I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 23, 2024, 12:27:44 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
532606 Posts in 33561 Topics by 12678 Members
Latest Member: astrobridge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  I Hate Dialysis Message Board
|-+  Off-Topic
| |-+  Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want.
| | |-+  Target,AMERICA
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Target,AMERICA  (Read 35199 times)
bigshot99
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 33


« Reply #75 on: March 30, 2007, 10:50:09 PM »

this very well could be the early stage of WWIII,, remember Germany Nazism ,the people in Iraq don't push back against the extremist,because there will be a high price for them to pay,,like there families.  this will, i believe continue to come our way, sooner or later,,, just like 9/11...did  ????

DING, DING, DING  this is right on the money.  We have bent all the rules and probably broken a few along the way leading us to ultimate disaster.  It won't be long if we continue to follow the path Bush has set for us that WWIII will begin and we will be the bad guys with the world against us.  If we keep policing the world and doing what we want regardless of what the UN or our own people say will be outcast and attacked.  9/11 sympathy can only take us so far before the nations of the world finally say "ok this has gone far enough".
   so who's  to say ,what country,that we have gone far enough.or maybe its the  " DEMOCRATIC PARTY". yes because now they will not approve the money that our troops need until a time table is set to pull out. the democrats will not ship or will not approve the money to ship the  300 ARMORED VEHICLES to our troops who are at war until this time table is set. keep the politics out of this war and let America put a end to the terrorists that have attacked this country,and to hell with who thinks we have to far with this war. America has not gone far enough,keep up the good fight,and don't forget about 9/11 .and don't forget about the DEMOCRATIC PARTY that wants to let our enemy know what we plan to do.

Logged
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #76 on: March 31, 2007, 03:49:03 AM »

So you are talking about genocide again? 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. It defines and outlaws genocide, as a result of campaigning by Raphael Lemkin who had coined the term some years earlier. All participating countries are required to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and
peacetime.. The total number of states who have ratified the convention is currently 137.

The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as

“ ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  „
—Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide


You were saying something about "SANE" people?


Please tell me you are smart enough to even comprehend that striking back at those that commit acts of war against you is not genocide?  Not to mention the UN nor any country I know of, doesn't even call defending ones self from those that commit acts of war genocide.

For you to even suggest that the US cannot defend itself against those that commit acts of war against us without it being genocide is well..... quite frankly the most foolish thing I have heard in my life.

And yes, that is exactly what you are saying be even asking that question you did.







« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 04:03:07 AM by BigSky » Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #77 on: March 31, 2007, 09:52:25 AM »


Please tell me you are smart enough to even comprehend that striking back at those that commit acts of war against you is not genocide? 

Of course I am. 
I never said that "striking back", or however you choose to classify what is going on , is genocide.  I am however saying that by your methods (from what you have said and my interpretation), it would take violent acts that can be categorized as acts of genocide.
....... and eliminate that threat from ever occurring again.
I just can't see it as a realistic goal (to stop the threat) with our current methods and tactics.  If we are going to have any chance of freeing the WORLD of terrorism it is going to take a unity and a commitment from everyone in the world community to join togeather and carry out a plan and enforce it in an international/worldly setting.  It's not just about 9/11, it's about our future and we need to conduct ourselves as such.  We went to war after 9/11.  We didn't just sit back and take it.  Four years later how much closer are we to freeing the wold of this god awefull threat?  For me, being liberal is not a sign of weakness but a sign of the times.  I too, will stand up for what I believe is right and go all the way with it.  I believe there is a better way to a chance of success for eliminating the threat.  Killing is not the only way to put a squeeze on somebody as our government proves to us time and time again.

For you to even suggest that the US cannot defend itself against those that commit acts of war against us without it being genocide is well..... quite frankly the most foolish thing I have heard in my life.

And yes, that is exactly what you are saying be even asking that question you did.

Defend ourself?  Do you think it is so simple to just overthrow these powers that make up terrorism threats?  As I am viewing it, if what we have already attempted has not brought us  to success, than in order to accomplish what you are speaking of (more force?), would indeed necessitate an environment for more killing, alot of killing!  The majority of the people that the threat is comprised of are religious.  Are we capable of changing the all powerful religious belief of another by taking out a few leaders?  No.  They then become martars.  Maybe they just need to be influenced somehow and progressively over time, minimizing the violence, that can be achieved.  Under attack as those rotten bastards are only sends them into a stealth mode, the very approach I think may be a good one.  A silent, aggressive attack with intelligence and not a traditional full on military battle.  If you are going to eliminate this threat by killing you are going to have to kill a whole bunch of people, which would be genocide.

What gives you the right to say exactly what I am saying?  I'm sorry to displease you but that is your interpertation.  That is what fits your argument and what you would like me to be saying.  Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation.   Why don't you think about that some more and get back to me.
Logged
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #78 on: March 31, 2007, 11:01:35 AM »

Of course I am. 
I never said that "striking back", or however you choose to classify what is going on , is genocide.  I am however saying that by your methods (from what you have said and my interpretation), it would take violent acts that can be categorized as acts of genocide.

Actually you did just by the question you stated.  That or you are unable to understand the difference between those leaders in Iran who are behind terrorism and that of the people themselves in Iran.  Killing leaders who are behind terrorism so that it does not occur again from them is far from Genocide.  Its called defending ones self.

I just can't see it as a realistic goal (to stop the threat) with our current methods and tactics.  If we are going to have any chance of freeing the WORLD of terrorism it is going to take a unity and a commitment from everyone in the world community to join togeather and carry out a plan and enforce it in an international/worldly setting.  It's not just about 9/11, it's about our future and we need to conduct ourselves as such.  We went to war after 9/11.  We didn't just sit back and take it.  Four years later how much closer are we to freeing the wold of this god awefull threat?  For me, being liberal is not a sign of weakness but a sign of the times.  I too, will stand up for what I believe is right and go all the way with it.  I believe there is a better way to a chance of success for eliminating the threat.  Killing is not the only way to put a squeeze on somebody as our government proves to us time and time again.

How many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland US since we have started this?   Ohh wait that was asked and answered already wasn't it!!!!!!!!


Defend ourself?  Do you think it is so simple to just overthrow these powers that make up terrorism threats?  As I am viewing it, if what we have already attempted has not brought us  to success, than in order to accomplish what you are speaking of (more force?), would indeed necessitate an environment for more killing, alot of killing!  The majority of the people that the threat is comprised of are religious.  Are we capable of changing the all powerful religious belief of another by taking out a few leaders?  No.  They then become martars.  Maybe they just need to be influenced somehow and progressively over time, minimizing the violence, that can be achieved.  Under attack as those rotten bastards are only sends them into a stealth mode, the very approach I think may be a good one.  A silent, aggressive attack with intelligence and not a traditional full on military battle.  If you are going to eliminate this threat by killing you are going to have to kill a whole bunch of people, which would be genocide.

I never said anything about overthrowing powers. 

You asked:

"What exactly do you mean someone should knock off their leaders and religious clerics?" -George Jung

And I responded---Only those that have committed terrorist acts against us, of which Iran has a long history of doing.

I think that pretty specific to who.  I never said anything about knocking off all leaders and clerics, only those that have committed terrorist acts against us.  You may not know it, but not all leaders and clerics of Iran are behind terrorism.


What gives you the right to say exactly what I am saying?  I'm sorry to displease you but that is your interpertation.  That is what fits your argument and what you would like me to be saying.  Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation.   Why don't you think about that some more and get back to me.

Not too hard to see by your innuendo in how you worded the question and what you posted there George.   ::)

« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 11:08:42 AM by BigSky » Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #79 on: March 31, 2007, 02:01:14 PM »

[quote author=George Jung link=topic=3164.msg46068#msg46068 date=1175359945
Of course I am.
I never said that "striking back", or however you choose to classify what is going on , is genocide. I am however saying that by your methods (from what you have said and my interpretation), it would take violent acts that can be categorized as acts of genocide.

Quote
Actually you did just by the question you stated. That or you are unable to understand the difference between those leaders in Iran who are behind terrorism and that of the people themselves in Iran. Killing leaders who are behind terrorism so that it does not occur again from them is far from Genocide. Its called defending ones self.

Reply  -  Knocking off a few leaders is not going to end terrorism.  They become martyrs and someone else steps into their shoes.  Religion also has a big hand in their motivation doesn't it?  Or is it that you don't fully understand the scope of this threat?

I just can't see it as a realistic goal (to stop the threat) with our current methods and tactics. If we are going to have any chance of freeing the WORLD of terrorism it is going to take a unity and a commitment from everyone in the world community to join togeather and carry out a plan and enforce it in an international/worldly setting. It's not just about 9/11, it's about our future and we need to conduct ourselves as such. We went to war after 9/11. We didn't just sit back and take it. Four years later how much closer are we to freeing the wold of this god awefull threat? For me, being liberal is not a sign of weakness but a sign of the times. I too, will stand up for what I believe is right and go all the way with it. I believe there is a better way to a chance of success for eliminating the threat. Killing is not the only way to put a squeeze on somebody as our government proves to us time and time again.

How many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland US since we have started this? Ohh wait that was asked and answered already wasn't it!!!!!!!!

Reply  -  Yes.  It was asked already.  So we are going to have to continue at this pace for how long, spending how much money and lives?  We can't do it forever.


Defend ourself? Do you think it is so simple to just overthrow these powers that make up terrorism threats? As I am viewing it, if what we have already attempted has not brought us to success, than in order to accomplish what you are speaking of (more force?), would indeed necessitate an environment for more killing, alot of killing! The majority of the people that the threat is comprised of are religious. Are we capable of changing the all powerful religious belief of another by taking out a few leaders? No. They then become martars. Maybe they just need to be influenced somehow and progressively over time, minimizing the violence, that can be achieved. Under attack as those rotten bastards are only sends them into a stealth mode, the very approach I think may be a good one. A silent, aggressive attack with intelligence and not a traditional full on military battle. If you are going to eliminate this threat by killing you are going to have to kill a whole bunch of people, which would be genocide.

Quote
I never said anything about overthrowing powers.

