sound of gunshots in the distance. A machine gunner on top of a Humvee scanned the rooftops for snipers. Some of Hardy's men wondered aloud if they'd get hit by a roadside bomb on the way back to their base.
"To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do," said Hardy, 25, of Atlanta. "I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."
While senior military officials and the Bush administration say the president's decision to send more American troops to pacify Baghdad will succeed, many of the soldiers who're already there say it's a lost cause.
"What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us," said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tenn., as his Humvee rumbled down a dark Baghdad highway one evening last week. "Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight."
"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away," said Gill, who serves with the 1st Infantry Division in east Baghdad. "And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."
Soldiers interviewed across east Baghdad, home to more than half the city's 8 million people, said the violence is so out of control that while a surge of 21,500 more American troops may momentarily suppress it, the notion that U.S. forces can bring lasting security to Iraq is misguided.
Lt. Hardy and his men of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Carson, Colo., patrol an area southeast of Sadr City, the stronghold of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
A map in Hardy's company headquarters charts at least 50 roadside bombs since late October, and the lieutenant recently watched in horror as the blast from one killed his Humvee's driver and wounded two other soldiers in a spray of blood and shrapnel.
Soldiers such as Hardy must contend not only with an escalating civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite Muslims, but also with insurgents on both sides who target U.S. forces.
"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, Pa. "This isn't our war - we're just in the middle."
Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq's sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare.
"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, Okla.
Bush's initiative calls for American soldiers in Baghdad to take positions in outposts throughout the capital, paired up with Iraqi police and soldiers. Few of the U.S. soldiers interviewed, however, said they think Iraqi forces can operate effectively without American help.
Their officers were more optimistic.
If there's enough progress during the next four to six months, "we can look at doing provincial Iraqi control, and we can move U.S. forces to the edge of the city," said Lt. Col. Dean Dunham, the deputy commander of the 2nd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, which oversees most of east Baghdad.
Maj. Christopher Wendland, a senior staff officer for Dunham's brigade, said he thinks there's a good chance that by late 2007 American troops will have handed over most of Baghdad to Iraqi troops.
"I'm actually really positive," said Wendland, 35, of Chicago. "We have an Iraqi army that's actually capable of maintaining once we leave."
If the Iraqi army can control the violence, his thinking goes, economic and political progress will follow in the safest areas, accompanied by infrastructure improvement, then spread outward.
In counterinsurgency circles, that notion is commonly called the "inkblot" approach. It's been relatively successful in some isolated parts of Iraq, such as Tal Afar on the Syrian border, but in most areas it's failed to halt the bloodshed for any length of time.
posted on February 4, 2007 07:32:57 AMIts called Civil War
So I guess all the gang wars in LA and everywhere through the US would also qualify a "civil war". Only difference is the gangs arent using bombs.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 4, 2007 10:49:25 AM
Bear, said the only difference between U.S. Gang wars and the Civil war in Iraq is these words from him "the Only difference is the gangs arent using bombs."
Hey Bear,do you know if the Gangs are using any of the guns you sell?
Your comment about BUSHY'S INVASION OF IRAQ do show you have very little understanding about Iraq.
I am trying hard not to call you STUPID but you posts makes it hard.
posted on February 4, 2007 07:38:06 PM
HEY NEW-CONS IF I POST ANY FACTS ABOUT IRAQ THAT ARE NOT TRUE PROVE IT. SEE BELOW.
2/04/07 update on BUSHY'S IRAQ INVASION.
3,098 Dead American Troops in Bushy's failed Iraq invasion up 1 since yesterday.
3,098 GOOD AMERICAN LIVES GONE ALL BECAUSE OF OUR COMMANDER AND FAILURE BUSHY.
AMERICA HAS SPENT 363,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS ON BUSHY's FAILED IRAQ INVASION. UP 1 BILLION MORE SINCE I LAST CHECKED
FACTBOX-Security developments in Iraq, Feb 4
Sun 4 Feb 2007 9:40:34 GMT
Feb 4 (Reuters) - Following are security developments in Iraq at 0930 GMT on Sunday:
* Indicates a new or updated item
* BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded in a bus terminal in Baghdad's Bab al-Muadham district, killing four people and wounding seven, police said.
BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol killed four policemen and wounded four others in the al-Kesra district of northern Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - A mortar round landed on a house, killing a woman and two children in the Karrada district of central Baghdad, residents said.
