Number of Iraq insurgents on the rise.

woiyo:

Quote:

Domesticly, no further attacks on our soil nor our bases (ex Iraq of course) is what I recall from the past 4 years.

How many attacks on the level of 9/11 happened domestically after Pearl Harbor, woiyo? Afterall, neoconservatives were hellbent on associating 9/11 with Pearl Harbor as the worst attack on U.S. soil.

Unfortunately, remembering this specifically in these last four years is rather pathetic. It is a failed argument from the start. How about looking around at the REST of the world? American bases HAVE been attacked, BOTH in Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda recruitment is alive and well. The American taxpayer is paying billions upon billions for NO-BID contracts.

Not having our allies beside us is one of the most gravest errors Bush could possibly make.

Placing this moron in the White House may be the worst mistake ever made by the American people.

0 Replies

Dookie - LOL!!! I answered your question now you get made at the correct answer??? I also stated that excluding Iraq, no military bases have been attacked since 9-11.

Also, are you suggesting the England, Australia and the rest of the nations helping us are NOT allies???

So the responsible question is WHY have we not been attacked on our soil since 9-11? Is it because the Islamic terrorists do not have the desire? No.

Is it because our Homeboy Security department is doing a bang up job of keeping us safe? Maybe.

Do you have any responsible theories as to that answer?

0 Replies

Woiyo

This administration has made everyone LESS safe.

If by now you are unable to see that the actions taken by this administration play so completely into the hands of peple like Ussama Bin Laden...it probably is not a case of "unable" at all. It more likely is "unwilling."

This administration is a disaster...taking an horrendous situation and, incredibly, making it even worse.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Dookie - LOL!!! I answered your question now you get made at the correct answer??? I also stated that excluding Iraq, no military bases have been attacked since 9-11.

Also, are you suggesting the England, Australia and the rest of the nations helping us are NOT allies???

So the responsible question is WHY have we not been attacked on our soil since 9-11? Is it because the Islamic terrorists do not have the desire? No.

Is it because our Homeboy Security department is doing a bang up job of keeping us safe? Maybe.

Do you have any responsible theories as to that answer?

Is it because it takes time and money to plan attacks? Maybe.

Is it because they are busy killing our allies whenever and wherever they can? Could be.

Who knows? If you really believe that our homeland security department has rendered them unable to, I would have to assume that you are either simpleminded or fooling yourself.

0 Replies

I'm sorry, but when the Bush administration (and other administration officials) say that it is inevitable that we'll get attacked by some type of bomb, how is that keeping us safe?

Since the only other attack on domestic soil remotely similar to 9/11 is Pearl Harbor, and as that attack happened over 60 years ago, how do you justify that America is safer when just 3 years have gone by since 9/11?

It's the complexities of the world that continuously baffle you neocons.

0 Replies

Frank - Nice headline, but I am curious at this statement which is "parroted" by many in the Anti Bush crowd. Explain HOW we are less safe?

Kicky - Yes it does take money and time to plan. Is it possible that worldwide law enforcement efforts have hindered their ability to raise the cash??

Also, please point out exactly where I said the Homeboy Security Dept has rendered the terrorists to be unable.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Kicky - Yes it does take money and time to plan. Is it possible that worldwide law enforcement efforts have hindered their ability to raise the cash??

Anything's possible. The fact that worldwide law enforcement efforts might be working has nothing to do with Iraq though, does it?

Do you believe that what's happening in Iraq is a positive sign? Do you believe that the war in Iraq was a good strategic move, and why?

0 Replies

Yes Iraq is a good stratigic move because:
1. Iraq was NEVER going to abide by the cease fire agreement signed after Gulf 1.
2. UN Resolutions and US diplomatic efforts since 1991 failed to force Iraq to comply.
3. The UN corrput Oil for Food program provided Iraq with BILLIONS os dollars that could be used to finance terrorism (see paying off suicide bombers families as an example) and or rebuild WMD capabilities
4. US and British forces placed there to patrol no fly zones had no impact ont he above and were wasting resources and money.
5. 9-11 showed this Govt that appeasement and or failing diplomatic efforts must be followed up with force. Empty threats are just that...empty.

