22 Soldiers Dead in 3 Days

[Hoss]

Woo...guido's gone to crazy town.

Just like I said; Beck-spooner.  I think Ruf still thinks he's a Malkin-Boortz spooner, but at least they seem genuine.  I honestly was able to stomach Lonesome Rhodes Beck when he was over on HLN.  I don't know what it is about Fox News that changes a person.  Money?  Glamour?  Not sure.  But he sure has turned into a caricature of himself..wow, doesn't that remind you of someone right here on this forum??

[guido911]

We have succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government. Really stand up job there, way to go.

It's worse than if Saddam was still in power. We have tipped the balance of power in the middle east to Iran. An anti-Iranian regime in Iraq was always a positive strategic counter balance to Iranian hegemoney. This is why Bush's father didn't topple Saddam. He was smart enough to know that the power that would fill the vacuum left by the Baath party would likely be filled by Shia pro-Iranian forces. And that is exactly what has happened.

Israel, Egypt and the Saudi's are correctly terrified.

I have been wanting to have this debate for some time. I will respond in a little bit. (work issues)

[FOTD]

I have been wanting to have this debate for some time. I will respond in a little bit. (work philosophical and personal issues)

Standing by....watching the wheels go round. Guido, find some of those rats who disappeared to help you out. FOTD does not believe in piling on. Where are those chicken sh*t posters?

[HazMatCFO]

Send in more troops or pull them all out. Worst of all is just sitting and looking indecisive about what to do.

Make a decision and make it happen.

[FOTD]

Send in more troops or pull them all out. Worst of all is just sitting and looking indecisive about what to do.

Make a decision and make it happen.

What is the hurry? Be smart and tactile about this. It took 8 years of ill advised military expertise to get us here. It will take some lives and time to turn darkness to light.

HazMatty, you obviously know something about military strategy. Do you have insider knowledge about sitting and looking indecisive or is that just a subjective hypothesis?

[rwarn17588]

We went into a country that harbored those who attacked this country and killed 3,000 Americans.

Gee, I thought bin Laden and his cronies were in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Yep, "crazy town" seems apt.

[rwarn17588]

I have been wanting to have ignoring this debate for some time.

Fixed that for you.

[we vs us]

Hazmat, I think it's interesting that you read deliberation as a sign of weakness.  Isn't that kind of self-limiting? 

Guido, it's completely impossible to tell what you're arguing about anymore.  Your posts are almost content-free at this point.

[guido911]

Hazmat, I think it's interesting that you read deliberation as a sign of weakness.  Isn't that kind of self-limiting? 

Guido, it's completely impossible to tell what you're arguing about anymore.  Your posts are almost content-free at this point.

WTH are you talking about? Over 50 soldiers dead in one month and no outrage by the media or Obama folks like you was the point I made in my initial post in this thread. Does it bother you that I pointed out an obvious double standard on how our wars are being fought or is it "completely impossible" for you to figure that out?

[Conan71]

WTH are you talking about? Over 50 soldiers dead in one month and no outrage by the media or Obama folks like you was the point I made in my initial post in this thread. Does it bother you that I pointed out an obvious double standard on how our wars are being fought or is it "completely impossible" for you to figure that out?

"Casualty clocks" don't seem to be as in vogue since the last administration left the WH.

[guido911]

We have succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government. Really stand up job there, way to go.

It's worse than if Saddam was still in power. We have tipped the balance of power in the middle east to Iran. An anti-Iranian regime in Iraq was always a positive strategic counter balance to Iranian hegemoney. This is why Bush's father didn't topple Saddam. He was smart enough to know that the power that would fill the vacuum left by the Baath party would likely be filled by Shia pro-Iranian forces. And that is exactly what has happened.

Israel, Egypt and the Saudi's are correctly terrified.

The U.S. installed a Shia government? Funny, I thought the Iranian people had an election and they decided who would run the country. I mean, do you prefer elections where one candidate gets 100% of the vote. As for this government being worse, I guess you forgot about the rape rooms, Saddam's use of chemical weapons on his own people which killed thousands, his regime forcing husbands to watch their wives being raped or the torturing of prisoners, or one of his son's enjoyment in watching enemies fed feet first in a shredder, or any other of the number of human rights violations Saddam's regime committed (unsure if Saddam committed the most evil of abuse, waterboarding). We will not even get into his support of international terrorism, which I do not believe is occurring in Iraq currently. As a friendly reminder, here's a photo of what Saddam did to the Kurds, which to you is apparently better than what we have now:



As for Iraq being pro-Iranian, care to source that?

[guido911]

"Casualty clocks" don't seem to be as in vogue since the last administration left the WH.