You asked:

Quote
"What exactly do you mean someone should knock off their leaders and religious clerics?" -George Jung

And I responded---Only those that have committed terrorist acts against us, of which Iran has a long history of doing.

I think that pretty specific to who. I never said anything about knocking off all leaders and clerics, only those that have committed terrorist acts against us. You may not know it, but not all leaders and clerics of Iran are behind terrorism.

Reply  -  A few leaders here and there has not and will not accomplish what has been set out to accomplish.  Don't you think there is someone ready to fill those shoes?  Religious beliefs don't just go away!

What gives you the right to say exactly what I am saying? I'm sorry to displease you but that is your interpertation. That is what fits your argument and what you would like me to be saying. Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation. Why don't you think about that some more and get back to me.


Quote
Not too hard to see by your innuendo in how you worded the question and what you posted there George. ::)

Reply  -  An innuendo is a remark or question, typically disparaging, that works obliquely by allusion. The intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent.  As I said.... Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation.  I simply don't see how a few leaders is going to correct things and by staying at war AS WE ARE will be ineffective unless you plan on wiping them out.  Comprende Amigo?  Yes, I am accusing your idea of; taking down some leaders is going to rid us of terrorism approach, as being irrational and inneffective.  There you have it, straight up, so it's easy for you to interpret.  Let me say it one more time...Striking back is not genocide (this is not striking back anymore).  I believe if we are to eliminate the threat in the way in which you suggest going about it would necessitate genocide.






EDITED: Fixed quote tag errors - Sluff, Administrator


« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 11:15:31 AM by Sluff » Logged
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #80 on: April 01, 2007, 08:46:01 AM »

Reply  -  Knocking off a few leaders is not going to end terrorism.  They become martyrs and someone else steps into their shoes.  Religion also has a big hand in their motivation doesn't it?  Or is it that you don't fully understand the scope of this threat?

No one said it would end it.  However it will put a huge dent in it. 

Understand the scope of this threat?  LOL  Funny you bring that up because even simpleton knows that Muslim terrorists base what they do out of the Koran.  Jeeeesh did you think you actually knew something everyone else didn't know long ago?

Reply  -  Yes.  It was asked already.  So we are going to have to continue at this pace for how long, spending how much money and lives?  We can't do it forever.

Hmm you tell me. In one day we lost  3000 lives  and billions of dollars in damage to the US.  Terrorists losses were minor.

War on terror.  In four years we have lost just over 3000 lives, still cost billions of dollars with no loss to economy and we have killed thousands and thousands of terrorists and made the US just a little bit safer than it was.

As long as their our terrorists willing to disregard human life at all costs we will have to fight them.  However you may ship yourself over to the ME and give up now if you wish.

Reply  -  A few leaders here and there has not and will not accomplish what has been set out to accomplish.  Don't you think there is someone ready to fill those shoes?  Religious beliefs don't just go away!

It doesn't matter if someone is there to fill there shoes.  If those that wish to take the place commit to the same line of committing terrorism they will meet the same fate as those they replaced.   Not all people in Iran have such a backwards view of the Koran and that they are to kill all those that do not believe in it. 

Reply  -  An innuendo is a remark or question, typically disparaging, that works obliquely by allusion. The intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent.  As I said.... Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation.  I simply don't see how a few leaders is going to correct things and by staying at war AS WE ARE will be ineffective unless you plan on wiping them out.  Comprende Amigo?  Yes, I am accusing your idea of; taking down some leaders is going to rid us of terrorism approach, as being irrational and inneffective.  There you have it, straight up, so it's easy for you to interpret.  Let me say it one more time...Striking back is not genocide (this is not striking back anymore).  I believe if we are to eliminate the threat in the way in which you suggest going about it would necessitate genocide.



The very fact you posted the "question" in that manner shows your hand.

"Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation".   -GJ

Never said I was there george, its not too hard to figure out what you were trying to allude to george.   Just like when you made your  veiled threat to me.

You can also quite with the lip service of indignation because I am not buying it.  Just as I didn't buy your lip service about supporting our troops after you slammed them as being brainwashed.

Yes this is striking back at them.  That is what normal people do to protect themselves.  If someone keeps committing acts of murder and violence do you really think sitting back and doing nothing will lessen them from doing even more of them.  We merely have to look from the time that Iran kidnapped Americans and held them hostage under Carter to the continue attacks by them to this day.

Carter could have stopped this very easliy from being where it is today.  That would be, release all hostages unharmed in 24 hours or else we will be warming up the ICBM's.

They committed acts of terror against us and continue to push these acts to this day in Iraq against the troops.  To even think killing those that commit such acts of terror and murder against us as being genocide has got to be the most ignorant thing I have heard IMO.




« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 10:33:10 AM by BigSky » Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #81 on: April 02, 2007, 08:16:54 PM »

I'm going to post this for now.  I have to think some more about how I want to address recent comments in question.  In the mean time here are some things to contemplate.

Iraq By the Numbers

March 19, 2007

Today, on the four-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, our military is stretched to the breaking point, Iraq is descending deeper into civil war, and the president is moving more—and more poorly prepared—troops into battle. The Center for American Progress has repeatedly advocated for a new strategy that would redeploy troops from Iraq to focus more attention on completing the mission left unaccomplished in Afghanistan and strengthen our ground troops by making sure that they are well-equipped and prepared—mentally and physically—when they are sent overseas. Clearly, we need a change in U.S. policy in Iraq:

The Cost in American Lives is Rising


3,217: Number of American troops killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war

54: Percentage of troops killed who were 24 years old or younger


Coalition Support is Waning

49: Number of countries in the Coalition of the Willing when the invasion began in 2003

21: Number of countries in the Coalition by mid-2007 after Britain, Denmark, and South Korea reduce their forces

135,000: Number of American troops in Iraq

11,095: Number of non-American troops that will remain in Iraq after the upcoming Coalition withdrawals


Staying the Wrong Course

29,100: Number of additional troops President Bush and his generals have officially requested to send to Iraq as part of an escalation strategy

Up to 50,000: Likely number of additional combat and support troops that will actually have to be deployed for the escalation, according to a Congressional Budget Office report

59: Percentage of Americans who think the Iraq war was a mistake

13: Percentage of Americans who prefer the option of sending more troops to options involving some form of withdrawal



Our Troops Are Being Pushed Beyond Their Limits

31: Number of Army combat brigades that have served two or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, out of 44 total

420,000: Number of troops that have deployed more than once

50: Percentage of troops more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder if they serve more than one tour

50,000: Number of troops on whom “stop-loss” has been imposed, meaning they are prevented from leaving the Army when their enlistment end date arrives



Our Veterans Are Not Receiving Adequate Support

23,417: Number of troops wounded in Iraq

9 out of 10: Number of disabled veterans who have been made to wait for benefit evaluations longer than the Pentagon’s own standard of 40 days

76: Percentage of Americans who think the Bush administration has not done enough to care for Iraq war veterans


Violence is Increasing

150,000: Estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence since the beginning of the war, according to the Iraq Health Minister (a conservative estimate)

34,452: Number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence in 2006, according to the U.N.

19: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2003

77: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2004

185: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2006

5,000: Estimated strength of insurgency nationwide in Iraq, November 2003

20,000-30,000: Estimated strength of insurgency nationwide, October 2006





Basic Needs Are Still Unmet

75: Percentage of Iraqis who believe security is poor, according to a June 2006 survey

3,700,000: Estimated number of Iraqis who have fled the country or been internally displaced

20: Percentage of the Iraqi population living below the poverty line (or 5,600,000 people)

25-40: Estimated unemployment rate for Iraqi population

14.2 to 26.5: Estimated percentage of Iraqis who are malnourished

75: Percentage of Iraqi elementary schoolchildren who attended school last year, according to the Iraq Ministry of Education

30: Percentage of Iraqi elementary schoolchildren who attend school now, according to the Ministry of Education


Costs are Mounting

100.8 bil.: Annual cost of the war in Iraq, according to current monthly spending of 8.4 bil. per month

$463 bil.: Cumulative estimated cost of the Iraq war as of 2007

$5.6 bil.: Estimated cost of the escalation, according to Bush administration

Up to $27 bil.: Estimated cost of the escalation, according to the CBO

$633 bil.: Projected cumulative cost of the Iraq war come 2008, figuring in the cost of the escalation

21: Percentage of the FY 2007 National Security Budget spent on Iraq  this is not peanuts people!  - George

8: Percentage of the budget spent on homeland security

0.07: Percentage of the budget being spent on international broadcasting and educational cultural exchanges to win the war of ideas with terrorist groups



Americans Are Not Safer

75: Percentage of more than 100 foreign policy experts surveyed who think the war in Iraq had a “very negative impact” on protecting the American people from global terrorist networks and in advancing U.S. national security goals

75: Percentage of foreign-policy experts who think the United States is losing the war on terror

3,194: Number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004, as reported by the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center

11,100: Number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2005, as reported by the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center

1: Rank of Iraq among all nations as a training ground for terrorists


There are no longer any good or easy options in Iraq. However, the United States can minimize the damage to its troops, its national security, and the security of Iraq and the region by redeploying troops from Iraq to address the mounting terrorist threat in Afghanistan. This strategy, in tandem with multiple diplomatic efforts involving Iraq’s neighbors in serious negotiations, just might allow the United States to extricate itself from the Bush administration’s war of choice in Iraq with our national security interests intact.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/iraq_by_the_numbers.html

Oh.......BigSky, please take some time to read this a few times.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2007, 02:16:46 PM by George Jung » Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #82 on: April 03, 2007, 09:04:43 AM »

  Understand the scope of this threat?  LOL  Funny you bring that up because even simpleton knows that Muslim terrorists base what they do out of the Koran.  Jeeeesh did you think you actually knew something everyone else didn't know long ago?

Gee...i just thought maybe you don't fully comprehend...at least from the body of your comments I couldn't tell.  Guess I AM a "simpleton"?  That is what you are saying isn't it?  I don't necessairly think everyone sees it that way though.  I think alto of Americans saw an attack and wanted revenge.


Reply - Yes. It was asked already. So we are going to have to continue at this pace for how long, spending how much money and lives? We can't do it forever.

