9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 09:45 am
bbb wrote :

Quote:
3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'


yes , i too heard the report on CNN this morning .
unfortunately , i too have to decline this fabulous job offer ... it's my day to do the vacuuming .
perhaps later this month i may reconsider .
hbg
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 09:47 am
I just want to know was invading Iraq worth it and did it work to make the world safer as those who wantedthe war claimed before the invasion?

Here is a picture of the Baghdad in 2002

http://www.theodora.com/wfb/photos/iraq/street_vendor_baghdad_jan_oberg.jpg

Here is a picture of Baghdad after the invasion

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/12/baghdad1212G_450x308.jpg

And AQ has claimed responsiblity for the Algeria's capitol which was bombed today.

Al Qaeda claims deadly Algiers bombings

Quote:
ALGIERS (Reuters) - Bombs killed 30 people in Algeria's capital on Wednesday, attacks claimed by al Qaeda that raised fears the north African oil exporter was slipping back into the intense political violence of the 1990s.

One of the blasts, believed to be a suicide bombing, ripped part of the facade off the prime minister's headquarters in the centre of Algiers. A second bomb hit Bab Ezzouar on its eastern outskirts, the official APS news agency said.

The Al Qaeda Organisation in the Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility for the bombings, Al Jazeera television reported.


Are we safer? Will killing more Islamics make us any safer the world over? It seems to me all this war is having the opposite effect of making us any safer. Surely at some point people will get tired of death and destruction and start to dialogue with enemies? The neocons never ending wars way sure hasn't done any good, so why not "give peace a chance?"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 02:10 pm
xingu wrote:
George Bush says if we leave Iraq the terrorist will jump in their little rowboats and follow us back to America. Here they will be fighting us in the streets of NYC.

I wonder how many dumb conservatives believe that. Probably the same number that believe Iran can produce a nuclear bomb any day now.
...

Bush actually said and says, "If we leave Iraq before we win in Iraq, the terrorists there will follow us back to America."

One or more dumb liberals are the source of the simpleton fantasy ruse, "the terrorist will jump in their little rowboats and follow us back to America."

One or more dumb liberals are the source of the simpleton fantasy ruse, "they will be fighting us in the streets of NYC."

How will the terrorists get here?

Obviously they will get here the same way they got here in 1993 and 2001.

Also, for example, they will get here the same way they got to Turkey in 2003, to Spain in 2004, and to England in 2005.

What will the terrorists do here once we leave Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to protect themselves against terrorists there without our help?

Obviously, for example, they will do the same kinds of things they did:
in NYC in 1993;
at Boston's airport in 2001;
in NYC in 2001;
in Washington D.C. in 2001;
in Pennsylvania in 2001.

Also, for example, they will do the same kinds of things they did in Turkey in 2003, in Spain in 2004, and in England in 2005.

Quote:
EXAMPLES OF TERRORIST MURDERS OF AMERICANS

Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda and its affiliated middle-eastern malignancies perpetrated the following mass murders of Americans:

1. 12/1992 -- murdered 241 Americans at US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut;
2. 02/1993 -- murdered 6 Americans at WTC in NYC;
3. 11/1995 -- murdered 5 Americans and 2 other civilians at Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh;
4. 06/1996 -- murdered 19 Americans at Khobar Towers in Dhahran;
5. 08/1998 -- murdered 12 Americans + 201 other civilians at American Embassy in Nairobi AND murdered 11 other civilians at American Embassy in Dar es Salaam;
6. 12/2000 -- murdered 17 Americans at Destroyer Cole in Aden;
7. 09/2001 -- murdered 1,500 Americans + 1,500 other civilians at the WTC in NYC, at the Pentagon in D.C., and at a field in Pennsylvania;


Quote:
EXAMPLES OF TERRORIST MURDERS OF NON-AMERICANS

After the US and its allies invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda and affiliates perpetrated the following mass murders:

Quote:
11/2003 -- murdered 57 in Istanbul, Turkey

03/2004 -- murdered 191 Spaniards in Madrid, Spain

07/2005 -- murdered 56 in London, England

I wonder how many dumb liberals there are who truly do not already know all this.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 02:17 pm
revel wrote:
I just want to know was invading Iraq worth it and did it work to make the world safer as those who wantedthe war claimed before the invasion?
...

It's too soon to know.


