9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:39 pm
okie wrote:
And I don't suppose Hussein's defiance of all of those resolutions through the years matter either?

Oh well, forget it, but if Iraq turns out to be successful, thanks for all your help in enforcing the U.N. resolutions, Germany, France, etc. I see now that Nicolas Sarkozy seems to get it anyway.



Different thing.

Enforcing UN resolutions did (and does) matter. That's what the embargo was for. That's what the weapons inspectors did. Arguably, that's what the no-fly zones were for. And all of that quite successfully, one might argue: no WMD were found in Iraq. Not even evidence of as much as a programme. Nothing.


But the American invasion of Iraq was no matter of enforcing UN resolutions. The United States had declared to go into Iraq "with or without" a UN mandate. If necessary, in defiance of the expressed will of the UN Security Council. How that could be possibly construed as enforcing UN resolutions is beyond comprehension.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 10:36 pm
Quote:
Bush is not comparable to Napoleon at all. Napoleon conquered, while Bush simply reacted to an aggressor nation that threatened his neighbors and us, plus was a ruthless dictator over his own people. So Bush has not conquered Iraq at all, but instead has liberated the Iraqis from a brutal dictator so that they can gain freedom to govern their own country, and has removed a regional and world threat in the name of Saddam Hussein. And Bush has not done anything without the full support of a duly elected Congress.


Have you just been out to lunch these last few years or what? None of that except the last sentence has any truth to it at the time of the invasion in 2003.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 11:07 pm
Congress gave 23 "whereases" (i.e., reasons) to justify invasion of Iraq. Thirteen of those reasons were subsequently verified. Only ten of those 23 reasons--the ten that alleged WMD in Iraq--were subsequently shown to be false. The notion that because some reasons turned out to be false, all the reasons given were false, is a stupid notion.

Congress wrote:

Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
[10th]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq
…

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 09/08/2006, wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq

Wikipedia wrote:

Ansar-al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001.
...
Ansar al-Islam comprised about 300 armed men, many of these veterans from the Afghan war, and a proportion being neither Kurd nor Arab. Ansar al-Islam is alleged to be connected to al-Qaeda, and provided an entry point for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Afghan veterans to enter Iraq.

Colin Powell wrote:

Speech to UN February 5, 2003
When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.
...

General Franks, describing the Iraq invasion he led in March 2003, wrote:

American Soldier, page 519, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
... a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Isla terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 07:19 am
Ican, all that Ansar al-Islam stuff has been gone over so many times but here along with other assertions again:

Quote:


links at the source

That tiny little terrorist operation which operated independently of OBL and AQ in the northern part of Iraq outside of Saddam Hussien control and in the control of the US any time it wanted and passed up; was not justification for an invasion and occupation of Iraq when you consider that most of the AQ operatives from right after the fall of taliban (which is now back in operation)went on to Pakistan and other places. Nor was the fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who abused and oppressed his own people when you consider that other nations did the same at the time of the invasion. There was no need to stir up all that trouble at the UN in the first place and taking our eyes off the ball at Afghanistan and AQ and once having gone to the UN there were certainly no need to cut the inspections short just because the results were not what we wanted which turned out to be true. Moreover, the administration knew their information was faulty (links have been left in the past as well as some of the above information) and they just didn't care because they wanted to go to war.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 07:50 am
Quote:
Oh well, forget it, but if Iraq turns out to be successful, thanks for all your help in enforcing the U.N. resolutions, Germany, France, etc. I see now that Nicolas Sarkozy seems to get it anyway.


This is like someone breaking something and then putting it somewhat back together again and then telling everyone else who had nothing to do with it and in fact warned you of the consequences of your actions; "thanks for helping" in a smart elect manner for not helping.

"and all the kings horses..."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 12:11 pm
revel wrote:
Ican, all that Ansar al-Islam stuff has been gone over so many times but here along with other assertions again:

Quote:
OCTOBER 7, 2002: Bush Misled Us Into War


Three years ago today, President Bush visited Cincinnati to deliver a major address outlining the reasons for war, just as Congress was considering whether to vote in favor of giving Bush the authorization to attack Iraq. On October 7, 2002, Bush made a number of misleading and exaggerated statements about the Iraqi threat.