Hmm you tell me. In one day we lost 3000 lives and billions of dollars in damage to the US. Terrorists losses were minor.

War on terror. In four years we have lost just over 3000 lives, still cost billions of dollars with no loss to economy and we have killed thousands and thousands of terrorists and made the US just a little bit safer than it was.

As long as their our terrorists willing to disregard human life at all costs we will have to fight them. However you may ship yourself over to the ME and give up now if you wish.
Quote

I'm glad you think U.S. pockets are that deep to spend billions of $$$ a month with no end but the fact is my friend it is just not possible.  Hey.....can you smell that coffee?  I doubt anyone in the U.S. wants to get into a hundred year religious war with a foreign country.  There ARE other ways to fight terrorism.

Reply - An innuendo is a remark or question, typically disparaging, that works obliquely by allusion. The intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent. As I said.... Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation. I simply don't see how a few leaders is going to correct things and by staying at war AS WE ARE will be ineffective unless you plan on wiping them out. Comprende Amigo? Yes, I am accusing your idea of; taking down some leaders is going to rid us of terrorism approach, as being irrational and inneffective. There you have it, straight up, so it's easy for you to interpret. Let me say it one more time...Striking back is not genocide (this is not striking back anymore). I believe if we are to eliminate the threat in the way in which you suggest going about it would necessitate genocide.



The very fact you posted the "question" in that manner shows your hand.

"Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation". -GJ

Never said I was there george, (1)its not too hard to figure out what you were trying to allude to george. Just like when you made your veiled threat to me.

You can also quite with the lip service of indignation because(2) I am not buying it. Just as I didn't buy your lip service about supporting our troops after you slammed them as being brainwashed.

Yes this is striking back at them. That is what normal people do to protect themselves. If someone keeps committing acts of murder and violence do you really think sitting back and doing nothing will lessen them from doing even more of them. We merely have to look from the time that Iran kidnapped Americans and held them hostage under Carter to the continue attacks by them to this day.

Carter could have stopped this very easily from being where it is today. That would be, release all hostages unharmed in 24 hours or else we will be warming up the ICBM's.

They committed acts of terror against us and continue to push these acts to this day in Iraq against the troops. To even think killing those that commit such acts of terror and murder against us as being genocide has got to be the most ignorant thing I have heard IMO.

Let's see:  (1)If thats the case, you're like momas puddin' to me  and (2) Well thats good to hear BigSky..... and  (3)  I didn't think it...the UN does. 
Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #83 on: April 03, 2007, 02:52:56 PM »

Hind site is always 20/20.  I have never said that "I have felt as I do today from day one".  If I were to say such a thing I would be a liar.  I remember being in a hospital bed the morning of the 9/11 attacks.  I remember it like it was yesterday.  I, like the majority of Americans felt a wide range of emotion.  When we went on the offensive I felt proud to be an American.  I tuned in day and night whenever possible to the news in search of gratification that someone was going to pay for what had been done to our homeland, in hopes of putting an end to the present danger.

I am not exactly sure when my thoughts about the war started to waver but I do know, now, over four years into this "fight", I am unhappy and disappointed with the very little amount of progress made, that I am aware of (if any real progress at all).  I believe this war on terrorism is a war that requires full support from the world community with a unified plan and goals, and that is not where we are.  Why?  What is it about this administration that clouds their thought process and in return is taking all of us down this lonely road?  I am not a politician, obviously, but I do feel as if I am at leat an average American.  Anyone who is still in favor of this war in Iraq please take some time and reconsider the current methods at use.  In no way would I ever suggest to sit back and do nothing but I believe in my heart there is a better way.  The situation is very complicated and surely there are not going to be easy answers but if the powers that be try other strategies we will find one of success.  We ALL want the same basic thing and that is happiness.  Would peace not help bring that to us.  Lets achieve OUR goals and those goals of ALL terrorist  fighting countries.  There is a way.

 Random thought  -  George
Logged
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #84 on: April 03, 2007, 05:11:55 PM »

Gee...i just thought maybe you don't fully comprehend...at least from the body of your comments I couldn't tell.  Guess I AM a "simpleton"?  That is what you are saying isn't it?  I don't necessairly think everyone sees it that way though.  I think alto of Americans saw an attack and wanted revenge.

Do you even think about what you type before you type it?   ::)

I'm glad you think U.S. pockets are that deep to spend billions of $$$ a month with no end but the fact is my friend it is just not possible.  Hey.....can you smell that coffee?  I doubt anyone in the U.S. wants to get into a hundred year religious war with a foreign country.  There ARE other ways to fight terrorism.

The fact is what we spend now is very little compared to what the costs will be in the future if we do not halt its expansion now.  Costs of today are always cheaper than costs of tomorrow.

Let's see:  (1)If thats the case, you're like momas puddin' to me  and (2) Well thats good to hear BigSky..... and  (3)  I didn't think it...the UN does. 

Ahh are you trying to insult me now george?  LOL

As to this situation george it is indeed you who thinks it, not the UN.

The UN Charter allows for countries to defend themselves from those that commit attack on it. It does not consider that when one defends itself, that it is genocide.

If we were to kill those that are terrorists in Iran it would fall under the International law of self defense.  Also it seems to escape you that we are not giving any regard to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.  We would be killing terrorists in the Iran government who are behind terrorism and have committed such acts against the US.   

As much as you wish for it to be, terrorists are not covered by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, especially when it comes down to the fact they have attacked first.

Also you might note that the Convention excludes from the definition of genocide the killing of members of a social class, members of a political or ideological group.  BTW which would be terrorists.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2007, 05:35:03 PM by BigSky » Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #85 on: April 03, 2007, 06:01:17 PM »




The fact is what we spend now is very little compared to what the costs will be in the future if we do not halt its expansion now.  Costs of today are always cheaper than costs of tomorrow.


Nobody ever said to sit back and wait for the next twenty years to happen bro.

[Ahh are you trying to insult me now george? LOL

Well I figured it was merited by the "simpleton" implication.   Yea...I was insulting you.


As much as you wish for it to be, terrorists are not covered by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, especially when it comes down to the fact they have attacked first.


I am good with that.  But, does that mean we have to kill all of the children who are pointing machine guns at Americans too?  Call it/classify it however you like according to whom ever you like.  Point being is that we are going to either have to kill generations or search for an alternative answer.  To achieve real change in the ME we must change our strategies, as in get out of the actual hand to hand combat in Iraq and form a global plan with support from ALL four corners.  It's narrow minded fools like yourself that just might deserve more of the blame for our shortcomings in the years to come than the supreme jack ass himself who is running this country.   I'm guessing you are one of those people who thinks we should evacuate all of the innocent women and children of Iraq and then just blow the shit out of everyone else.  I'm not saying that is so, I'm simply saying that is how you come across to me.  I hope I am wrong.

BigSky - did you read the "numbers" post a few replies back?  What trends would you like to see change?
Logged
nextnoel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 552


« Reply #86 on: April 04, 2007, 05:58:58 AM »

Is this discussion actually going anywhere anymore?
Logged

I can't reach the hill like I used to, but I'm not at a standstill yet!
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2007, 07:46:39 AM »

Nobody ever said to sit back and wait for the next twenty years to happen bro.

Despite what you think there is no choice about fighting.  Either we fight today or we fight tomorrow.

Well I figured it was merited by the "simpleton" implication.   Yea...I was insulting you.

Tsk tsk george.  There was no implication.  I suggest you reread what I said because it seems your temper has flared and your anger and hate towards me is making you misread or comprehend what was exactly said in that sentence.

I am good with that.  But, does that mean we have to kill all of the children who are pointing machine guns at Americans too?

It depends on context.

If a child is pointing a gun and is refusing to disarm when instructed and is going to try to kill an American or anyone else for that matter, then yes, we kill them if need be.  As much as one may not like it, the fact is a child is just as capable of killing as an adult is capable of doing.

  Call it/classify it however you like according to whom ever you like.  Point being is that we are going to either have to kill generations or search for an alternative answer.  To achieve real change in the ME we must change our strategies, as in get out of the actual hand to hand combat in Iraq and form a global plan with support from ALL four corners.  It's narrow minded fools like yourself that just might deserve more of the blame for our shortcomings in the years to come than the supreme jack ass himself who is running this country.   I'm guessing you are one of those people who thinks we should evacuate all of the innocent women and children of Iraq and then just blow the shit out of everyone else.  I'm not saying that is so, I'm simply saying that is how you come across to me.  I hope I am wrong.

Ahh more insults.  LOL

There is one way and one way only to fight terrorists.  That is too hunt them down and kill them.  It will take hand to hand combat  because one cannot use smart bombs to get them all.You might note to date we have killed more terrorists in 1 month under Bush than we did in 8 years under Clinton.  When Clinton took office Al-Qaeda was in only a handful of countries, by the time he left office Al-Qaeda had operatives in almost every country on the planet.  The fact that Clinton failed to fight terrorism like he should have now has us "paying the piper".

Your problem is you do not see the big picture,  while the US and other countries are trying to change future generations from becoming terrorists we realize that we must also deal with those that are terrorists NOW!  Those that are terrorists now are not going to change their ways. 

It is only fueled by the propaganda that gets put out by them in the ME about the US.  I.E.  Pepsi=pay each penny to save Israel.
What educated person believes crap like that.

Do you even understand that the US pumps billions of dollars into 3rd world economies to an effort to help them live with some hope and try to counter the propaganda that the US is some big bad wolf that is responsible for the problems of the world?  We have dumped far more money into helping other countries than we have spent on this war on terror.  The fact is Bush is taking on terrorism on two fronts which is necessary because one cannot only try to change future generations beliefs about the US but must also take on those that are attacking it now.

We had unprecedented terrorist attacks on the US by muslim extremists during the Clinton years and did nothing.  That alone has caused far more shortcomings and caused far more damage than us fighting terrorism now.

After all it was Clinton's FAILURES and cut and run policy in Somalia that led directly to Bin Laden saying the US was a paper tiger and led him to the decision to strike the mainland US.

BigSky - did you read the "numbers" post a few replies back?  What trends would you like to see change?

I'm not going to get into a debate about numbers,   Numbers can be made to do anything one wants.