If we do not win in Iraq, the world in general and America in particular will certainly be no safer.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 02:47 pm
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
George Bush says if we leave Iraq the terrorist will jump in their little rowboats and follow us back to America. Here they will be fighting us in the streets of NYC.

I wonder how many dumb conservatives believe that. Probably the same number that believe Iran can produce a nuclear bomb any day now.
...

Bush actually said and says, "If we leave Iraq before we win in Iraq, the terrorists there will follow us back to America."

One or more dumb liberals are the source of the simpleton fantasy ruse, "the terrorist will jump in their little rowboats and follow us back to America."

One or more dumb liberals are the source of the simpleton fantasy ruse, "they will be fighting us in the streets of NYC."

How will the terrorists get here?

Obviously they will get here the same way they got here in 1993 and 2001.

Also, for example, they will get here the same way they got to Turkey in 2003, to Spain in 2004, and to England in 2005.

What will the terrorists do here once we leave Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to protect themselves against terrorists there without our help?

Obviously, for example, they will do the same kinds of things they did:
in NYC in 1993;
at Boston's airport in 2001;
in NYC in 2001;
in Washington D.C. in 2001;
in Pennsylvania in 2001.

Also, for example, they will do the same kinds of things they did in Turkey in 2003, in Spain in 2004, and in England in 2005.

Quote:
EXAMPLES OF TERRORIST MURDERS OF AMERICANS

Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda and its affiliated middle-eastern malignancies perpetrated the following mass murders of Americans:

1. 12/1992 -- murdered 241 Americans at US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut;
2. 02/1993 -- murdered 6 Americans at WTC in NYC;
3. 11/1995 -- murdered 5 Americans and 2 other civilians at Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh;
4. 06/1996 -- murdered 19 Americans at Khobar Towers in Dhahran;
5. 08/1998 -- murdered 12 Americans + 201 other civilians at American Embassy in Nairobi AND murdered 11 other civilians at American Embassy in Dar es Salaam;
6. 12/2000 -- murdered 17 Americans at Destroyer Cole in Aden;
7. 09/2001 -- murdered 1,500 Americans + 1,500 other civilians at the WTC in NYC, at the Pentagon in D.C., and at a field in Pennsylvania;


Quote:
EXAMPLES OF TERRORIST MURDERS OF NON-AMERICANS

After the US and its allies invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda and affiliates perpetrated the following mass murders:

Quote:
11/2003 -- murdered 57 in Istanbul, Turkey

03/2004 -- murdered 191 Spaniards in Madrid, Spain

07/2005 -- murdered 56 in London, England

I wonder how many dumb liberals there are who truly do not already know all this.


Iraq AQ wasn't even part of the larger AQ operation until after the war. So they had/have nothing to with 9/11 nor were they affiliated with the larger AQ who were responsible for 9/11. If we left I seriously doubt Al Sadr (spell?) and his operation is going to go clear across the ocean and bomb some Americans if we leave their country. The foreign AQ which is in small numbers in Iraq and were not even there before 9/11 and mostly came there after the invasion, will bomb us whether we remain or stay if that is in they're plans.

As for us being safer, I think we should go back to talks and "swatting flies" (as Condi put it.) Meaning, chasing after leads with the help of friendly nations. Which we can't do now because most of the world is not friendly enough towards the US to help us because of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 03:01 pm
revel wrote:

...

Iraq AQ wasn't even part of the larger AQ operation until after the war. So they had/have nothing to with 9/11 nor were they affiliated with the larger AQ who were responsible for 9/11. If we left I seriously doubt Al Sadr (spell?) and his operation is going to go clear across the ocean and bomb some Americans if we leave their country. The foreign AQ which is in small numbers in Iraq and were not even there before 9/11 and mostly came there after the invasion, will bomb us whether we remain or stay if that is in they're plans.
...


Your post is malarkey.

The necessary and sufficient reason for us to have gone into Iraq is to remove al-Qaeda from Iraq and to replace Iraq's government with one that would not tolerate al-Qaeda possessing sanctuary there in future. Co-incidentally, successful accomplishment of that objective would also help the Iraqi people to escape being tyrannized.

Sigh ......... Again I post:
ican711nm wrote:
The reasons given in the following quotes for invading Iraq and Afghanistan are valid and sufficient, regardless of whether or not the other reasons Bush et al gave are valid and sufficient.

Congress wrote:

Congress's Joint Resolution September 14, 2001
emphasis added
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;
...

