If after the USA were to leave Iraq before succeeding there, and
if the average number of American non-murderers suicidally mass murdered per year per suicidal mass murderer were 100, and
if there were only 100 such suicidal mass murders per year,
then 10,000 American non-murderers would be suicidally murdered per year.
Clearly, it doesn't necessarily require thousands of suicidal mass murderers per year to cause annual horrific slaughters inside America.
Why would 100 suicidal mass murderers bother to come to America each year after our military withdraws from Iraq prior to success in Iraq?
That number--or larger--would come according to the Muslim's quoted by D'Souza in his book THE ENEMY AT HOME, because they were convinced that mass murdering American non-murderers was necessary to eventually stop America from continuing to endanger Islam's existence by American
secular proselytizing.
Secular proselytizing 
What's that? That's a group of secularists trying to persuade others that their system of beliefs based on their faith is what others should adopt.
Quote:religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
For example, by that definition, theism and atheism are each religons.
No one has yet proved to a certainty that God exists or does not exist. Since both systems of belief are held to with ardor and faith, both are religions.
ican711nm wrote:If after the USA were to leave Iraq before succeeding there, and
if the average number of American non-murderers suicidally mass murdered per year per suicidal mass murderer were 100, and
if there were only 100 such suicidal mass murders per year,
then 10,000 American non-murderers would be suicidally murdered per year.
Clearly, it doesn't necessarily require thousands of suicidal mass murderers per year to cause annual horrific slaughters inside America.
Why would 100 suicidal mass murderers bother to come to America each year after our military withdraws from Iraq prior to success in Iraq?
That number--or larger--would come according to the Muslim's quoted by D'Souza in his book THE ENEMY AT HOME, because they were convinced that mass murdering American non-murderers was necessary to eventually stop America from continuing to endanger Islam's existence by American
secular proselytizing.
Secular proselytizing What's that? That's a group of secularists trying to persuade others that their system of beliefs based on their faith is what others should adopt.
Quote:religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
For example, by that definition, theism and atheism are each religons.
No one has yet proved to a certainty that God exists or does not exist. Since both systems of belief are held to with ardor and faith, both are religions.
And staying in Iraq keeps these people from carrying out their plans how? Only 135 of the so called al-Qaeda in Iraq are from other countries, the rest are Iraqi born and have been there when Sadddam Hussien was still in charge of Iraq. They were not coming to America then to mass suicide murder us so why would they now if we left? For your reasons for staying in Iraq we should be Saudi Arabia as they have more al-Qaeda than Iraq ever has had or ever will have.
Naw, Saudi Arabia has too much oil for us to "disrupt" the flow to the US.
ican711nm wrote:revel wrote:
...
And staying in Iraq keeps these people from carrying out their plans how?
Their plan is to wait until we pull out of Iraq before succeeding in Iraq. Then when by that they are reassured we are losers, they will attack us until we cease our secular proselytizing of Muslims.
Only 135 of the so called al-Qaeda in Iraq are from other countries, the rest are Iraqi born and have been there when Sadddam Hussien was still in charge of Iraq.
Your numbers are wrong. There were 300 al-Qaeda in Iraq in December 2001. That number grew substantially right up to our invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Since then they have been pouring into Iraq from neighboring countries. While we have killed a great many since our invasion, more are coming in each day.
They were not coming to America then to mass suicide murder us so why would they now if we left?
Al-Qaeda prior to our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq came to America and murdered 3,000 American non-murderers.
Al-Qaeda is determined to win. They think they are more likely to win if we show we are controlled by our weak easily intinidated cultural left.
For your reasons for staying in Iraq we should be Saudi Arabia as they have more al-Qaeda than Iraq ever has had or ever will have.
Perhaps we should be in Saudi Arabia too. What evidence can you provide to support your claim that: "Saudi Arabia [has] more al-Qaeda than Iraq ever has had or ever will have?"
Regardless, so far as I know the al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia are not mass murdering Saudi Arabians, and the Saudi Arabian government has convinced Bush they are trying to remove al-Qaeda from their country.
Yes, Bush could be wrong about this too.
For the most part; Ican, you are more trouble than you are worth because you stick to debunked (or outdated or even made up by you or one of your sources) data.
On 9/11 men from Saudi Arabia murdered 3000 people in the US, not Iraqis. There was no real al-Qaeda before we invaded despite your repeating that false statement a hundred times no matter how many times people prove you false. Iraqis didn't come to our shores or participate in any way with Bin laden under Saddam Hussein to murder Americans. So there is no reason to think they will come when we leave. And my numbers of how many so called 'al-Qaeda' in Iraq are foreign born is 135. The rest are Iraqis who were there under saddam Hussian and didn't blow anybody up in the US.
source
15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.
Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi
Saudi Arabians has been funding the insurgency in Iraq since the invasion.
Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunni insurgents
Before 9/11 there was not any corrobating relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Now there are some 135 foreign Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the rest of the 5000 to 10000 al-Qaedas in Iraq are Iraqi born who previously were not involved with al-Qaeda before the invasion. They are now turning against the foreign al-Qaeda as they realize that the foreign al-Qaeda have different goals than they do.