...

links at the source


That tiny little terrorist operation which operated independently of OBL and AQ in the northern part of Iraq outside of Saddam Hussien control and in the control of the US any time it wanted and passed up; was not justification for an invasion and occupation of Iraq when you consider that most of the AQ operatives from right after the fall of taliban (which is now back in operation)went on to Pakistan and other places. Nor was the fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who abused and oppressed his own people when you consider that other nations did the same at the time of the invasion. There was no need to stir up all that trouble at the UN in the first place and taking our eyes off the ball at Afghanistan and AQ and once having gone to the UN there were certainly no need to cut the inspections short just because the results were not what we wanted which turned out to be true. Moreover, the administration knew their information was faulty (links have been left in the past as well as some of the above information) and they just didn't care because they wanted to go to war.


May 19, 1996, the "tiny little terrorist operation" of less than 100 called al -Qaeda moved from Sudan to Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda grew rapidly into a worldwide confederation of terrorist groups. By September 11, 2001, that "tiny little terrorist operation" had grown and sent an even tiny-er group of 19 to murder almost 3,000 people.

On December 19, 2001, after our invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, some of that "tiny little terrorist operation" fled from Afghanistan to Iraq. By the time the USA invaded Iraq, March 20, 2003, that same "tiny little terrorist operation" of almost 300 had grown to a "tiny little terrorist operation" of over a thousand. After that "tiny little terrorist operation" in Iraq fled our invasion, they subsequently returned. We have not yet completed the extermination of that "tiny little terrorist operation" in Iraq. Is it because they are too tiny?

The big question is of course: How big would that "tiny little terrorist operation" in Iraq have grown by April 11, 2006, if the USA had not invaded Iraq?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 02:58 pm
Hey ican, use a little common sense.

AQ was outside of Saddam's control. It was within Bush's control. He didn't take them out. He wasn't interested in taking them out because he wanted to use them for political purposes. That small AQ group that could have been destroyed by Bush is not a justifiable reason or excuse to invade Iraq.

BTW;

Quote:
McClellan stepped down from the position in May of 2006, and has since penned a book that will finally allow him to do what he never could as press secretary: tell all.

Public Affairs, who will be publishing the book, has posted this excerpt, which gives one a helping of insight into how McClellan views his years of service:

Quote:
The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There was one problem. It was not true.

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/19/scott-mcclellan-grabs-a-s_n_73386.html
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 05:53 pm
xingu wrote:
Hey ican, use a little common sense.

AQ was outside of Saddam's control. It was within Bush's control. He didn't take them out. He wasn't interested in taking them out because he wanted to use them for political purposes. That small AQ group that could have been destroyed by Bush is not a justifiable reason or excuse to invade Iraq.

...


By all means, let us use some common sense.

Yes, AQ in northeastern Iraq was outside of Saddam's "control." The word control in this context meant only that northeastern Iraq was outside that territory Saddam was permitted to govern.

In 1996, that didn't prevent Saddam from invading Irbil in northeastern Iraq. So Saddam did have the power to invade northeastern Iraq whether or not it was under his control.

The USA recognized Saddam's power over that part of notheastern Iraq in which AQ was located, when it two times in 2002 and once in 2003, more than a month before it invaded Iraq, requested that Saddam extradite the leadership of AQ in northeastern Iraq. Saddam ignored all three of those requests, neither disagreeing with or agreeing to that extradition.

It's true the USA could have limited the USA's invasion to the AQ part of northeastern Iraq. However, it is likely AQ would have re-entered northeastern Iraq when the USA removed its troops from there. By removing Saddam's government and replacing it with an elected constitutional democratic government, it was expected that when the USA left Iraq, that elected government would prevent AQ from again obtaining sanctuary in Iraq.

Yes, it has been an experiment costing far more than anticipated, and it still is not clear whether that experiment will fail or succeed. But the probability of that success or failure is the real issue, and not whether Saddam possessed the power to extradite the leadership of AQ in northeastern Iraq. Saddam did have that power, but chose not to exercise it.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 06:31 pm
ican wrote:
It's true the USA could have limited the USA's invasion to the AQ part of northeastern Iraq. However, it is likely AQ would have re-entered northeastern Iraq when the USA removed its troops from there. By removing Saddam's government and replacing it with an elected constitutional democratic government, it was expected that when the USA left Iraq, that elected government would prevent AQ from again obtaining sanctuary in Iraq.