Now to your first question is what is happening now a positive sign? I will assume that you speak to the post Saddam Iraq and the numerous casualties we have taken in trying to "win the peace".

No, it is not a good sign and I do not believe the Bush administration handled this aspect properly. In my view, we should have taken a more aggressive stratigic approach during the first phase of the war. We should have bombed more aggresively so that we would have further reduced the pockets of insurgents. It would have cost more in civilian casualties but I believe the US casualties would have been lower and there would be less hostility today.

0 Replies

How is bombing more aggressively a solution to reducing pockets of insurgents? And you HONESTLY believe that by killing MORE innocent Iraqi civilians that U.S. troops would be more safe?

Now I've heard it all.

Quote:

1. Iraq was NEVER going to abide by the cease fire agreement signed after Gulf 1.

How were we to know as we kicked out the inspectors who were making ACTUAL progress, giving them just 48 hours to leave before we invaded that country?

Quote:

2. UN Resolutions and US diplomatic efforts since 1991 failed to force Iraq to comply.

True. But much was happening after 9/11, including a fleeting mood of unity, in which we could have contained Iraq with the better help of our allies

Quote:

3. The UN corrput Oil for Food program provided Iraq with BILLIONS os dollars that could be used to finance terrorism (see paying off suicide bombers families as an example) and or rebuild WMD capabilities

I agree there was corruption regarding the U.N.'s food for oil program, but as we've discovered, Saddam was NEVER actually using those funds to pursue his weapons. He was just living the high life. Big difference.

Quote:

4. US and British forces placed there to patrol no fly zones had no impact ont he above and were wasting resources and money.

Then why did both Powell and Rice, back in 2000, say that Saddam was effectively contained, thanx to allocating the resources to patrol the no fly zones?

Quote:

5. 9-11 showed this Govt that appeasement and or failing diplomatic efforts must be followed up with force. Empty threats are just that...empty.

9/11 showed how a nation, and a world, can come together.

George W. Bush showed how to completely destroy that by dividing a nation and alienate the world.

0 Replies

Woiyo,

Actually, I was referring to the fact that there are now four times the amount of insurgent fighters in Iraq, which was in my original post. In two months. This is the gathering threat, and probably the quagmire that will keep us bogged down for years to come. I'm sure Bush can figure out a way to get us out of it though.

He's probably busy working on plans to invade Germany or France right now.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Frank - Nice headline, but I am curious at this statement which is "parroted" by many in the Anti Bush crowd. Explain HOW we are less safe?

We are "less safe" because the relatively few have become many...

...terrorists that is!

And because so many of the common folk among our allies have seen a side of us they both despise...and fear. We have lost valuable allies due to the incompetence of this administration.

That is why we are less safe, Woiyo.

And if I may...it is not "being parroted"...it is being discussed by people all over this country...and the world.

Don't get me wrong now, Woiyo...I'm not saying this administration has done everything wrong. I'm just saying it is the most incompetent administration I've personally ever lived through...and that it has done more damage to American interests and security than men like Ussama Bin Laden could do wih unlimited resources.

I abhor what they have done to our country...and I am more dismayed than I can possibly communicate that so many of my fellow countrymen cannot...or WILL NOT...see them for the dangerous, abject failures that they are.

0 Replies

Dookie - I never said we should KILL MORE INNOCENTS. I suggested we need to more aggressivly attack sites that we knew held the enemy but those attacks were not taken due to civilian local. Example, Mosques were used as hideouts and were not attacked. Once a religious "temple" houses military troops, it is no longer "off limits". Yet, we let them slide away.

UN Inspector confir5med that Iraq was not and will not comply with the cease fire agmt.

I addressed conatinement which did not stop the flow of cash and possible arms in and out if the country.

We have no idea what Saddam was doing with the cash from the Oil for Food program but the risk was there and the benefit of the program was not going to it's intended party, the IRaqi people.

Bush inability to communicate in a constant manner is part of the cause as well as the absolute hatred of many int he democratic party which is not helpful in reaching compromise.

Yet, to stand up and blame every problem on GW, is in my view narrowminded.

