9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 07:19 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
BBB, If you think the veteran's administration is over-whelmed now, Bush cut funding for the department starting in 2008/09.

Support our troops has a whole new meaning.


I dont know where you are getting your info,but it is wrong.

From here...
http://www.va.gov/budget/summary/VolumeIVSummaryVolume.pdf

Quote:
The 2008 President's budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
provides approximately $86.7 billion for veterans' benefits and services: $41.8
billion in discretionary funding, including medical care collections, and $44.9
billion for entitlements.


Now,here is the FY 2007 budget...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html

It sure looks like the budget for the Dept of Veterans Affairs has increased,not decreased.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 07:22 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
The real issue is that Bush failed to finish the job in good time in Afghanistan, and jumped into Iraq with our military without foresight and planning for after the war. The borders remained wide open, munitions left by Saddam were taken over the the terrorists, and Iraq became a training ground for al Qaida.

Get your head out of the dark side of your arse.

My head is not the issue.

My arse is not the issue.

Bush is not the issue.

Al-Qaeda is the issue. Whether you like it or not, whether you have the strength to face this issue squarely or not, and whether you have the guts to face this issue with rational thought or not, is not knowable by me. What is knowable by me is that the issue of al-Qaeda must be faced with rational and not emotional thought.

It is not just George Bush's problem. It is America's problem. That means it is everyone's problem as well as your problem and my problem.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 07:48 pm
ican wrote:
Get it through your head that al-Qaeda fled Afghanistan for several places after we invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. One of those places was northeastern Iraq where in December 2001 they found sanctuary in a place where no one would bother them. When we invaded Iraq in March 2003, they had grown considerably. Unfortunately, when we attacked them there in northeastern Iraq, again many fled to other places (e.g., Iran).

ican

Ansar al-Islam, the AQ group your referring to, did not flee Afghanistan because of our invasion. They were a Kurdish group. That's why they were in NE Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with their being in Iraq. They were trying to take over the Kurds territory, which Saddam had no control over.

If we were so interested in keeping this AQ group out of Kurd territory we could have sent our troops or aircraft into the Kurd territory and destroy them. Bush was not interested in doing that. He wanted to use them for propaganda purposes so he could invade Iraq, install a government submissive to America and have our oil companies control their oil.

When we invaded Iraq they controlled a dozen villages and some mountain peaks on the Iranian border. We didn't need to invade Iraq to take them out. They were not the reason we went into Iraq.

Quote:
The emergence of Ansar al-Islam

These smaller breakaway factions themselves gradually merged. In July 2001, al-Tawhid joined with Hamas to form the Islamic Unity Front (IUF), which the Soran Forces also joined the following month. On September 1, 2001, the IUF was dissolved and its three component groups announced the formation of Jund al-Islam. The group promptly declared jihad (holy war) against secular and other political parties in Iraqi Kurdistan deemed to have deviated from the "true path of Islam". Following armed clashes in which the PUK defeated Jund al-Islam, the group was dissolved in December 2001 and renamed Ansar al-Islam. A long-time member of the IMK, Najmuddin Faraj Ahmad, known as Mala Fateh Krekar, became its amir (leader).

The ideas and practices propagated by Jund al-Islam (and later Ansar al-Islam) represent a radical departure from mainstream Sunni Islam as practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan. The group appears to have more in common with ultra-orthodox Wahabi movements emanating from Saudi Arabia. This doctrine entails a literal interpretation of the Qur'an, and advocates a return to the proclaimed purity of the early Islamic community. Jund al-Islam declared it was seeking to "defend the areas under the influence of the Muslims from interference and control by the secularists," and that among its aims was "the propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice" (al-amr bil ma'ruf wal nahiy 'an al-munkar), as well as ensuring the application of shari'a and undertaking "the religious duty of jihad against the secularist apostates."

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

Obviously this AQ group and Saddam Hussein were not even remotely close to one another as the Bush administration trid to make us believe. And it's also obvious that the Afgan invasion had nothing to do with them being in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 08:56 pm
Funny how some people are able to see increases in veteran's benefits when the veteran's population continues to grow on account of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/Bushsbudgetcuts.jpg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 09:02 pm
Now, if you can, look under Veteran's Medical Services. It says that income includes $2.5 billion in new enrollment fees and $1.8 billion in increased prescription drug co-pays.

Under the section "Even Steeper Cuts in Five Years," cuts *(see #1) $15.7 billion, or 9.3%, in veteran's benefits and services. That's "CUTS" like in reduce.

You're an idiot.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 09:15 pm
Bush broke his promise since 2002, according to this Boston Globe article.