Rift seen in Iraq insurgency -- some groups reject al Qaeda
You have the problem of lumping every Muslim/Arab who has issues or who is violent into one bag and that is not the case.
The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."
The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."
<snip>
Scaife has been a loyal backer of Republican politicians and many conservative causes, and funded a network of investigations into President Clinton during the 1990s.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612271
ican, Read the following article, and memorize it in your brain. It's a story that refutes everything you've been posting on a2k.
Iraqi sects are locked in power struggle
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Sat Jul 21, 7:03 PM ET
BAGHDAD - At an intersection in the Sadiyah section of the capital, near the tip of the thumb formed by a sharp bend in the Tigris River, stands a stark example of what underlies Iraq's sectarian war and why any peaceful outcome will not be determined by U.S. combat power.
mysteryman wrote:
The repub plan,as far as I know,is to leave when the job is done,not before.
Um. Define the job, again.
This report is from over one year ago, and yet it sounds like the same message coming out of this administration; we're making progress.
We're succeeding in Iraq, Bush says
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Mar 20, 2006 by Nedra Pickler Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Bush marked the anniversary of the Iraq war Sunday by touting the efforts to build democracy there and avoiding any mention of the daily violence that rages three years after he ordered an invasion.
The president didn't utter the word "war."
"We are implementing a strategy that will lead to victory in Iraq," the president assured a public that is increasingly skeptical that he has a plan to end the fighting after the deaths of more than 2,300 U.S. troops.
In cities around the globe for the second day Sunday, tens of thousands of protesters chanted "Stop the War" and called for the withdrawal of troops.
Attendance at the demonstrations worldwide was lower than organizers had predicted and far short of the millions who protested the initial invasion in March 2003 and the first anniversary in 2004.
In Portland, Ore., police estimated that 10,000 people turned out for a march through downtown.
"It is time now for you to take back your country," said Steven DeFord at a pre-march rally. His son, Oregon National Guard Sgt. David Johnson, 37, was killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb in September 2004.
In newspaper columns and on television news shows Sunday , administration officials repeated the mantra that progress continues toward building a unified Iraqi government and nation.
"Now is the time for resolve, not retreat," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote in a column for The Washington Post. "Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis."
Advertisement
Yet there were acknowledgments from the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq that the situation is fragile and that he did not predict the strength of the insurgency.
"I did not think it would be as robust as it has been," Gen. George W. Casey said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And it's something that, obviously, with my time here on the ground, my thinking on that has gained much greater clarity and insight."
Bush did not mention the insurgent attacks, the car bombs or the mounting Iraqi deaths in a two-minute statement to reporters outside the White House after returning from a weekend at Camp David. Avoiding the word "war," he called the day "the third anniversary of the beginning of the liberation of Iraq."
The president only indirectly referred to the violence when he said he spent the morning reflecting on the sacrifices made by U.S. troops. Bush said he spoke by phone earlier in the day with the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, and had received a positive report.
The White House is trying to remind the disapproving public of Bush's vision for Iraq with a public relations blitz. The president plans to give a series of speeches on Iraq, beginning Monday in Cleveland.
More than three-fourths of the public thinks it's likely that Iraq is headed toward civil war, according to an AP-Ipsos poll taken in early March.
And two-thirds of Americans say the United States is losing ground in preventing civil war in Iraq, according to a Pew Research Center poll taken in the same period. That's up from 48 percent in January.
On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney did not express any regret for predicting in the days before the invasion that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators or his assessment 10 months ago that the insurgency was in its "last throes." On the contrary, he said the optimistic statements "were basically accurate, reflect reality."
Like Bush, Cheney touted the political progress in Iraq, pointing out that the Iraqis have met the political deadlines set for them and predicting they will form a unified government "shortly."
In an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation," Cheney flatly rejected a statement made earlier Sunday by Iraq's former interim prime minister that the increasing attacks killing dozens each day across his country can only be described as a civil war. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," Ayad Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp.
Instead, Cheney described the violence as the actions of terrorists who have "reached a stage of desperation."
"What we've seen is a serious effort by them to foment a civil war," Cheney said. "But I don't think they've been successful."
Cheney blamed the negative perception on news coverage of the daily violence instead of the progress being made toward democracy.
Year after year after year after year....you get the message, don't you?
Bush goes begging to the UN again :
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Under pressure to start withdrawing U.S. troops, the Bush administration wants the United Nations to play an expanded role in Iraq as a mediator both internally and with neighboring countries.
Khalilzad said Washington endorsed Ban's call for an expanded U.N. role. "The United Nations possesses certain comparative advantages for undertaking complex internal and regional mediation efforts," he said.
His remarks were in sharp contrast to the war of words between Washington and the United Nations in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion and in the years since then. Ban's predecessor Kofi Annan said later the invasion was "illegal."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070720/pl_nm/iraq_usa_un_dc;_ylt=AgH4Ii7f6WOriBHoWBSQURMa.3QA
So George Bush has to go to the UN for a second time to bail him out of the mess he got into in Iraq.