What a pile of crap. We could have bombed them into a pile of dust and if they came back we could continue to bomb them into a pile of dust. They were in the no fly zone and we flew over that territory on a daily basis, by both chopper and fighters.

Your trying to find some justification for our invasion of Iraq and there is none. This excuse you are coming up with is pathetic.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 07:11 pm
xingu wrote:
ican wrote:
It's true the USA could have limited the USA's invasion to the AQ part of northeastern Iraq. However, it is likely AQ would have re-entered northeastern Iraq when the USA removed its troops from there. By removing Saddam's government and replacing it with an elected constitutional democratic government, it was expected that when the USA left Iraq, that elected government would prevent AQ from again obtaining sanctuary in Iraq.



What a pile of crap. We could have bombed them into a pile of dust and if they came back we could continue to bomb them into a pile of dust. They were in the no fly zone and we flew over that territory on a daily basis, by both chopper and fighters.

Your trying to find some justification for our invasion of Iraq and there is none. This excuse you are coming up with is pathetic.


Clinton tried bombing them into a pile of dust in Afghanistan, but was unsuccessful. It would have been crazy for Bush to try the samething in Iraq and Afghanistan expecting a different result.

I didn't have to find "some justification" for invading Iraq. Congress did that for us. It included the same justification they found for invading Afghanistan.

Congress wrote:

Congress's Joint Resolution September 14, 2001

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
...
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


Congress wrote:

Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002

Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
[10th]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 12:50 pm
============================================================

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
A Month by Month, Daily Average of IBC's Count of Violent Deaths in Iraq, After April 30, 2007:

May = 3,755 / 31 = ………………... 121 per day

…………….. Surge fully operational in June ……………..

June = 2,386 / 30 = …………......… 80 per day.
July = 2,077 / 31 = …………......... 67 per day.
August = 2,084 / 31 = ……...…...... 67 per day.
September = 1,333 / 30 = ……….. 44 per day.
October = 1,962 / 31 = ……...….... 63 per day
November = 138 / 5 = ……………. 28 per day.*
{138 = 84,226 - 84,088}
December= ----? / 31 = ----? per day.**

… *Data currently available for only first 5 days of this month.
… **Data not yet available.

_____________________________________________________________________________

As of October 31, 2007, Total Iraq Violent Deaths since January 1, 2003 = 84,088
_____________________________________________________________________________

Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE and POST January 1, 2003:

PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;

POST = 1/1/2003 - 11/05/2007 = 84,226/1,770 days = …... 48 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/48 = 2.95.
_____________________________________________________________________________

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

The USA wins and succeeds in Iraq when the daily rate of violent deaths in Iraq decreases below 30, remains less than 30, while we are removing our troops, and remains less than 30 for at least a year after we have completed our departure.


============================================================

http://www.icasualties.org
MILITARY FATALITIES IN IRAQ BY MONTH

As of November 22, 2007 = 1709 days in Iraq.

Month .... Totals ……. US ….. UK …. OCC …. DA
11-2007 ...... 33 ……….. 30……. 2 …….. 1 ……. 1.5{=33/22}
10-2007 ...... 40 ……….. 38 …... 1 …….. 1 ……. 1
9-2007 ........ 69 ……….. 65 ……. 2 …….. 2 ……. 2
8-2007 ........ 88 ……….. 84 ……. 4 …….. 0 ……. 3
7-2007 ........ 87 ……….. 78 ……. 8 …….. 1 ……. 3
6-2007 ….... 108 ………. 101 ……. 7 …….. 0 ……. 4
5-2007 ....... 131 ……… 126 ….. 3 …….. 2 ……. 4
4-2007 ....... 117 …….. 104 …… 12 …….. 1 ……. 4
3-2007 ........ 82 ……….. 81 ….… 1 ……… 0 ……. 3
2-2007 ........ 84 ……….. 81 ….… 3 ……… 1 ……. 3
1-2007 ........ 86 ……….. 83 ….… 3 ……… 0 ……. 3

...