Published on Sunday, December 22, 2002 by the Boston Globe
Frustrated Veterans Accuse Bush of Breaking Promise
by Wayne Washington

WASHINGTON - The leaders of America's most prominent veterans organizations say that President Bush is failing to honor past commitments to military men and women even as he prepares to send a new generation of soldiers and sailors into combat.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 09:17 pm
[PDF] President's Budget Full of Cheap Rhetoric; Wrong PrioritiesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Bush's FY 08 budget proposal makes drastic cuts to both non-defense discretionary ... scientific research, human services, veterans and education programs. ...
www.ombwatch.org/budget/fy08budgetanalysis.pdf
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 09:29 pm
From thomas.loc.gov

But the President has proposed $1.6 trillion in new tax cuts, and Republicans don't reject them; they cling tenaciously to these new tax cuts. They subordinate everything in the budget to these additional tax cuts.

--They subordinate veterans; cutting their benefits by $15.062 billion over the next ten years.


--They subordinate students; cutting guaranteed loans by as much as $9.701 billion over the next ten years.

--They subordinate the elderly; cutting Medicare by as much as $261.771 billion over the next ten years.

--They subordinate the poor; cutting Medicaid by as much as $110.564 billion over the next ten years.

--They subordinate environment; taking $2.475 billion from the Resources Committee.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 06:05 am
US military just admitted another 9 servicemen killed yesterday.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 03:03 pm
Bushco discover the UN:

Bush may turn to UN in search for Iraq solution


If troop surge fails, strategy is to involve other nations under UN umbrella

Simon Tisdall
Wednesday May 23, 2007
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2085980,00.html

(McT)Now we've smashed the place up and lost control of the situation over there, could you guys at the UN please help? Sorry about the insults earlier. No, really.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 03:07 pm
I don't think there are other Blairs or Howards in this world. Bush has done a yeoman's job in alienating most of our allies.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 03:39 pm
xingu wrote:

...
Ansar al-Islam, the AQ group your referring to, did not flee Afghanistan because of our invasion. They were a Kurdish group. That's why they were in NE Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with their being in Iraq. They were trying to take over the Kurds territory, which Saddam had no control over.


The reasons given in the following quotes for invading Iraq and Afghanistan are the stated, primary valid and sufficient reasons, regardless of whether or not any 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
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.


xingu wrote:
If we were so interested in keeping this AQ group out of Kurd territory we could have sent our troops or aircraft into the Kurd territory and destroy them.

When we invaded Iraq they controlled a dozen villages and some mountain peaks on the Iranian border. We didn't need to invade Iraq to take them out.


I agree in hindsight that it would have been better had we sent our troops AND aircraft into the Kurd territory and destroyed al-Qaeda in Iraq. Then left until al-Qaeda re-established its sanctuary in Iraq. Whenever that happened again it would be better for us to destroy them, ... and again and again.

[xingu excerpt:]
Quote:
The emergence of Ansar al-Islam

These smaller breakaway factions themselves gradually merged. In July 2001, al-Tawhid joined with Hamas to form the Islamic Unity Front (IUF), which the Soran Forces also joined the following month. On September 1, 2001, the IUF was dissolved and its three component groups announced the formation of Jund al-Islam. The group promptly declared jihad (holy war) against secular and other political parties in Iraqi Kurdistan deemed to have deviated from the "true path of Islam". Following armed clashes in which the PUK defeated Jund al-Islam, the group was dissolved in December 2001 and renamed Ansar al-Islam. A long-time member of the IMK, Najmuddin Faraj Ahmad, known as Mala Fateh Krekar, became its amir (leader).

The ideas and practices propagated by Jund al-Islam (and later Ansar al-Islam) represent a radical departure from mainstream Sunni Islam as practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan. The group appears to have more in common with ultra-orthodox Wahabi movements emanating from Saudi Arabia. This doctrine entails a literal interpretation of the Qur'an, and advocates a return to the proclaimed purity of the early Islamic community. Jund al-Islam declared it was seeking to "defend the areas under the influence of the Muslims from interference and control by the secularists," and that among its aims was "the propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice" (al-amr bil ma'ruf wal nahiy 'an al-munkar), as well as ensuring the application of shari'a and undertaking "the religious duty of jihad against the secularist apostates."

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

xingu wrote:
[Al-Qaeda] were not the reason we went into Iraq.

Bush was not interested in doing that. He wanted to use them for propaganda purposes so he could invade Iraq, install a government submissive to America and have our oil companies control their oil.
Obviously this AQ group and Saddam Hussein were not even remotely close to one another as the Bush administration trid to make us believe. And it's also obvious that the Afgan invasion had nothing to do with them being in Iraq.

You appear to be alleging that you can read Bush's mind. If so, perhaps you can read my mind. Let's try a simple experiment. I'm thinking of a particular airplane. What is its tail number?