Thank you for getting the point! We also do not read about the demand for pics of flag-draped coffins.

[guido911]

Gee, I thought bin Laden and his cronies were in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Yep, "crazy town" seems apt.

Yep, you being a dumba$$ seems apt. I was referring to Afghanistan.

[guido911]

He didn't secure the country after we invaded. He failed to capture Bin Laden. He refused to send in enough troops to accomplish either goal. And by not accomplishing those goals, he let the Taliban fester until they had recovered. He allowed the drug trafficking to continue that largely funds the Taliban and Al Queda. Bush failed in every respect in Afghanistan because he only cared about Iraq.  This many years later it may well be too late to salvage Afghanistan short of sending in a couple of hundred thousand more troops. Which isn't doable, because funny thing, Bush wrecked the economy too.

If you don't believe me that Bush didn't care about Bin Laden and Afghanistan, here's a direct quote on the subject:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

So the fact that Obama changed to rules of engagement restricting our soldiers in how they deal with the enemy and civilians (remember last month when several soldiers were ambushed and pinned down and when they called for artillery support none came because of these restrictions-we lost four Marines that day), or the nearly 50% reduction of fixed wing air strikes from last year, or Obama moronically trying to distinguish the Taliban from al Qaeda as the enemy (even though we are fighting the Taliban), or Obama waiting months to respond to his self-appointed general's request for soldiers or risk "mission failure", or Obama's incessant international apology tour, or Obama having only one conversation with his commanding general for two months, or Obama recognizing the corruptly-elected Iranian government had nothing to do with providing safe haven or emboldening the enemy has nothing to do with it.   


Was the war fought well? No. But most are not. One point I was making is that since Obama took office, more American soldiers lives are being lost at a higher rate than at any time while Bush was president (which ended just 10 months ago). Are you and others honestly suggesting that this increase was a natural consequence of what did or did not happen in 2001-2002 or that the same would have occurred if Bush were still president? If so, then why did this increase occur in mid/late 2009? Why not this increase in December 2008 or even a surge in deaths on January 19, 2009?

As to your point about the poppy fields, I agree with you. But what are we doing now?

[swake]

The U.S. installed a Shia government? Funny, I thought the Iranian people had an election and they decided who would run the country. I mean, do you prefer elections where one candidate gets 100% of the vote. As for this government being worse, I guess you forgot about the rape rooms, Saddam's use of chemical weapons on his own people which killed thousands, his regime forcing husbands to watch their wives being raped or the torturing of prisoners, or one of his son's enjoyment in watching enemies fed feet first in a shredder, or any other of the number of human rights violations Saddam's regime committed (unsure if Saddam committed the most evil of abuse, waterboarding). We will not even get into his support of international terrorism, which I do not believe is occurring in Iraq currently. As a friendly reminder, here's a photo of what Saddam did to the Kurds, which to you is apparently better than what we have now:



As for Iraq being pro-Iranian, care to source that?

Yeah, I can source that.

God, you are really just a talk radio parrot aren't you? You really think that the current Iraqi government is all tulips and rainbows? The Iraqi government's behavior is going to be muted so long as we are still here, but even so there have been reports of government run death squads that have killed thousands:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35167

And torture in Iraqi government prisons (and not just torture by Americans!):
http://www.layalina.tv/publications/review/PR_V.20/article8.html

And again, this is all going on while we are still there, and just what we know about.

Iraq's treatment of it's own citizens is not the part of the situation that is directly dangerous to the United States.

Nuri al-Maliki is running for reelection as a "law and order" coalition candidate. But that's not how he was elected. He and his Dawa party, which is a radical islamist Shia party in of itself, came to power as part of a coalition of Shia movements that included the largest political party in the country, the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Moqtada al-Sadr's political party.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/once-bitter-rivals-now-a-united-force-in-iraq-vote/article1331568/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-iraq-politics-1001-100oct02,0,5891391.story

That's right, you remember al-Sadr don't you? How many American's has he killed? Thousands? He is probably responsible for most of the American deaths in Iraq. How many roadside bombs did his follower set? He is a very important part of the winning coalition government that we have been protecting and propping up, for years. And he is very much supported by the Iran government and may even in fact be in training in Iran to become the next Grand Ayatollah of Iraq. Now how scary is that?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1897120,00.html

And before you say that al-Maliki has changed and sees the error of his ways, the only reason he has formed a new coalition to run as part of is because his masters in the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Moqtada al-Sadr's pro-Iranian political party said he couldn't be prime minister anymore.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1927371,00.html


Guido, you can say that everything in Iraq is great and the government is run by nice little pink American loving bunnies, but saying that doesn't  make it true.