I.E.  3,217: Number of American troops killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war

In California alone from 2003-2005 over twice as many people in California were murdered.(7,300+)  Maybe we should pull out of California?

Not only did this country think the war in Iraq was needed but Congress did also.  One doesn't go to war and then undercut the troops in the middle of the job they are doing. 

The fact is we are no longer at war with Iraq.  What we are doing now is trying to rebuild Iraq and keep terrorists from overwhelming the fledgling government.  We are fighting terrorists who want the Iraq government to fall.

This mission is very important, it is an important element in the grand strategy of fighting terrorism in the Middle East.

This is no different than the roughly seven years we spent in Japan and Germany helping rebuild and help fighting the spread of Communism. 
Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #88 on: April 04, 2007, 09:13:53 AM »

BigSky, I find it very interesting and suspect that you would rather go back and forth with me (mostly about me) rather than to discuss numbers.  If it is like you say, "Numbers can be made to do anything one wants.", then you would make them do what you want and debate it.  It is alot easier to turn what I say around though, I'll give you that!  It's also quite funny to me how you are so preceptive to decipher implications that I have supposedly made but can so easily dismiss yourself from making one yourself.  I think the "simpleton" innuendo was pretty clear and I did read it again, several times.


Understand the scope of this threat? LOL Funny you bring that up because even simpleton knows that Muslim terrorists base what they do out of the Koran. Jeeeesh did you think you actually knew something everyone else didn't know long ago?


I think nextnoel might be on to something.  I for one would like to continue this debate but only if it is more constructive.  I would just like to add one more thing before letting go for now.  Contrary to what you think BigSky, I do not carry hatred or anger toward you nor is my temper "flaring", I simply believe that at this point in time the U.S. needs to make changes (drastic ones) in strategies on the war on terrorism.  Have we revisited the time when we sought support from the world round?  That did mean something once.  My friends this is a non traditional battle, and one that in my opinion cannot be won by ourselves (essentially we are alone), change will result in more efficiency and effectiveness.  I for one have no doubt about that!
Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #89 on: April 04, 2007, 09:25:20 AM »

A TIMELINE OF THE IRAQ WAR
Comment on this timeline here.

2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007

2003
MARCH 19, 2003: Bush launches invasion of Iraq



MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are

We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

APRIL 1, 2003: Pfc. Jessica Lynch recovered by U.S. forces. What the Pentagon framed as a heroic rescue was later revealed to have been staged. [Guardian, 5/15/03]



APRIL 9, 2003: Saddam Statue Toppled



The Los Angeles Times later reported that the fall was “stage-managed” by the Army. [LAT, 7/3/04]

APRIL 11, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: Stuff happens

Think what’s happened in our cities when we’ve had riots, and problems, and looting. Stuff happens! … Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things, and that’s what’s going to happen here. [DoD briefing, 4/11/03]

APRIL 16, 2003: Bush signs $79 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq [DoD, 4/16/03]

APRIL 23, 2003: USAID Administrator Andrew Nastios Claims Rebuilding of Iraq Could Be Accomplished With $1.7 Billion

TED KOPPEL: I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you’re not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

NATSIOS: Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US.
[…]
KOPPEL: You’re saying the, the top cost for the US taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No more than that?

NATSIOS: For the reconstruction. And then there’s 700 million in the supplemental budget for humanitarian relief, which we don’t competitively bid ’cause it’s charities that get that money.

KOPPEL: I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?

NATSIOS: That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I’ve seen, I have to say, there’s a little bit of hoopla involved in this. [ABC, Nightline, 4/23/03]

MAY 1, 2003: Mission Accomplished

[M]y fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. [Bush, 5/1/03]



MAY 9, 2003: Paul Wolfowitz: We agreed on WMD rationale for bureaucratic reasons

The truth is that, for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [to go to war]. [Wolfowitz, 5/9/03]

MAY 29, 2003: Bush: We found the WMD

We found the weapons of mass destruction. [Bush, 5/29/03]

JUNE 6, 2003: Rumsfeld blames Iraq problems on “pockets of dead-enders”

In those regions where pockets of dead-enders are trying to reconstitute, Gen. Franks and his team are rooting them out. In short, the coalition is making good progress. [USA Today, 6/18/03]

JULY 2, 2003: Bring ‘Em On

There are some who feel like — that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. [Bush, 7/2/03]

JULY 6, 2003: Joseph Wilson writes op-ed in the New York Times

It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such [yellowcake] transaction had ever taken place. [NYT, 7/6/03]

JULY 11, 2003: Condoleezza Rice: Doubts about Iraq intel were not communicated to Bush


All that I can tell you is that if there were doubts about the underlying intelligence in the NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the President. [WH Gaggle, 7/11/03]

JULY 14, 2003: Bush says he had good intelligence before the war

I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. [Bush, 7/14/03]

JULY 22, 2003: Saddam’s sons, Uday and Qusay, are killed in a U.S. raid in Mosul [CNN, 7/22/03]

AUGUST 7, 2003: Attack on Jordanian Embassy

Violence returned to the streets of Baghdad with a vengeance yesterday when at least 11 people were killed in a massive car bomb explosion outside the Jordanian embassy, leading to fears that guerrilla fighters may now be turning their attention towards so-called soft targets. [Guardian, 8/8/03]

AUGUST 20, 2003: Attack on United Nations Headquarters in Baghdad.

The U.N. special representative in Iraq [Sergio Vieira de Mello] and at least 16 others died Tuesday in a bomb explosion that ripped through the organization’s headquarters in Baghdad. … At least 100 people were wounded. [CNN, 8/20/03]

SEPTEMBER 3, 2003: Report shows Bush failed to plan

A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff lays the blame for setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process that ‘limited the focus’ for preparing for post-Saddam Hussein operations. [Washington Times, 9/3/03]

OCTOBER 19, 2003: Bush ignored the experts

A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq, according to internal State Department documents and interviews with administration and Congressional officials. [NYT, 10/19/03]

NOVEMBER 6, 2003: Bush signs $87 billion supplemental spending bill into law [Bush, 11/6/03]

NOVEMBER 20, 2003: Richard Perle suggests Iraq war was illegal

I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing. [Guardian, 11/20/03]

NOVEMBER 28, 2003: Bush makes surprise Thanksgiving visit to Iraq, poses with fake turkey




DECEMBER 14, 2003: Saddam is captured

Ladies and gentlemen. We got him! [Bremer, 12/14/03]

 

2004
JANUARY 17, 2004: 500 U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq since the invasion [Commondreams.org, 1/19/04]

JANUARY 22, 2004: CIA officers warn of civil war

CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said Wednesday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union address. [Knight-Ridder, 1/22/04]

JANUARY 28, 2004: Iraq Survey Group inspector David Kay reports

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing. [Kay, 1/28/04]

FEBRUARY 4, 2004: 109 Iraqis die in suicide bomb attacks in Kurdish-held Irbil [AP, 2/4/04]

FEBRUARY 10, 2004: U.S. Military uncovers letter addressed to senior al-Qaida operatives seeking help in waging a “sectarian war”

Brigadier general Mark Kimmit: “There is clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come into this country and spark civil war, breed sectarian violence and try to expose fissures in the society.” [Guardian, 2/10/04]

FEBRUARY 19, 2004: Chalabi declares that he and Bush administration have been “heroes in error.” [Telegraph, 2/19/04]



MARCH 5, 2004: Former chief U.N. weapons inspector declares Iraq war illegal

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair. [Independent, 3/5/04]

MARCH 18, 2004: General Garner speaks out

Jay Garner, the US general abruptly dismissed as Iraq’s first occupation administrator after a month in the job, says he fell out with the Bush circle because he wanted free elections and rejected an imposed program of privatization. [Guardian, 3/18/04]

MARCH 24, 2004: Bush jokes at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner

Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere. [Bush, 3/24/04]



APRIL 19, 2004: Bob Woodward reveals CIA Director George Tenet said there was a “slam dunk case” against Iraq

About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a “slam dunk case” that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward. [CNN, 4/19/04]

APRIL 21, 2004: Five suicide car bombings strike near police stations in the southern city of Basra, killing at least 74 people. [AP, 4/21/04]

APRIL 28, 2004: Images of torture at Abu Ghraib are revealed



APRIL 2004: Up to this point, the deadliest month in Iraq, and second highest total overall. 135 U.S. servicemembers lost their lives. [Washington Post, 11/1/05]

MAY 5, 2004: Appearing on Arab TV, Bush expresses sorrow over prisoner abuse

The American people are just as appalled at what they have seen on TV as Iraqi citizens have. The Iraqi citizens must understand that. [NYT, 5/5/04]

MAY 11, 2004: Video released showing Nicholas Berg, an American contractor, being beheaded by Iraqi militants. [USA Today, 5/11/04]



MAY 31, 2004: Four Blackwater contractors killed and their bodies mutilated in Fallujah

The group were shot and burnt in their cars, before a cheering crowd dismembered the corpses and hung two of them from a bridge. [BBC, 3/31/04]

JUNE 28, 2004: U.S. transfers sovereignty to Iraq. Bush’s response: “Let freedom reign!”