General Tommy Franks wrote:

American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

page 483:
"The air picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges an 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. But this strike was more than just another [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."

page 519:
"[The Marines] also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Lybia who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. Those foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all. "

Senate Select Committee wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.

Wikipedia wrote:
ANSAR AL-ISLAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam (Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is a Kurdish Sunni Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border. It has used tactics such as suicide bombers in its conflicts with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and other Kurdish groups.

Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar became the leader of the merged Ansar al-Islam, which opposed an agreement made between IMK and the dominant Kurdish group in the area, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

Ansar al-Islam fortified a number of villages along the Iranian border, with Iranian artillery support. [1]
Ansar al-Islam quickly initiated a number of attacks on the peshmerga (armed forces) of the PUK, on one occasion massacring 53 prisoners and beheading them. Several assassination attempts on leading PUK-politicians were also made with carbombs and snipers.

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.

UN wrote:
UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Clearly, we have not achieved our objectives yet. Progress is so far totally inadequate. That is not a valid reason for quiting trying to achieve our objectives there, because the price of failure there is intolerably high.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 04:30 pm
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 04:32 pm
revel wrote:
Rolling Eyes
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 08:31 pm
Red Cross details 'unbearable suffering' of Iraqi civilians

Ian Black, Middle East editor
Wednesday April 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Iraqi civilians are experiencing "immense suffering" because of a "disastrous" security situation, deepening poverty and a worsening humanitarian crisis, according to a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The ICRC also sees no sign that the US-led security "surge" in Baghdad is bringing relief to the capital, while hospitals struggle to cope with mass casualties as malnutrition as well as power and water shortages become more frequent across the country.

"The suffering Iraqi men, women and children are enduring today is unbearable and unacceptable," Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of operations for the organisation, said at the group's Geneva headquarters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2054719,00.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 11:20 pm
blueflame, ican and his ilk doesn't give a shite about Iraqi suffering. They're in Iraq to prove a point made by king George - and forgive me for forgetting which point(s). They continue to play the "fear" game by telling us if we don't fight them there, they'll come here. I guess Bush or ican has never tried to board a plane or boat to the US. We can't even carry water into the gates.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 09:18 am
The trouble with the empty justification of "if we leave they will come over here" is that it ignores all the rest of the world's terrorist who are in other countries, including our own.

U.S. man accused of plot to bomb resorts

Another trouble with that theory is that it treats Iraqis as if they are expendible, perfectly suited to be substitutes bodies for AQ terrorist to us instead of our own. Like its ok the to keep their country in an uproar and to keep killing their people as long we Americans are not being blown up and our cities are not being destroyed. If in fact it is true that AQ will stay in Iraq as long as our troops are there, why is it justifiable to use Iraq as a substitute battleground to keep from having any of our people killed or our cities destroyed?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 09:33 am
Turkey states its intention to invade northern Iraq

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/12/10340/0930

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 09:45 am
Great Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 01:11 pm
At least ten dead and destroyed bridge. Who's going to pay for that?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/files/newsimages/041207iraq.jpg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 01:14 pm
Us lucky taxpayers will pay for "that" and almost everything else, while we in the US have reduced government benefits, and our soldier's veteran's benefits get cuts in 2009 by the Bush cuts. Ain't we lucky!
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 01:16 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Us lucky taxpayers will pay for "that" and almost everything else, while we in the US have reduced government benefits, and our soldier's veteran's benefits get cuts in 2009 by the Bush cuts. Ain't we lucky!


Boy, I'll say. I like my tax money being spent on new Iraqi bridges. We don't need any in America. They're all new. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 05:01 pm
I recommend the Bush administration say:
Iraq government, you have until July 1, 2007 to ask us to stay until you ask us to leave; Absent that request by July 1, 2007, the US military will leave by December 31, 2007.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 05:04 pm
ican recommends the Bush administration to say, what?

LOL
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 05:05 pm
ican711nm wrote:
I recommend the Bush administration say:
Iraq government, you have until July 1, 2007 to ask us to stay until you ask us to leave; Absent that request by July 1, 2007, the US military will leave by December 31, 2007.


I agree 100%, though I would note that we are not bound by their request to stay.

Did you see my link to a possible Turkey dust-up? What a fiasco that would be!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 06:48 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Did you see my link to a possible Turkey dust-up? What a fiasco that would be!

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I did see your link. And if that happened both the Kurds and the Turks would have a mess on their hands.
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 0.06 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 08:45:02