BAGHDAD - Gunmen killed two employees of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in an attack on their car in northeastern Baghdad, police said. Three others were wounded.
BAGHDAD - Gunmen also opened fire on a car in the Mansour district of western Baghdad, killing two employees of a private company and wounding another, police said.
BAGHDAD - Gunmen killed an employee of the Ministry of Justice when they opened fire on his car in eastern Baghdad, police said.
NEAR HILLA - Police found the body of Aqil al-Jenabi, an army colonel in the Iraqi army 8th division, in an area near the city of Hilla, 100 km (60 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - Police and Iraqiya state television said U.S. forces wounded Suhad Shakir, an anchor working for Iraqiya, when they fired on her car near the Foreign Ministry in central Baghdad. The U.S. military said it was checking the report.
BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb wounded five people in Ilaam district in southern Baghdad, police said.
posted on February 5, 2007 09:07:34 AM
Its not a CIVIL WAR if outside agitators are the cause of the bombings. Its still terrorism aimed a civilian populations..
Al Qaeda-linked group vows to widen Iraq attacks
By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle
DUBAI (Reuter) - An Iraqi militant group linked to al Qaeda vowed on Saturday to widen its attacks to all parts of Iraq instead of just focusing on Baghdad, after Washington announced plans to beef up its forces in the capital.
The leader of the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq, a body set up by al Qaeda's Iraq wing and other Sunni militant groups in October, said in a Web recording the campaign would stop only "when (U.S. President George W.) Bush signs a surrender accord".
"We today announce a strategy ... which is wider and wiser with God's power. It does not involve Baghdad alone but all parts of the Islamic state," said the speaker, identified as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the group.
In January Bush said he would send 21,500 more U.S. soldiers to Iraq in an effort to crack down on sectarian killings and insurgent attacks, especially in Baghdad.
Baghdadi said Bush was giving Muslim fighters a chance "to slaughter the wounded crusader giant and take advantage of the collapsing morale of its soldiers and commanders".
The authenticity of the tape could not be verified, but it was posted on Web sites used by al Qaeda and other insurgent groups in Iraq.
Baghdadi called on other Sunni Muslim militant groups to join his "state" to unify insurgent ranks.
He warned neighbouring Syria against helping the United States fight the insurgents, arguing that Washington would have acted against Damascus had it not been busy with the war in Iraq.
"The Baathists in Syria should realise that if not for the mujahideen in Iraq they would have been on the gallows, therefore we warn them ... not to help Washington to stop the jihad in Iraq. This is not in their benefit in any way," he said.
Baghdadi said Sunni Islamists would benefit from a possible U.S. strike against Shi'ite Iran, in which he said Washington might use tactical nuclear weapons to neutralise Tehran's nuclear programme.
DUBAI (Reuters) - The Iraqi government said on Sunday that half the Sunni Muslim militants behind the bombings shaking the country had arrived through neighboring Syria.
The United States and Iraqi officials have long accused Iraq's neighbors, particularly Syria and Iran, of failing to stop Islamic militants from crossing into Iraq to carry out attacks.
U.S. and Iraqi officials say many of the insurgents responsible for the violence are not Iraqis.
"We have confirmation that 50 percent of these takfiris and killers who call themselves Arab jihadists come across the Syrian border," Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Al Arabiya TV, referring to radical Sunnis whose ideology brands some Muslims as infidels and allows their killing.
"Syria closes its eyes. As we have said before and we say again today, we are facing a bloody and painful day for us in Iraq as a result of Syria's lack of seriousness in controlling the border."
Iraq's Shi'ite-led government on Sunday renewed its pledge to crack down on Saddam Hussein supporters and Sunni militants after a truck bomb killed 135 people in a mainly Shi'ite area of Baghdad in the deadliest single attack since the 2003 invasion.
Around 1,000 people have been killed across Iraq in the past week in suicide bombings, shootings and fighting between militants and security forces, according to figures compiled by Reuters from official sources.
Syria says it is doing its best to control its border with Iraq.
"The Syrian regime has strong intelligence (agencies) and no bird can fly over the Golan Heights but when it comes to ... the Iraqi side they say they do not have the equipment or don't have this or that," Dabbagh said.