AUGUST 27, 2004: Bush acknowledged for the first time that he made a “miscalculation of what the conditions would be” in postwar Iraq [Reuters, 8/27/04]

AUGUST 30, 2004: “Catastrophic Success”

BUSH: Had we had to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success–being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day. [Time, 8/30/04]

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004: Death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq reaches 1,000 [CNN.com, 9/8/04]



SEPTEMBER 15, 2004: Bush administration requests that the Senate shift $3.4 billion of the $18.4 billion Iraqi aid package meant for reconstruction work to improving security measures [NYT, 9/15/04]

SEPTEMBER 16, 2004: Intelligence report delivered to Bush warns of civil war. Bush’s response: the CIA is “just guessing”:

A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday. The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. [NYT, 9/16/04; Bush, 9/21/04]

SEPTEMBER 16, 2004: U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan declares Iraq war illegal


When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: “Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.” [BBC, 9/16/04]

SEPTEMBER 23, 2004: Bush heralds Iraqi poll

I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. [Bush, 9/23/04]

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004: Another report showing Bush was warned about conditions in post-war Iraq


The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, government officials said Monday. [NYT, 9/28/04]

OCTOBER 5, 2004: Paul Bremer: Never had enough troops

We never had enough troops on the ground. [CNN, 10/5/04]

OCTOBER 7, 2004: Duelfer Report: Iraq did not have WMD

Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes. [CNN, 10/7/04]

OCTOBER 25, 2004: The New York Times reports that about 380 tons of powerful explosives disappeared from military installation called Al Qaqaa sometime after the U.S.-led war began in March 2003 [NYT, 10/25/04]

NOVEMBER 2, 2004: Bush wins re-election [Washington Post, 11/4/04]

NOVEMBER 8, 2004: U.S. forces launch all-out assault on Fallujah

The U.S. military said 10 troops and two members of Iraq’s security forces were killed in the first two days of the battle, the largest military operation since the U.S.-led invasion last year. U.S. and Iraqi leaders hope the assault will break the grip of insurgents who have held Fallujah for nearly seven months. [Washington Post, 11/10/04]

NOVEMBER 2004: The most deadly month in Iraq. 137 U.S. troops died. [Washington Post, 11/1/05]

DECEMBER 8, 2004: Donald Rumsfeld: You go to war with the Army you have

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. [Rumsfeld, 12/8/04]



DECEMBER 20, 2004: Blasts kill at least 64 in Iraq’s holy cities [Washington Post, 12/20/04]

 

2005
JANUARY 12, 2005: WMD search in Iraq is declared over

U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN. [CNN, 1/12/05]

JANUARY 27, 2005: 30 Marines, Sailor Die In Copter crash in Iraq, the deadliest single event for U.S. forces since the invasion [Washington Post, 1/27/05]

JANUARY 30, 2005: U.S. loses track of nearly $9 billion in Iraqi funds

The CPA provided less than adequate controls for approximately $8.8 billion of Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) funds provided to Iraqi ministries through the national budget process. [CPA Report, 1/30/05]

JANUARY 30, 2005: Iraqis vote to form a Transitional National Assembly

JANUARY 2005: 106 U.S. troops killed this month. [NYT, 11/1/05]

FEBRUARY 28, 2005: Car bombs kill at least 114 Iraqis in Hilla. [BBC, 2/28/05]

MARCH 2, 2005: Army missed its February recruiting goal by more than 27 percent, the first time in almost five years that the Army failed to meet a monthly target. [USA Today, 3/2/05]

MARCH 3, 2005: Death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq hits 1,500 [London Telegraph, 3/3/05]

MARCH 31, 2005: Silberman-Robb commission, the presidential commission on Iraqi WMD, concludes:


[T]he intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments. [USA Today, 3/31/05]

MAY 1, 2005: Downing Street Memo revealed

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. [Downing Street Memo, 7/23/02]

MAY 11, 2005: Bush signs supplemental spending bill, providing nearly $76 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan [State Department, 5/12/05]

MAY 30, 2005: Dick Cheney: Insurgency in its “last throes”

I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. [CNN Larry King Live, 5/30/05]



JUNE 12, 2005: National Guard misses recruiting target for ninth month in a row

The Army National Guard, a cornerstone of the U.S. force in Iraq, missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength. [AP, 7/12/05]

JUNE 23, 2005: Cheney revises “last throes” comment

BLITZER: “He says that the insurgency now is at a strength undiminished as it was six months ago, and he says there are actually more foreign fighters in Iraq now than there were six months ago. That doesn’t sound like the last throes.”

CHENEY: “No, I would disagree. If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period — the throes of a revolution.” [CNN, 6/20/05]

JUNE 27, 2005: Rumsfeld: “Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.” [Fox News Sunday, 6/27/05]

JULY 18, 2005: Death toll rises to 100 in suicide blast in Iraq [Washington Post, 7/18/05]

AUGUST 7, 2005: Cindy Sheehan camps out at Bush’s Texas ranch



AUGUST 31, 2005: Nearly 1,000 Shiites killed in mass stampede during religious festival [CNN, 9/1/05]

SEPTEMBER 9, 2005: Colin Powell, on his pre-war speech to the UN:

It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now. [ABC News, 9/9/05]

SEPTEMBER 30, 2005: Army misses recruiting target for previous fiscal year by widest margin since 1979

The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth. [AP, 9/30/05]

OCTOBER 7, 2005: IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei, who disputed U.S. pre-war assertions that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq had an active atomic weapons program, is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. [AP, 10/7/05]

OCTOBER 13, 2005: Bush administration paid no attention to warnings of post-war chaos

A review by former intelligence officers has concluded that the Bush administration ‘apparently paid little or no attention’ to prewar assessments by the Central Intelligence Agency that warned of major cultural and political obstacles to stability in postwar Iraq. [NYT, 10/13/05]

OCTOBER 15, 2005: Iraqis vote to ratify draft constitution [AP, 10/25/05]

OCTOBER 26, 2005: American military death toll reaches 2,000 [MSNBC.com, 10/26/05]

OCTOBER 2005: 4th deadliest month in Iraq; 92 American servicemembers killed [NYT, 11/1/05]

NOVEMBER 8, 2005: Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004 [Independent, 11/8/05]

NOVEMBER 15, 2005: U.S. Senate votes 79-19 to demand regular reports from the White House on progress towards a phased pullout of troops from Iraq [CNN, 11/16/05]

NOVEMBER 18, 2005: Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) calls for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. [Murtha, 11/17/05]



NOVEMBER 30, 2005: National Strategy for Victory In Iraq unveiled by White House



DECEMBER 15, 2005: Iraqis vote to elect members of Iraqi Assembly. The United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite Muslim’s most powerful party, won a majority of the seats. [CNN, 1/20/06]

DECEMBER 17, 2005: Lieberman: Bush has turned corner on Iraq

The last two weeks have been critically important and I believe may be seen as a turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. [AP, 12/17/05]

DECEMBER 18, 2005: Bush: “[M]uch of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.” [Bush, 12/18/05]

 

2006
JANUARY 6, 2006: Approximately 140 killed in Iraq, “one of the bloodiest days since the U.S.-led invasion of the country in 2003″ [Washington Post, 1/6/06]

JANUARY 24, 2006: Army has become “thin green line”

Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a “thin green line” that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon. [AP, 1/24/06]

JANUARY 29, 2006: ABC newsman Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt seriously injured in Iraq [ABC, 1/29/06]



FEBRUARY 2, 2006: Rumsfeld doubts “long war” in Iraq

“Is Iraq going to be a long war?” Mr. Rumsfeld answered, “No, I don’t believe it is.” [Washington Times, 2/2/06]

FEBRUARY 3, 2006: Bush requests additional $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, $120 billion total for 2006 [Washington Post, 2/3/06]

February 22, 2006: Iraq’s Golden Mosque in Samarra badly damaged in a bomb attack that fuels sectarian tensions



Up to 1,300 Iraqis feared dead. [Washington Post, 2/27/06]

FEBRUARY 28, 2006: Another report reveals Bush administration did not plan for post-war

The Bush administration never drew up a comprehensive plan for rebuilding Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. [Washington Times, 2/28/06]

MARCH 11, 2006: “Bush Goes on Offensive To Explain War Strategy” [Washington Post, 3/11/06]

MARCH 19, 2006: “Complete victory”

On the eve of the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, President Bush yesterday promised to “finish the mission” with “complete victory,” urging the American public to remain steadfast but offering no indication when victory may be achieved. [Washington Post, 3/19/06]

MARCH 19, 2006: Time Magazine reveals that U.S. Marines killed at least 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians in Haditha the previous November

According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks, the civilians who died in Haditha on Nov. 19 were killed not by a roadside bomb but by the Marines themselves, who went on a rampage in the village after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children. [Time, 3/19/06]

MARCH 21, 2006: Bush says some U.S. troops will remain in Iraq at least until 2009

QUESTION: [W]ill there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?

BUSH: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq. [Bush press conference, 3/22/06]

MARCH 30, 2006: Jill Carroll, a Christian Science Monitor journalist, is freed by her captors in Iraq [CSM, 3/31/06]



APRIL 12, 2006: Washington Post reports that Pentagon-commissioned team had concluded in May 2003 that trailers did not produce WMD

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.” The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. [Washington Post, 4/12/06]

APRIL 21, 2006: Jawad al-Maliki, “an experienced political operator and advocate for Iraq’s Shiite Muslims,” is chosen to replace Ibrahim al-Jaafari as prime minister [Washington Post, 4/22/06]



APRIL 23, 2006: A former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller, reveals evidence that Bush was told before the war by a high-level Iraqi informant that Iraq did not possess WMD [CBS News, 4/23/06]

APRIL 30, 2006: Powell says Bush went to war without enough troops

Powell: “I made the case to General Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld before the president though that it was not sure we had enough troops… [They] believed they had the appropriate troop level.” [ITV, 4/30/06]

MAY 18, 2006: CIA Director Michael Hayden: “I wasn’t comfortable” with Bush administration approach to prewar intelligence [CNN, 5/18/06]

MAY 20, 2006: Prime Minister Maliki oversees the formation of Iraq’s first permanent constitutional government since the fall of Saddam Hussein [Washington Post, 5/20/06]

MAY 25, 2006: Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki says Iraqi troops will be ready to handle security by end of 2007 [CNN, 5/25/06]

JUNE 8, 2006: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, is killed during a U.S. air raid [AP, 6/8/06]



JUNE 15, 2006: Number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq reaches 2,500 [Reuters, 6/15/06]

JUNE 15, 2006: With support of Iraq’s President, Iraqi Vice President asks Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq [AP, 6/15/06]

JUNE 20, 2006: Japan announces it plans to withdrawal its 600 soldiers from Iraq in the coming weeks [ABC News, 6/20/06]

JUNE 20, 2006: Iraqi National Security Adviser writes that U.S. troops should be out of Iraq by the end of 2007


We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007. [Washington Post, 6/20/06]

JUNE 20, 2006: Mutilated bodies of two U.S. soldiers who were kidnapped four days earlier are found dead

Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed, an Iraqi Defense Ministry official, said the soldiers “were killed in a barbaric way.” [USA Today, 6/20/06]

JULY 3, 2006: Pfc. Steven Green charged with the rape and murder of a young Iraqi girl


Revealed last week and denounced by clerics as showing the “real, ugly face of America”, the case could be particularly damaging to the U.S. image in Iraq’s conservative Muslim society even after several other murder cases in the past few weeks. [Reuters, 7/3/06]

JULY 8, 2006: Four other soldiers charged with participating in the rape and murders; a fifth charged with dereliction of duty for failing to report the crimes [Bloomberg, 6/9/06]

JULY 12, 2006: White House budget document reveals that administration will ask for another $110 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [White House Office of Management and Budget, 7/12/06]

JULY 13, 2006: Rampant violence grips Baghdad, over 140 people killed

Last month, Mr. Maliki implemented a security plan for Baghdad, where the sharp rise in violence over the past few months has been felt most acutely. But the strategy, which features a constellation of new checkpoints, has not curbed the mayhem. [NYT, 7/13/06]

AUGUST 3, 2006: The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid, suggests that civil war is possible in Iraq.