Kicky - I will not accept media reports of "4 times the insurgents...." bs line. The "insurgents" where "in the neighborhood" for some time and found an easy excuse to go to Iraq to kill Americans. To say that al-quiada is building "recruiting offices" in the area is false. The terrorists are coming from Syria, Pakistan, Iran et al.

GW and ANY OTHER US President will nto be able to get them out entirely. The Iraqi Givt and the Iraqi people will have to step up and fight for themselves. Our troops have done too much for them alreadyand the sooner we turn over EVERYTHING to the Iraqi Govt, we can get the heck out of there.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Kicky - I will not accept media reports of "4 times the insurgents...." bs line. The "insurgents" where "in the neighborhood" for some time and found an easy excuse to go to Iraq to kill Americans. To say that al-quiada is building "recruiting offices" in the area is false. The terrorists are coming from Syria, Pakistan, Iran et al.

GW and ANY OTHER US President will nto be able to get them out entirely. The Iraqi Givt and the Iraqi people will have to step up and fight for themselves. Our troops have done too much for them alreadyand the sooner we turn over EVERYTHING to the Iraqi Govt, we can get the heck out of there.

...and leave them to their new bloody civil war. How liberating.

0 Replies

woiyo:

Quote:

It would have cost more in civilian casualties...

...which would kill more innocents.

Regarding Bush's inability to communicate in a constant manner is actually a BIG part of the cause (IMO). But his ability to lie and control the media to avoid embarrasment is an even BIGGER part of the cause for all the hatred.

Also, the complete inability and failure to realize what the insurgency would become by our top leaders is atrocious. Millions of protestors around the world knew. Hundreds of thousands in this country knew. How can you possibly defend that kind if ineptitude?

0 Replies

Kicky - Who said we are liberators?

0 Replies

Careful what you say, woiyo:

Quote:

Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own Governing Council, comprised of 25 leaders representing Iraq's diverse people. The Governing Council recently appointed cabinet ministers to run government departments. Already more than 90 percent of towns and cities have functioning local governments, which are restoring basic services. We are helping to train civil defense forces to keep order -- and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law -- and a facilities protection service -- and Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders -- and a new Iraqi army. In all these roles, there are now some 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, defending the security of their own country -- and we are accelerating the training of more.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96677,00.html

0 Replies

Dookie - Once again, read carefully, GW has been unable to communicate effectively.

Constitutionally, we have no business being in the "liberation" business.

IMO, Iraq was constitutional as it was a defensive measeure.

Regardless of how some appointed advisor wants to spin this for the purpose of political correctness.

Dookie - I will not repond to your prior post as it should be evident that I supported the effort going into Iraq and not fully supported the efforts post Saddam.

Apparently we have a fundemental difference of opinion regarding this issue, and if it is not apparent to you that I am being objective here as opposed to partisen, then the problem lays in your lap.

0 Replies

woiyo:

Why should it be MY problem if we have a disagreement? My beef is that if we had the foresight to anticipate what is happening now (as all those protestors did), then why agree to the invasion at all? Especially if you knew then what you know now?

Besides, it isn't just Dumbya "mispeaking" on the issue of liberation:

Quote:

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, could you give us an idea of your views of the interim administration (of Iraq), how quickly it might be set up . . . ? SECRETARY POWELL: We are anxious to move quickly now that the day of liberation is drawing near. I don't know when it will happen. But, certainly, we can see what's going to happen in the not-too-distant future, we hope.

Quote:

We come as an army of liberation, and we want to see the Iraqis running their own affairs as soon as they can.

Quote:

They told us, "Liberation now," and then they made it occupation. Bush said he was a liberator, not an occupier, and we supported the United States on this basis.

What is definition of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" other than to LIBERATE a people?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:
Yes, increased terrorism, out of wedlock births, obesity and overpriced Viagra can all be attributed and blamed on Kerry.

see? we should have stopped him after he sabotaged the hindenburg!!

The Common Cold however can be attributed to the person who posted this thread.

0 Replies

That is very true. Feeling a little sniffly, padmasambava? He he he.

0 Replies

Number of Iraq insurgents on the rise.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know