A militant group linked to al Qaeda -- the Islamic State in Iraq -- vowed in a Web recording on Saturday to widen its attacks to all parts of Iraq rather than focusing on Baghdad.
Washington is sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq mainly to help quell violence in Baghdad. The planned Baghdad offensive is seen as a last-ditch effort to stem worsening bloodshed between Shi'ites and minority Sunnis.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 5, 2007 09:18:22 AM
"""DUBAI (Reuter) - An Iraqi militant group linked to al Qaeda vowed on Saturday to widen its attacks to all parts of Iraq instead of just focusing on Baghdad, after Washington announced plans to beef up its forces in the capital. """"
So, bush's "plan" isn't working before it even starts !!!!!
You posted this, "The Iraqi government said on Sunday that half the Sunni Muslim militants behind the bombings shaking the country had arrived through neighboring Syria."
Bear, I don't understand why is our government telling us the bombs are coming from Iran if they are coming from Syria? So you tell me who is wrong BUSHY or the Iraqi government? See below.
Newsweek International
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - The War: Iran's Meddling in Iraq
How solid is evidence that Iran is stoking the conflict in Iraq? The White House has ratcheted up rhetorical attacks, suggesting that Iranian government elements were supplying Iraqi Shia insurgents with deadly weapons technology. But the idea that Iran plays a key role in fomenting violence inside Iraq took a knock last week with the publication, by the U.S. intelligence czar's office, of a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. The NIE, representing the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intel agencies, says that because sectarian antagonisms among Iraqis themselves are so intense and "self-sustaining," Iranian or Syrian involvement is "not likely to be a major driver of violence."
U.S. officials still maintain that Iran is helping Iraqi Shia insurgents build bombs that are particularly deadly because they can penetrate armored vehicles. But three U.S. officials familiar with unpublished intel (unnamed when discussing sensitive info) said evidence of official Tehran involvement is "ambiguous," in the words of one of the officials. For example, U.S. troops have been attacked by homemade bombs triggered by infrared sensors (like ones used on American burglar alarms). U.S. agencies know Iranian purchasers have made bulk orders for the sensors—which cost as little as $1 each—from manufacturers in the Far East. Some analysts think most of the sensors are used for innocent purposes: they note that the devices are so widely available that would-be supporters of Iraqi militants could simply buy them in an Iranian store and smuggle them to Iraq; high-level government involvement wouldn't be necessary. (Another intel challenge: it's difficult for U.S. personnel to ID Iranian operatives among Iraqi Shiites or Iranian pilgrims who visit Shia shrines in Iraq.)
Last week U.S. military officials in Baghdad were set to brief reporters about evidence American forces had assembled about Iran's interference in Iraq. But the briefing was canceled; one of the U.S. officials suggested it had been put off because intel officials couldn't agree about the info.
posted on February 6, 2007 06:40:42 AM
What my articles prove, (for those of you with a lack of reading comprehension), is that the bombings in Iraq are not a act of civil war, but of outside terrorists working to keep the area unstable.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 6, 2007 12:11:47 PM
Bear said, "What my articles prove" is nothing to me I no longer read your BULL ROAR.
Is below what Congress is leading up to with their non binding anti Iraq escalation bill?
Congress has used the appropriation power to limit combat before — but only to end wars. In 1970, Congress barred use of any funds for troops in Cambodia. Then again in 1973, Congress set a date after which no funds at all could be used to support combat in Southeast Asia.
posted on February 7, 2007 04:59:05 AM
HEY NEW-CONS IF I POST ANY FACTS ABOUT IRAQ THAT ARE NOT TRUE PROVE IT. SEE BELOW.
2/07/07 update on BUSHY'S IRAQ INVASION.
3,103 Dead American Troops in Bushy's failed Iraq invasion up 2 since yesterday.
3,103 GOOD AMERICAN LIVES GONE ALL BECAUSE OF OUR COMMANDER AND FAILURE BUSHY.
AMERICA HAS SPENT 364,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS ON BUSHY's FAILED IRAQ INVASION.
WASHINGTON Critics charge the military is obscuring the actual number of troops wounded in both Iraq and Afghanistan by leaving out soldiers and Marines who suffer non-combat injuries.
The most frequently circulated number of those who've been wounded is about 23-thousand. But when troops hurt in other ways, including accidents, is added in, the number more than doubles to about 53-thousand.
Senators Barack Obama and Olympia Snowe are introducing legislation to require what they call "honest numbers" about the wars' toll.