ABIZAID: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably is as bad as I’ve seen it in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war.” [CNN, 8/3/06]

AUGUST 7, 2006: The top U.S. military official in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, says that civil war in Iraq is “certainly possible,” calling it “the most significant threat right now” in the country. [ABC News, 8/7/06]

AUGUST 15, 2006: 3,438 Iraq civilians died in July, “the deadliest month of the war for Iraqi civilians.” [New York Times, 8/15/06]

AUGUST 16, 2006: 1,666 bombs exploded in Iraq in July, “the highest monthly total of the war.” [New York Times, 8/16/06]



AUGUST 19 2006: 1,249 days since the war began — the war in Iraq surpasses the length of WWII. [The Nation, 8/18/2006]

AUGUST 21, 2006: Bush: “We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long as I’m the president.” [CNN, 8/21/2006]

AUGUST 21, 2006: Bush acknowledges Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. [Fox News, 8/21/2006]

AUGUST 22, 2006: Marine Corps begins involuntary troop recalls. “The U.S. Marine
Corps will start ordering what could be thousands of inactive service members to return to duty in the coming months to counter a steady decline in the number of such troops who volunteer.” [Reuters, 8/22/2006]

AUGUST 28, 2006: “A suicide car bombing and clashes between Shiite militia and Iraqi security forces left at least 50 people dead Monday in a brutal contradiction of the prime minister’s claim that bloodshed was decreasing” The dead included eight American soldiers, one of the U.S. military’s deadliest weekends in months.” [AP, 8/28/2006]

AUGUST 29, 2006: Rumsfeld calls war critics “quitters” who “blame America first” for giving “the enemy the false impression Americans cannot stomach a tough fight” [LA Times, 8/29/2006]

AUGUST 30, 2006: Rumsfeld compares Iraq war critics to those who believed Hitler could be “appeased” [CNN, 8/30/2006]

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006: Baghdad morgue revises August death toll upward 300 percent

“[T]his means that a much-publicized drop-off in violence in August — heralded by both the Iraqi government and the US military as a sign that a new security effort in Baghdad was working — apparently didn’t exist.” [ABC News, 9/6/2006]

SEPTEMBER 11, 2006: Cheney: war critics aid terrorists.

CHENEY: terrorists are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we’ve had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. [Meet the Press, 9/11/2006]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2006: Iraq becomes the deadliest place for journalists to work. A new study by the Committee to Protect Journalists found that of the 580 journalists who have been killed over the last 15 years, 78 reporters died in Iraq. [Reuters, 9/20/2006]

SEPTEMBER 21, 2006: Number of civilian deaths continues to rise. “The number of civilians slain in Iraq reached an unprecedented level in July and August, which saw 6,599 violent deaths,” a new U.N. report shows. Researchers also noted “the growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in “honor killings” of women. [AP, 9/21/2006]

SEPTEMBER 24, 2006: President Bush describes Iraq violence as “just a comma” in history. [CNN, 9/24/2006]

SEPTEMBER 24, 2006: New National Intelligence Estimate determines Iraq war has increased terror threat.

“A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.” [New York Times, 9/24/2006]

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006: Pentagon announces 3,800 U.S. soldiers will be staying in Iraq about six weeks beyond their one-year combat tours. [USA Today, 9/26/2006]

SEPTEMBER 27, 2007: 71 percent of Iraqis want U.S. forces To withdraw within a year. [World Public Opinion, 9/27/2007]

OCTOBER 2, 2006: 3,000 Iraqi civilians die in August 2006, up from 2,000 deaths in August of 2005, according to findings from the Brookings Institution. [New York Times, 10/2/2006]

OCTOBER 3, 2006: 58 percent of Americans believe the Bush administration has deliberately misled the American public about the war in Iraq. [CNN, 10/4/2006]

OCTOBER 4, 2006: Powell objects to “stay the course” strategy.

“Only the Iraqi people can resolve this … taying the course isn’t good enough because a course has to have an end.” [Star Tribune, 10/2/2006]

OCTOBER 4, 2006: Al Qaeda letter says prolonging the Iraq war “is in our interest.”

“The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq …Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.” [Counterterrorism Center at West Point, 10/4/2006]

OCTOBER 4, 2006: Iraq and Afghanistan war vets say military is overstretched, underequippied. 63 percent of all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe the Army and Marine Corps are overextended. 67 percent of Army and Marine veterans believe their forces are overextended. [VoteVets Action Fund, 10/4/2006]

OCTOBER 6, 2006: In Baghdad, Rice says Iraq is “making progress.” Her trip “began inauspiciously when the military transport plane that brought her to Baghdad was forced to circle the city for about 40 minutes” because the airport was under attack. [New York Times, 10/6/2006]

OCTOBER 8, 2006: U.S. casualties in Iraq spiking.

“The number of U.S troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years as American GIs fight block-by-block in Baghdad to try to check a spiral of sectarian violence that U.S. commanders warn could lead to civil war.” [Washington Post, 10/8/2006]

OCTOBER 11, 2006: 655,000: The number of Iraqis who have died since March 2003, according to a team of epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University. [Washington Post, 10/11/2006]

OCTOBER 12, 2006: British Army chief: “We must quit Iraq soon.”

“The head of the Army is calling for British troops to withdraw from Iraq ’soon’ or risk catastrophic consequences for both Iraq and British society.” [The Daily Mail, 10/12/2006]

OCOTBER 14, 2006: Three in four Americans support bringing troops home from Iraq. A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll finds that nearly three in four Americans (73 percent) agree that U.S. troops should start to come home. [Fox News, 10/14/2006]

OCTOBER 15, 2006: Hagel: “We need to find a new strategy, a way out of Iraq.”

“The American people are not going to continue to support, sustain a policy that puts American troops in the middle of a civil war.” He added, “So we need to find a new strategy, a way out of Iraq, because the entire Middle East, Wolf, is more combustible than it’s been probably since 1948, and more dangerous, and we’re in the middle of it.” [CNN, 10/15/2006]

OCTOBER 17, 2006: The number of embedded journalists reporting in Iraq has dropped to its lowest level.

Some journalists blame the decline on Pentagon bureaucracy, the reporting restrictions journalists face, and pressure by some commanders to avoid “negative” coverage. [Editor and Publisher, 10/17/2006]

OCTOBER 18, 2006: “Ten U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq on Tuesday, one of the bloodiest days of the war for American forces outside of major combat operations.” [Washington Post, 10/18/2006]

OCTOBER 18 2006: Electricity levels in Baghdad at lowest since U.S. invasion. Residents of Baghdad are receiving just 2.4 hours of electricity this month, compared to an average of 16-24 hours of electricity before the U.S. invasion. The lowest level prior to this month was 3.9 hours/day. [Brookings Institution, 10/18/2006]

OCTOBER 19, 2006: Staff on the House Veterans Affairs Committee report that the “number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have sought help for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) doubled — from nearly 4,500 to more than 9,000 — from October 2005 through June 2006.” [McClatchy, 10/18/2006]

OCTOBER 20, 2006: Former top Bush administration official calls for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Richard Armitage proposed notifying “the Iraqis that we’re going to be drawing down a reasonable but careful percentage of our troops over a reasonable interval of months — just for example, 5 percent of troops every three months.” [New Jersey Express Times, 10/20/2006]

OCTOBER 23, 2006: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “We have to face the fact that Iraq is a civil war.” [CNN, 10/23/2006]

OCTOBER 24, 2006: 19 percent of Americans believe the United States is winning the war in Iraq, an all-time low. [USA Today, 10/24/2006]

OCTOBER 30, 2006: October is the fourth deadliest month for American troops since the war began. “The U.S. military announced the death of the 100th servicemember killed in Iraq this month.” [CBS News, 10/30/2006]

NOVEMBER 1, 2006: Classified military briefing reports Iraq “edging toward chaos.”

A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict. … An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads “urban areas experiencing ‘ethnic cleansing’ campaigns to consolidate control” and ‘”iolence at all-time high, spreading geographically.” [New York Times, 11/1/2006]



NOVEMBER 2, 2006: 1,289 Iraqi civilians estimated to have died in October 2006 in political violence. The number — nearly 42 people per day — was up 18 percent from the 1,089 of such fatalities in September. [Washington Post, 11/2/2006]

NOVEMBER 3, 2006: “Rumsfeld must go.” A group of military publications — the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times — call on Rumsfeld to resign:

“It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.” [MSNBC, 11/3/2006]

NOVEMBER 5, 2006: Saddam sentenced to death by hanging.

Iraq’s High Tribunal on Sunday found Saddam Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to hang for the 1982 killing of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail. [AP, 11/5/2006]



NOVEMBER 8, 2006: Donald Rumsfeld resigns as Secretary of Defense. One day after the midterm elections that turned control of Congress over to the Democrats, Bush announced Rumsfeld would step down and be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates. [CNN, 11/8/2006]



NOVEMBER 9, 2006: Iraqi health minister reports 150,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war — “about three times previously accepted estimates.” [Forbes, 11/9/2006]

NOVEMBER 12, 2006: Up to 150 people are abducted from a government research institute in downtown Baghdad, “the largest mass abduction since the start of the U.S. occupation.” Iraq’s higher education minister orders all universities closed. [Washington Post, 11/13/2006]

NOVEMBER 20, 2006: Iraqis demand U.S. troops withdraw.

