that is very bad

Forums: Politics, Iraq, Rr
Email this Topic • Print this Page

U.S. government says it has achieved victory in Iraq at this time

But

Which is unfortunate

Is the continuation of the insurgency against U.S. forces there

These are some of the recent operations confirm this

We urge the U.S. government to take care of the lives of its soldiers in Iraq

The withdrawal of its troops from there as soon as possible

**********************************

destruction hummer of American forces and wounded who was in it:
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7484/98lo4.gif
******************
U.S tank had been damaged in Iraq:

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1813/1020on5.gif
**************************
dstraction strycre of USA in Iraq:
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6691/920au5.gif
**********************
destruction vehicle belonge to CIA:
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8714/918cr9.gif
*******************
Another USA tank destroyed in Iraq:
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/1376/924lp9.gif
********************
destruction armord of USA in Iraq:
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5092/829hs8.gif
*******
U.S hummer damaged and killing who was in it:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5434/84ev8.gif
*******************
Another US armord has been destroyed:
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7356/36xd5.gif
*******************
destruction vehicle of American forces in Iraq:

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9384/415xf3.gif
**********

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8717/dddddddddddmc2.gif

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 982 • Replies: 10

No top replies

@ff2,

We succeeded in accomplishing our mission when we overthrew Saddam.
THAT was the reason that we went there.

Enuf is enuf.

David

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Than why are we still there if we have accomplished our objective. BS.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

We succeeded in accomplishing our mission when we overthrew Saddam.
THAT was the reason that we went there.Enuf is enuf.

yep.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

We succeeded in accomplishing our mission when we overthrew Saddam.
THAT was the reason that we went there.

Enuf is enuf

You break it you buy it. Iraq was a stable if dysfunctional nation, we took out the leadership and have an obligation to stick around till a new leadership is formed. To do otherwise would be morally reprehensible.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

You break it you buy it. [??]

Iraq was a stable if dysfunctional nation,
we took out the leadership and have an obligation to stick around
till a new leadership is formed.
To do otherwise would be morally reprehensible.

ABSOLUTELY NOT !
I reject that out-of-hand.

We went there for defensive purposes.
W is the President of the United States.
He is NOT the president of Iraq,
and he owes NO ALLEGIANCE to Iraq.

He shoud have simply left Iraq in shambles
and brought the troops home, ASAP after overthrowing Saddam,
for the troops' safety and to save n support American taxpayers.
To me, that is obvious.
We shoud have stayed only long enuf to take reparations from the oil.
(We have yet to take the first drop thereof.)
If W had done that,
we 'd have an extra dollar or 2 to jingle in our jeans.
Maybe we coud use it.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

We went there for defensive purposes

no, we said that we went there for defensive reasons but the real reason was to reorder the geopolitical landscape in the region. In any case occupying armies have moral obligations to the conquered peoples.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

no, we said that we went there for defensive reasons
but the real reason was to reorder the geopolitical landscape in the region.

I reject that as being inconsistent with historical reality.

Quote:

In any case occupying armies have moral obligations
to the conquered peoples.

If u want us to accept that, Counsellor: prove your case.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
In any case occupying armies have moral obligations
to the conquered peoples.

If u want us to accept that, Counsellor: prove your case

Quote:

Protocol I (1977): "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" has additional articles which cover military occupation but many countries including the U.S. are not signatory to this additional protocol.

In the situation of a territorial cession as the result of war, the specification of a "receiving country" in the peace treaty merely means that the country in question is authorized by the international community to establish civil government in the territory. The military government of the principal occupying power will continue past the point in time when the peace treaty comes into force, until it is legally supplanted."Military government continues until legally supplanted" is the rule, as stated in Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd edition 1914

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

As the conquering force we are obligated to either make Iraq an American territory or stay and keep order under the terms of the Geneva Conventions until a local government is prepared to govern.

0 Replies

You're only confusing him with facts.

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Your personal level of selfishness astounds. There's no getting around it, David. You are a vile being of some sort, though it's difficult to determine just what.

0 Replies

that is very bad

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know