I thought these UN guys were irrelevant?
Dick Dastardly (love your moniker), Welcome to a2k. As you can see, the biggest problem we have with conservatives is their very short memory spans. Bushco did call the UN "irrelevant," and most of our allies "old Europe."
From that time forward to now, the so-called "coalition of the willing" have all but disappeared, and Bushco not only extended the US soldiers tour of duty in a war zone for longer periods, but reneged on the contracts to discharge soldiers when their term was up. Added to that insult, Bush cut veteran's benefit (yes, he increased the dollar amount, but not enough to meet the increasing demand) and added co-pays for soldiers, while some are discharged without having recovered from their war injuries.
That some members of congress and the American Public would still support this president and administration is mind-boggling.
US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 25 September 2005
US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.
A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine.
"The Department of Defense's increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements, dictated by the army's transformation to a more self-sustaining and lethal force - which was accelerated after the attacks of 11 September, 2001 - and by the deployment of forces to conduct recent US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq," said the report by the General Accounting Office (GAO).
Estimating how many bullets US forces have expended for every insurgent killed is not a simple or precisely scientific matter. The former head of US forces in Iraq, General Tommy Franks, famously claimed that his forces "don't do body counts".
But senior officers have recently claimed "great successes" in Iraq, based on counting the bodies of insurgents killed. Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, the top US military spokesman in Iraq, said 1,534 insurgents had been seized or killed in a recent operation in the west of Baghdad. Other estimates from military officials suggest that at least 20,000 insurgents have been killed in President George Bush's "war on terror".
John Pike, director of the Washington military research group GlobalSecurity.org, said that, based on the GAO's figures, US forces had expended around six billion bullets between 2002 and 2005. "How many evil-doers have we sent to their maker using bullets rather than bombs? I don't know," he said.
"If they don't do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let's round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating."
Pointing out that officials say many of these bullets have been used for training purposes, he said: "What are you training for? To kill insurgents."
Kathy Kelly, a spokeswoman for the peace group Voices in the Wilderness, said Mr Bush believed security for the American people could come only from the use of force. Truer security would be achieved if the US developed fairer relations with other countries and was not involved in the occupation of Iraq. The President, said Ms Kelly, should learn from Israel's experience of "occupying the Palestinians" rather than buying its ammunition.
The GAO report notes that the three government-owned, contractor-operated plants that produce small- and medium-calibre ammunition were built in 1941.
Though millions of dollars have been spent on upgrading the facilities, they remain unable to meet current munitions needs in their current state. "The government-owned plant producing small-calibre ammunition cannot meet the increased requirements, even with modernisation efforts," said the report.
"Also, commercial producers within the national technology and industrial base have not had the capacity to meet these requirements. As a result, the Department of Defense had to rely at least in part on foreign commercial producers to meet its small-calibre ammunition needs."
A report in Manufacturing & Technology News said that the Pentagon eventually found two producers capable of meeting its requirements. One of these was the US firm Olin-Winchester.
The other was Israel Military Industries, an Israeli ammunition manufacturer linked to the Israeli government, which produces the bulk of weapons and ordnance for the Israeli Defence Force.
The Pentagon reportedly bought 313 million rounds of 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50-calibre ammunition last year and paid $10m (about £5.5m) more than it would have cost for it to produce the ammunition at its own facilities.
Isn't it amazing that we can spend so much in armament to kill while our country struggles with our own health care system at home?
It seems it's more important to kill Iraqis than to help our own citizens with health issues.
This report is current:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General seeks troop cut in northern IraqMixon acknowledged that a U.S. shift in northern Iraq meant risking gains made over recent years. But he said it would have important political benefits in Baghdad.
You can almost put your money on this analysis; terrorists will shift to this area from others in Iraq.
"To be perfectly frank with you, it puts the Iraqi central government in a position of having to assume responsibility for the security situation," Mixon said in a telephone interview from his headquarters at Camp Speicher, near the city of Tikrit.
It is not clear whether the government will be capable of fulfilling that responsibility as early as next year.
It was declared in a congressional hearing that the Shia militia now controls the southern part of Iraq. Baghdad will never be secure, and the north will be attacked as soon as the US troops are moved south.
The biggest problem is the Iraqi government; they're impotent, and that's not going to change this year, next year, or any subsequent year.
How long will our government allow our troops to get killed and maimed for an outlook that's not even predictable? It can't be done with 160,000 US troops in Iraq; mission impossible - no if's, and's or but's. .
Congress knows how to waste time and money. It's no wonder they enjoy such a low performance rating.
cicerone imposter wrote:Isn't it amazing that we can spend so much in armament to kill while our country struggles with our own health care system at home?
It seems it's more important to kill Iraqis than to help our own citizens with health issues.
Our government is not and cannot be competent to help our own citizens with health issues whether we leave Iraq before we succeed there or not.
By leaving Iraq before we succeed our own citizens will have an explosion of health issues that our government will also not be able to help.
You accuse me of doing exactly what you have been doing and are doing.