“Seven out of ten Iraqis overall–including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%)–say they want the United States to leave within a year.” [World Public Opinion poll, 11/20/06]

NOVEMBER 23, 2006: 144 people die in the war’s deadliest attack to date.

“In the deadliest sectarian attack in Baghdad since the American-led invasion, explosions from five powerful car bombs and a mortar shell tore through crowded intersections and marketplaces in the teeming Shiite district of Sadr City on Thursday afternoon, killing at least 144 people and wounding 206, the police said.” [New York Times, 11/23/2006]

NOVEMBER 25, 2006: The Iraq insurgency is now self-sustaining financially,”raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, corrupt charities and other crimes … a classified United States government” concludes. [New York Times, 11/25/2006]

NOVEMBER 27, 2006: NBC News decides to refer to war in Iraq as a “civil war.” [MSNBC, 11/27/2006]

NOVEMBER 28, 2006: A classified Marine Corps intelligence report concludes that in Western Iraq, “the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point” where U.S. and Iraqi troops “are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar.” [Washington Post, 11/27/2006]

NOVEMBER 29, 2006: Pentagon plans Iraq escalation.

“The Pentagon is developing plans to send four more battalions to Iraq … partly to boost security in Baghdad … The extra combat engineer battalions of reserves, likely to be sent to Baghdad, would total about 3,500 troops.” [AP, 11/29/2006]



NOVEMBER 29, 2006: 68 percent of Americans say they believe there is a civil war in Iraq. [Wall Street Journal, 11/29/2006]

NOVEMBER 30, 2006: Condoleezza Rice says Iraq is not in a civil war because “the Iraqis don’t see it that way.” [CBS Evening News, 11/30/06]

DECEMBER 2, 2006: “Not working well.” Donald Rumsfeld, describing the Iraq strategy in a classified memo written two days before he resigned. [New York Times, 12/2/2006]

DECEMBER 5, 2006: Gates acknowledges U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq. Asked if he believes the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq, Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates responds, “no, sir.” [Fox News, 12/5/2006]

DECEMBER 6, 2006: Iraq Study Group Report released. Key recommendations include:


RECOMMENDATION 22: The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the U.S. government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government.

RECOMMENDATION 35: The United States must make active efforts to engage all parties in Iraq, with the exception of al Qaeda. The United States must find a way to talk to Grand Ayatollah Sistani, Moqtada al-Sadr, and militia and insurgent leaders.

RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
[United States Institute of Peace, 12/6/2006]

DECEMBER 8, 2006: 71 percent of Americans who disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, an “alltime high.” [AP, 12/8/2006]

DECEMBER 19, 2006: The White House is “aggressively promoting” a plan to send “15,000 to 30,000 more troops” to Iraq “over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” the Washington Post reports. [Washington Post, 12/19/2006]

DECEMBER 19, 2006: 11 percent of Americans support escalating the war in Iraq by adding at least 20,000 additional U.S. forces. [CNN, 12/19/2006]

DECEMBER 20, 2006: Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, submit plans to retire. [LAT, 12/20/06]

DECEMBER 21, 2006: Lieberman: “I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad.” [AP, 12/21/2006]

DECEMBER 21, 2006: 32 journalists died in Iraq in 2006, “the deadliest year for the press in a single country that the Committee to Protect Journalists has ever recorded.” [Committee to Protect Journalists, 12/21/2006]

DECEMBER 23, 2006: 76. Number of American troops who have died in Iraq this month, “making December the second deadliest month for U.S. servicemen in 2006.” [AP, 12/23/2006]

DECEMBER 30, 2006: Saddam executed by hanging. The execution was conducted just before the Sunni Muslim celebration of Eid al-Adha. “It was a slap in the face to Sunni Arabs.” [Salon, 12/30/06]

Bush: “When it came to execute him, it looked like it was kind of a revenge killing. And it sent a mixed signal to the American people and the people around the world. And it just goes to show that this is a government that has still got some maturation to do.” [PBS Newshour, 1/16/07]



DECEMBER 2006: 3rd most deadly month in Iraq. 112 U.S. troops killed. [icasualties]

2007
JANUARY 2, 2007: 16,723 Iraqis died violent deaths in 2006, according to Iraqi authorities. Iraqi civilian deaths hit a record high in December 2006. [New York Times, 1/2/2007]

JANUARY 2, 2007: Gen. George Casey warns against troop escalation in Iraq.

“It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term.” [New York Times, 1/2/2007]

JANUARY 2, 2007: “For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.” [Military Times, 1/2/2007]

JANUARY 3, 2007: Death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq reaches 3,000 [CNN, 1/3/07]

JANUARY 10, 2007: New troops in Iraq lack needed armor.

“The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said.” [Baltimore Sun, 1/10/2007]

JANUARY 10, 2007: Bush announces escalation. “I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” [Bush, 1/10/2007]

JANUARY 11, 2007: 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq.

“Just 35 percent think it was right for the United States to go to war, a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move.” [AP, 1/11/2007]

JANUARY 11, 2007: Hagel on escalation:”The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” [CSPAN, 1/11/2007]

JANUARY 19, 2007: $8.4 billion: The cost of the Iraq war per month. “It rose from a monthly ‘burn rate’ of about $4.4 billion during the first year of fighting in fiscal 2003.” [LA Times, 1/19/2007]

JANUARY 20, 2007: 25 U.S. service members killed, marking “the third-deadliest day for American troops since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.” Twelve of the U.S. deaths on Saturday came in the crash of a Black Hawk helicopter northeast of Baghdad. [Baltimore Sun, 1/22/2007]

JANUARY 22, 2007: Sen. John Warner (R-VA) introduces resolution opposing Bush’s Iraq plan. [Washington Post, 1/23/07]

JANUARY 26, 2007: The White House has “authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranians who are believed to be working with Iraqi militias.” [Washington Post,1/25/2007]

JANUARY 30, 2007: The Army and Marine Corps “are short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other equipment needed to supply” the extra 21,500 troops President Bush plans to send to Iraq. “It’s inevitable that that has to happen, unless five brigades of up-armored Humvees fall out of the sky,” one senior Army official said. [Washington Post, 1/30/2007]

FEBRUARY 1, 2007: 150 Iraqis are killed in suicide bomb attack on a crowded market in Hilla, Iraq. [ABC News, 2/1/2007]

FEBRUARY 2, 2007: Iraqi civilian deaths hit monthly high.

“Iraqi officials said on Thursday that nearly 2,000 civilians had died in January, a new monthly high that suggests that a crackdown by the government of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki against militias has failed to yield any immediate results.” [2/2/2007]

FEBRUARY 2, 2007: National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq declares Iraq is worse than a civil war. The document states that the term civil war “accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict,” though it “does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict.” [Washington Post, 2/3/2007]

FEBRUARY 2, 2007: Bush requests another $100 billion for Iraq

“President George W. Bush will ask Congress for $99.7 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for rest of fiscal year 2007 and more than $145 billion for fiscal year 2008. … That money comes on top of $70 billion that Congress approved for the current fiscal year, adding up to a total of $170 billion and making it the most expensive year yet for the war.” [Reuters, 2/2/07]

FEBRUARY 4, 2007: “There has been an ongoing effort to target our helicopters,” chief U.S. military spokesman William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad. “We have had four helicopters shot down … It appears they were all the result of some kind of ground fire.” [Washington Post, 2/5/2007]



FEBRUARY 6, 2007: Pace: Not enough equipment to support escalation.

“U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace admitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday equipment will be a problem when U.S. forces in Iraq are increased. … Pace said the military has about 41,000 armored vehicles in Iraq — fewer than will be needed ‘to cover all of the troops that are deploying.’ Pace says it will be July before enough equipment is in place.” [UPI, 2/6/2007]

FEBRUARY 10, 2007: Gen. David Petraeus officially takes charge of U.S. forces in Iraq, replacing Gen. George Casey, who will become Army chief of staff. [Defenselink, 2/12/07]

FEBRUARY 12, 2007: Car bombings kill at least 80 in Iraq.

“Thunderous explosions and dense black smoke swirled through the center of Baghdad Monday when at least two car bombs - one parked in an underground garage - tore through a crowded marketplace, setting off dozens of secondary explosions and killing at least 71 people, police said. Another bombing nearby killed at least nine.” [AP, 2/12/2007]

FEBRUARY 13, 2007: 63 percent of Americans want all U.S. troops home from Iraq by the end of 2008. [CBS News, 2/13/2007]

FEBRUARY 16, 2007: The House opposes escalation. By a vote of 246-182, the House of Representatives passes a resolution opposing President Bush’s escalation in Iraq, marking the first time in four years that Congress has voted decisively against Bush’s Iraq policy. [C-SPAN, 2/16/2007]

FEBRUARY 17, 2007: Senate rejects debate on anti-escalation resolution.

“The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war in a sharply worded showdown on Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic attempt to rebuke President Bush over his deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops. The vote was 56-34.”

That was four short of the 60 needed to advance the measure, which is identical to a nonbinding resolution that passed the House. [C-SPAN, 2/17/2007]

FEBRUARY 18, 2007: A Washington Post investigation reveals that returning soldiers face deplorable conditions at Walter Reed’s outpatient center

The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses. [Washington Post, 2/18/2007]

FEBRUARY 21, 2007: Tony Blair announces a timetable for the withdrawal of U.K. troops from Iraq. [BBC, 2/21/2007]

FEBRUARY 22, 2007: 8th helicopter shot down in Iraq in a month

“Insurgents shot down an eighth US helicopter in Iraq yesterday in what the Pentagon acknowledges is a change of tactics, as well as the use of more sophisticated weaponry.” [Guardian, 2/22/07]

FEBRUARY 22, 2007: Insurgents turn to chlorine bombs

“For the third time in a month, Iraqi insurgents have set off a make-shift chemical bomb. All three have used chlorine, which can kill if inhaled and can burn the eyes and skin. The use of chemicals in attacks is a new tactic, reflecting the adaptibility of insurgent groups.” [NPR, 2/22/07]

MARCH 2, 2007: Pentagon says 7,000 more troops will be sent to Iraq.