3-2003 ….... 92 ....... 65 ….... 27 …….... 0 ……. 3 …
Total ....... 4180 …... 3874 …. 173 ..... 133 …… 2.45{=4180/1709}

US=United States
UK=United Kingdom
OCC=Other Coalition Countries
DA=Daily Average (for the month)

============================================================
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 06:49 am
Twin Bombings Kill at Least 26 in Iraq

Quote:
BAGHDAD (AP) -- A bomb exploded in a pet market in central Baghdad on Friday, killing at least 13 people and wounding dozens, Iraqi police said, shattering the festive atmosphere as people strolled past the animal stalls.

Hours later, a suicide car bomber struck a police checkpoint in the northern city of Mosul, killing another 13 people, including three policemen and 10 civilians, police Brig. Gen. Mohammed al-Wakaa said. The 1:30 p.m. explosion also left 10 cars charred.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 12:04 pm
Traitorous Commander wants America to lose

Quote:
Former Iraq Commander Backs Democrats on Pullout

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 22, 2007; Page A23

Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, is scheduled to speak on behalf of the Democratic Party this weekend in support of a House war funding bill that would require President Bush to bring the bulk of U.S. troops home from Iraq by the end of next year.

Sanchez, who has spoken out against the Bush administration's handling of the war and has assailed current war strategy as doomed to fail, plans to argue that the United States cannot win in Iraq with the military alone and that it is prudent to bring troops home to bolster national security.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102497.html?nav=rss_nation/special
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 07:42 am
Poland to withdraw its troops from Iraq in 2008

Quote:
Warsaw - Poland will withdraw all its troops from Iraq by the end of 2008, new Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in his first address to the Polish parliament on Friday.

'We will conduct this operation keeping in mind that our commitment to our ally, the United States, has been lived up to and exceeded,' he said.

'The specific logistics and date will come from consultations with our allies, including our main ally, the United States. But 2008 is the last year of the polish military mission in Iraq,' he added.

According to the new government programme of Tusk's People's Platform (PO) and its coalition partner, the Polish Peasants' Party (PSL), the country would also refrain from signing the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights because it did not want to jeopardize the ratification of the EU Reform Treaty in Poland.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 11:30 am
Quote:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08152007/postopinion/editorials/good_news_from_iraq_editorials_.htm
August 15, 2007 -- News out of Iraq continues to be encouraging: High-profile attacks have fallen nearly 50 percent since the start of the troop surge, USA Today reported this week.
Gen. David Petraeus, commanding the war in Iraq, says hundreds of al Qaeda fighters were killed or captured in just the past month alone.
Tips about the enemy are up fourfold over the last year - to some 23,000 a month.
"Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad, in the USA Today report. "They are turning against al Qaeda."
It's a sign of the preliminary success of a number of operations now under way, as troop strength has finally reached the maximum planned by the surge.
To think that just a month ago, Democrats were trying to pull the plug on Iraq.
Maybe they feared exactly what is happening: The tide in Iraq seems to be turning in America's favor - and that spells bad news for the Dems, who've pinned their own political fates on the White House failing in the war.
Democrats aren't the only ones who have suddenly gone mum: Little by way of saber-rattling has been heard from the mullahs' motor-mouth in Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The shifts, in rhetoric and on the ground, could portend, well . . . anything.
The enemy may be laying low, figuring they can't bear - at the moment, anyway - the high cost of additional attacks and confrontations.
Or they may be re-arming for a major offensive.
Surely they've by no means ended their violence completely, even temporarily: Yesterday, suicide bombers killed at least 175 people and wounded 200.
But Coalition forces aren't letting up, either: This week, they launched a third major campaign, Operation Phantom Strike, aimed at disrupting al Qaeda and Iranian-backed operations.
The verdict is still out on Iraq. Far-left Democrats may yet force a premature pullout.
But Americans can hope for the best. There's no reason to cut this war short.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 11:47 am
Quote:

http://current.com/items/87682501_good_news_from_iraq
Last year, I blogged here that we should forget about all the benchmarks that attempt to measure whether the situation in Iraq is improving or deteriorating. We will know, I wrote, that things are getting better if the Iraqis themselves feel it is so and the millions who fled the country begin to return. Today, the BBC reports that Iraqi authorities estimate that 1,000 people a day are now making there way back home. This is the latest in a sudden string of "good news" stories coming out of Iraq. Last week, my hometown newspaper, Newsday, ran a two-page feature that began with this: "Since the last soldiers of the 'surge' deployed last May, Baghdad has undergone a remarkable transformation. No longer do the streets empty at dusk. Liquor stores and cinemas have reopened for business. Some shops stay open until late into the evening. Children play in parks, young women stay out after dark, restaurants are filled with families, and old men sit at sidewalk cafes playing backgammon and smoking sheesha pipes." And yesterday, the New York Times reported that a sense of normalcy was returning to Baghdad. "The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February...As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city." Most stories credit the "surge", particularly the US's alliance with local Sunni tribal leaders to get rid of Al Qaeda types in Baghdad and the Al Anbar province. We don't want to get ahead of ourselves here, especially since there are many great challenges to achieving peace in the country as a whole. But we can hope that these reports are a sign of shift toward better days for the Iraqi people. Inshallah.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 11:49 am
Quote:

http://newsblaze.com/iraqgoodnews.html
In early 2005, with the media only reporting the bad things happening in Iraq and none of the good, NewsBlaze started the "Support Our Troops" section, to show the other side of the story, with soldiers in Iraq sending stories.
Travel back in time, day by day, to see the stories about Iraqis receiving clean running water where none was before, schools opening, health improvements and local economies improving. Also stories of Sunnis and Shia'a, living tens of miles apart who had never spoken to each other, working together to improve their own security, coached and encouraged by American heroes.
There are stories of Iraqis helping the soldiers to find bombs, insurgents and weapons caches and stories of Iraqi soldiers, grateful for the opportunity to be trained how to serve their country and learning to think for themselves rather than always being told what to do and where to go, as they were under Saddam.
Support Our Troops by reading their stories and discover the truth that's been hidden for too long.
The Hire A Hero network helps Military members network and find meaningful employment.
Support Our Troops, Read Their Stories
Troops Detain 7 in Raids on al Qaeda Media Network
Coalition forces in Iraq detained seven suspects today in three coordinated operations targeting al Qaeda's media network southeast of Samarra.
106 minutes ago
Soldier re-enlists hours after IED injury
A U.S. Soldier re-enlisted in the Army just hours after being seriously wounded in an improvised explosive attack near Zaganiyah, Iraq, Nov. 13.
71 hours ago
PHOTOS: 'Grey Wolf' Prepares for Redeployment
In preparation for redeployment from a 14-month deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom 06-08, vehicles from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, line up to depart.
71 hours ago
4-2 Stryker Brigade expands into all of Diyala province
The 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division from Fort Lewis, Wash., is in the process of expanding its area of responsibility to include all of Diyala province, Iraq.
3 days ago
Key Leaders Tour Obock Project Sites
Distinguished visitors toured several project sites in Obock to get a first-hand glimpse of Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa's operations, during a key leadership engagement, Nov. 12.
4 days ago
Master Trainer Program Raises The Bar
National Guard and Reserve units have become a very integral part of fighting the global war on terrorism making up about one in every four units deployed at any one time.
4 days ago
PHOTO: 'Saber' Squadron Cases Colors, Heads Home
Lt. Col. Keith Gogas and Command Sgt. Maj. Paul Thompson, leaders of 6-9 Armored Reconnaissance Squadron, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, case the 'Saber' Squadron.
5 days ago
Deployed Soldiers Dedicate Sports Bar to Fallen Comrade
Smith was a cook for the 'Grey Wolf' Brigade and won the III Corps Cook of the Year award before deploying with his unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom 06-08.
6 days ago
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 12:14 pm
Quote:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 12:21 pm
Then of course there is the Soros Gang's "Newspeak" version of the news in Iraq ... to follow.
...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 06:27 pm
Ican; if you think it is going so well and it is worth being there; why aren't you there yourself? Even if you are too old (no offense; many of us are) to be in the service; I am sure there is something you can do rather than to continue on day after day advocating this senseless drain of other people's lives and resources.

If you don't get your news from 'newspeak Rolling Eyes '; tell me; where do you get your news? What criterion do you use to gauge whether it is 'newspeak' or real news? If it agrees with what you think; it ain't newspeak; if it don't agree with you it is newspeak?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/22/2025 at 08:49:06