Presidential hopeful Obama says the effects on soldiers and their families is the same whether the soldier is hit by enemy fire, injured in a crash or made sick by service in a war zone.
posted on February 8, 2007 04:39:01 PM
HEY NEW-CONS IF I POST ANY FACTS ABOUT IRAQ THAT ARE NOT TRUE PROVE IT. SEE BELOW.
2/08/07 update on BUSHY'S IRAQ INVASION.
3,115 Dead American Troops in Bushy's failed Iraq invasion up up 14 in two days.
3,115 GOOD AMERICAN LIVES GONE ALL BECAUSE OF OUR COMMANDER AND FAILURE BUSHY.
AMERICA HAS SPENT 364,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS ON BUSHY's FAILED IRAQ INVASION. UP 1 BILLION SINCE I LAST CHECKED A FEW DAYS AGO.
At least 10 Iraqis killed in ambush on homes near Balad
LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
February 8, 2007 12:21 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Gunmen burst into two houses belonging to Sunni Muslims northeast of Baghdad on Thursday and killed at least 10 males after pushing the women and children aside, Iraqi authorities said.
The attack occurred about 1 p.m. in the village of Rufayaat, about three miles east of Balad. Balad is a majority Shiite town 50 miles northeast of the Iraqi capital, but it is surrounded by territory that is mainly populated by Sunnis.
At least 10 gunmen piled into two vehicles broke into the homes, then separated women and children from their male relatives, police said.
Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul Karim Khalaf said 10 members of four different families were killed and two were wounded. ''There are suspicions the attackers are members of al-Qaida,'' he said.
An Iraqi police captain put the death toll at 14 - all men belonging to the same Sunni family and ranging in age from 15 to 75. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the matter.
U.S. troops arrived at the scene afterward and evacuated a wounded man to an American military hospital, the Iraqi captain said. The U.S. military had no immediate comment.
Despite the statement that the killers were from al-Qaida, the slaughter occurred in an area that has been wracked by Sunni-Shiite violence.
posted on February 10, 2007 05:41:32 AM
HEY NEW-CONS IF I POST ANY FACTS ABOUT IRAQ THAT ARE NOT TRUE PROVE IT. SEE BELOW.
2/010/07 update on BUSHY'S IRAQ INVASION.
3,121 Dead American Troops in Bushy's failed Iraq invasion up up 6 in two days.
3,121 GOOD AMERICAN LIVES GONE ALL BECAUSE OF OUR COMMANDER AND FAILURE BUSHY.
AMERICA HAS 23,417 WOUNDED TROOPS
AMERICA HAS SPENT 365,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS ON BUSHY's FAILED IRAQ INVASION. UP 1 BILLION SINCE I LAST CHECKED A FEW DAYS AGO WITH NO END IN SIGHT!!!
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 10, 2007 08:26:29 PM
Below is more proof BUSHY is and was a liar just like LIAR_K is and was.
About believing a liberal,sorry LIAR_K in November the vast Majority of Americans voted against your kind they voted for liberals to fix the mess your kind has brought to America. You keep forgetting that your kind has been put into a tiny minority without political power. I am just one of millions that plan to keep your kind without power in a tiny minority
US official used 'dubious' Iraq intelligence
DAVID MORGAN AND JEREMY PELOFSKY
IN WASHINGTON 2/10/07
A LEADING figure in the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq used questionable intelligence about Saddam Hussein's links to al-Qaeda to help justify the 2003 invasion, a US defense watchdog said yesterday.
The former US defense policy chief Douglas Feith's view that there was a "mature symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda was inconsistent with the intelligence community's view, a damning report by the Pentagon's inspector general said.
Thomas Gimble, the acting inspector general who produced the classified report after a one-year investigation, said Mr Feith had been authorized by senior Pentagon officials to pursue alternative intelligence analysis and his actions were lawful.
But his actions were sometimes "inappropriate" because they "did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the intelligence community", an unclassified two-page executive summary of his report said.
Leading officials, including Dick Cheney, the vice-president, used claims of a relationship between al-Qaeda and pre-war Iraq to suggest that Saddam could have had a role in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.
Senior officials at the time, including Donald Rumsfeld, then defense secretary, were unhappy the CIA assessment did not more closely link Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, said: "The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation.
"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the department of defense."