I do not now dispute that Bush blundered by having our troops remain in Iraq after driving al-Qaeda out of Iraq. Our subsequent attempts to create a democracy in Iraq that would resist future efforts by al-Qaeda to obtain sanctuary in Iraq, failed to adequately assess al-Qaeda's ability to pit the Sunni against the Shia and block the growth of an Iraqi democracy. So at this time, a strategy of repeated invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to block resumption of al-Qaeda growth, looks like a better strategy..
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 03:52 pm
Yeah, let's try the same stupid things again that we screwed up so badly the first time.

Genius

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 04:09 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, let's try the same stupid things again that we screwed up so badly the first time.

Genius

Cycloptichorn


OK lets do that...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059937/

Quote:
Updated: 3:22 p.m. CT April 11, 2007
WASHINGTON - Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, called Wednesday for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.

"I would use American force now," Biden said at a hearing before his committee. "I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it."


So,lets invade another country,one that is absolutely no threat to us or of any vital interest to the US,just because Biden wants to.

And this guy is running for President on the dem side?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 04:11 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, let's try the same stupid things again that we screwed up so badly the first time.

Genius

Cycloptichorn


OK lets do that...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059937/

Quote:
Updated: 3:22 p.m. CT April 11, 2007
WASHINGTON - Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, called Wednesday for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.

"I would use American force now," Biden said at a hearing before his committee. "I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it."


So,lets invade another country,one that is absolutely no threat to us or of any vital interest to the US,just because Biden wants to.

And this guy is running for President on the dem side?


Biden? Senator from MBNA?

He might say he's running for president, but he isn't really. I mean, he is in the same way that Tancredo and Paul are. Just to be able to talk.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 04:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, let's try the same stupid things again that we screwed up so badly the first time.

Genius

Cycloptichorn


OK lets do that...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059937/

Quote:
Updated: 3:22 p.m. CT April 11, 2007
WASHINGTON - Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, called Wednesday for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.

"I would use American force now," Biden said at a hearing before his committee. "I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it."


So,lets invade another country,one that is absolutely no threat to us or of any vital interest to the US,just because Biden wants to.

And this guy is running for President on the dem side?


Biden? Senator from MBNA?

He might say he's running for president, but he isn't really. I mean, he is in the same way that Tancredo and Paul are. Just to be able to talk.

Cycloptichorn


But he is a democrat,and since he claims to be running for President,then he is apparently saying what he would do as President.
And,since he is running,and since the press is taking him seriously,then his words are worth noting.

Yet,you say nothing about his comments except to dismiss him.
Why is that?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 04:28 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, let's try the same stupid things again that we screwed up so badly the first time.

Genius

Cycloptichorn


OK lets do that...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059937/

Quote:
Updated: 3:22 p.m. CT April 11, 2007
WASHINGTON - Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, called Wednesday for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.

"I would use American force now," Biden said at a hearing before his committee. "I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it."


So,lets invade another country,one that is absolutely no threat to us or of any vital interest to the US,just because Biden wants to.

And this guy is running for President on the dem side?


Biden? Senator from MBNA?

He might say he's running for president, but he isn't really. I mean, he is in the same way that Tancredo and Paul are. Just to be able to talk.

Cycloptichorn


But he is a democrat,and since he claims to be running for President,then he is apparently saying what he would do as President.
And,since he is running,and since the press is taking him seriously,then his words are worth noting.

Yet,you say nothing about his comments except to dismiss him.
Why is that?


It's a stupid plan coming from a stupid guy.

Look, you can't stop someone from running for president from your own party. WTF is anyone supposed to do to stop the guy?

The press might be taking him seriously (though I would challenge that assertion as well, as he gets zero camera time compared to the ACTUAL candidates) but he gets no votes in polls and no money. So I don't consider him to be a viable candidate, b/c he has no support.

Cycloptichorn

ps., Darfur isn't what we were talking about in this thread; if you start a new thread, I'd be happy to discuss it there. Otherwise, why don't you tell me what you think about Iraq these days?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 07:57 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, let's try the same stupid things again that we screwed up so badly the first time.

Genius

Cycloptichorn

What we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan maybe a stupid thing. What I proposed we do in Iraq and Afghanistan may be a stupid thing. However, what I proposed is certainly not the same stupid thing we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One would in deed have to be really stupid to think that.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 May, 2007 12:25 am
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, let's try the same stupid things again that we screwed up so badly the first time.

Genius

Cycloptichorn

What we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan maybe a stupid thing. What I proposed we do in Iraq and Afghanistan may be a stupid thing. However, what I proposed is certainly not the same stupid thing we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One would in deed have to be really stupid to think that.


Stupidity is evidently not a disqualifier. Look at Bushco.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 May, 2007 09:25 am
The Dems are playing a dangerous and stupid game with this iraq funding bill they are voting on today.

A major part of the problem is that for some reason, there seems to be a false picture of what will happen if the troops don't get the money.

What do YOU think will happen if they don't get the money?

Cycloptichorn
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 0.12 seconds on 07/31/2025 at 08:53:09