“President Bush’s planned escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq will require as many as 28,500 troops, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee Thursday.” [USA Today, 3/2/07]

MARCH 8, 2007: “Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday proposed legislation that would bring American combat troops out of Iraq by August 2008 at the latest.” [Reuters, 3/8/07]

“At the same time Senate Democrats were preparing their own bill with binding legislation that would require a withdrawal from Iraq to begin no less than 120 days after the legislation is enacted with the goal of redeployment by March 31, 2008.” [FoxNews.com, 3/8/07]

MARCH 10, 2007: Senior Administration Official: “Right now there is no trend” that escalation is working. [Washington Post, 3/10/07]

MARCH 12, 2007: Pentagon planning fallback strategy if escalation fails. [LAT, 3/12/07]

MARCH 13, 2007: For the first time since the Iraq war began, less than half of Americans (46 percent) believe the United States can win in Iraq. [CNN, 3/13/07]

MARCH 14, 2007: The Pentagon acknowledges Iraq is a civil war

“In its bleakest assessment of the war to date, a quarterly Pentagon report said that last October through December was the most violent three-month period since 2003. Attacks and casualties suffered by coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians were higher than any other similar time span, said the report.” [AP, 3/14/07]

http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
Logged
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #90 on: April 04, 2007, 10:35:44 AM »

BigSky, I find it very interesting and suspect that you would rather go back and forth with me (mostly about me) rather than to discuss numbers.  If it is like you say, "Numbers can be made to do anything one wants.", then you would make them do what you want and debate it.

How many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland since going on the offensive?  How many times has saddam tried to attack us since we invaded?  How many terrorists and leaders of Al-Qaeda have been captured since going on the offensive compared to how many Clinton captured by not doing anything?
 
Do you think terrorists just give up without a fight?

My how novel, you think its about you.  Did you really think you can insult and make threats towards me and I wasnt going to point it out?  Really now.

  It is alot easier to turn what I say around though, I'll give you that!  It's also quite funny to me how you are so preceptive to decipher implications that I have supposedly made but can so easily dismiss yourself from making one yourself.  I think the "simpleton" innuendo was pretty clear and I did read it again, several times.

There is no innuendo between you and that sentence, that is pretty clear,  but I cannot control your reading comprehension skills to that affect nor am I going to try.  You are free to jump to conclusions.


I think nextnoel might be on to something.  I for one would like to continue this debate but only if it is more constructive.
 I would just like to add one more thing before letting go for now.  Contrary to what you think BigSky, I do not carry hatred or anger toward you nor is my temper "flaring",


I might belief that if it were not for you constant name calling and the making of threats. ;)



When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."

--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003


Iraq since the 90's has had a history of violating UN resolutions to WMD.  Saddam numerous times committed, tried to commit and planned to commit numerous different attacks on the US, its people or the military. 

We could no longer be the Paper Tiger of the Clinton era and in fact had to take a stand.

We could have very well went in and bombed the crap out of everything and left the country to the terrorists.  However we have a little more decency than that.  You forget we are rebuilding Iraq for a better future.

Even Clinton knew it was getting to be time to act.


Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.R.4655--

H.R.4655

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

An Act

To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

      This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

      The Congress makes the following findings:

            (1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

            (2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

            (3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

            (4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

            (5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

            (6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

            (7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

            (8.) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.

            (9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

            (10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

            (11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.

            (12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

      It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

      (a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

            (1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.

            (B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.

            (2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

            (B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

      (b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.

      (c) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE- No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime.

      (d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.

      (e) REIMBURSEMENT RELATING TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE-

            (1) IN GENERAL- Defense articles, defense services, and military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2).

            (2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).

      (f) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.

      (2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are in addition to amounts otherwise available for the purposes described in this section.

      (g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- Activities under this section (including activities of the nature described in subsection (b)) may be undertaken notwithstanding any other provision of law.

SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.

      (a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

      (b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

      (c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--

            (1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and

            (2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.

      (d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.

SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.

      Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

      It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

      Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

  Comment on timeline?

How about this.

Dec 14, 2003

Saddam no longer is able to murder, beat, rape innocent men, women and children of Iraq.  Saddam is no longer able to attack its neighbor countries nor attack or plan attacks on the US.  Saddam is no longer able to give government aid to members of Al-Qaeda.

Is that what you want to hear?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2007, 10:53:10 AM by BigSky » Logged
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #91 on: April 04, 2007, 10:49:37 AM »

Just what is the tipping point we should have waited for before taking action in Iraq there george?

After a mushroom cloud, chemical or biological attack occurred on the US from Saddam?

If any of those were to occur from Saddam, you can bet we might have  responded with much more than smart bombs and millions of innocent people may well have died before its was done.
Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #92 on: April 04, 2007, 11:06:47 AM »

Even Clinton knew it was getting to be time to act.

Nobody is arguing that action must be taken.  Have I ever said that?  NOPE.


Is that what you want to hear?

It's interesting, but not exactly what I had in mind.  Does it have to do with our current administrations position and strategies in Iraq?
Logged
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #93 on: April 04, 2007, 11:24:25 AM »

Nobody is arguing that action must be taken.  Have I ever said that?  NOPE.

There was only one way to remove Saddam, that was to go in and get him.

We tried to eliminate him through bombs but were unable to do so.   Short of carpet bombing or nuking Baghdad and killing millions using just bombs wasn't going to work to get him.


It's interesting, but not exactly what I had in mind.  Does it have to do with our current administrations position and strategies in Iraq?

What it has to do is that we are not nor were we ever going to go in and just capture saddam and leave the country to terrorists.  Our strategy in Iraq is for the bigger picture of having a start point in the middle east to help eliminate terrorism.  Its not the short term goal one keeps their eye on when fighting terrorism, its the long term goal we have to keep in mind.  Starting a domino affect to push democracy type governments where all people have a say, including women.
Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #94 on: April 04, 2007, 12:10:26 PM »

What if we "back out" of Iraq (majority of troops) giving a possible illusion to terrorists, and concentrate on more effective and efficient methods on seeking out leaders in terrorism with intelligence and support from the world community (covering all four corners)?  Is it possible that a semi withdraw would relieve some "perceived" pressure on those whom we seek and possibly they will come out from their little tunnels or wherever they are hiding?  I feel as if we (the U.S.) are at a stand still and conditions in Iraq are worsening.  There are reports of a civil war going on now.  I understand that this is a long term war, not in Iraq but against terrorism and also that things usually get worse before getting better but is it possible that we are at that point now.  Maybe this is the worse and the better is on the way with changes in strategy.  Maybe Clinton p*cked up and maybe Bush is a donkey's ass and maybe the next administration will right was has been done wrong.  I am an American and exercising my voice is my right and privilege.  We all want to live a peaceful life without worrying about terrorist.  Unfortunately that day may never come but it sure would be nice to have a hold on it and to be regarded by the rest of the world as being the leader in anti-terrorism.  Now that would be nice, that's what I would like to see.
Logged
Triker
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 85


« Reply #95 on: April 05, 2007, 09:58:28 AM »

What if we "back out" of Iraq (majority of troops) giving a possible illusion to terrorists, and concentrate on more effective and efficient methods on seeking out leaders in terrorism with intelligence and support from the world community (covering all four corners)?  Is it possible that a semi withdraw would relieve some "perceived" pressure on those whom we seek and possibly they will come out from their little tunnels or wherever they are hiding?  I feel as if we (the U.S.) are at a stand still and conditions in Iraq are worsening.  There are reports of a civil war going on now.  I understand that this is a long term war, not in Iraq but against terrorism and also that things usually get worse before getting better but is it possible that we are at that point now.  Maybe this is the worse and the better is on the way with changes in strategy.  Maybe Clinton p*cked up and maybe Bush is a donkey's ass and maybe the next administration will right was has been done wrong.  I am an American and exercising my voice is my right and privilege.  We all want to live a peaceful life without worrying about terrorist.  Unfortunately that day may never come but it sure would be nice to have a hold on it and to be regarded by the rest of the world as being the leader in anti-terrorism.  Now that would be nice, that's what I would like to see.

Why do they target America? Is because it because we meddle in the Mideast's business? If we pull out, would they leave us alone? I don't think so. Have we fought the war on terror in the best possible way? I don't think so, but I'm not sure anyone knows the best possible way. What is it that the terrorists want? I think that the bottom line is they want supremacy, and America has it. Supremacy, has been the underlying factor in war throughout history. Who do you want having supremacy, America or terrorists? I vote America!!!
Logged
Hawkeye
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1356


« Reply #96 on: April 05, 2007, 11:11:13 AM »

Why do they target America? Is because it because we meddle in the Mideast's business? If we pull out, would they leave us alone? I don't think so. Have we fought the war on terror in the best possible way? I don't think so, but I'm not sure anyone knows the best possible way. What is it that the terrorists want? I think that the bottom line is they want supremacy, and America has it. Supremacy, has been the underlying factor in war throughout history. Who do you want having supremacy, America or terrorists? I vote America!!!

LOL, I think you have just summed up in one small paragrph the entire arguement that George Jung and BigSky have been having the entire time.  I have to say I agree with your statement.
Logged

It's not easy being green.
nextnoel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 552


« Reply #97 on: April 05, 2007, 01:25:36 PM »

Anyone remember the children's game "King of the Mountain?
Logged

I can't reach the hill like I used to, but I'm not at a standstill yet!
Hawkeye
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1356


« Reply #98 on: April 05, 2007, 01:28:36 PM »

Anyone remember the children's game "King of the Mountain?

yep, lots of fun to play during the winter on the huge mounds snowplows made in the apartment parking lot.
Logged

It's not easy being green.
nextnoel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 552


« Reply #99 on: April 05, 2007, 01:31:04 PM »

Anyone remember the children's game "King of the Mountain?

yep, lots of fun to play during the winter on the huge mounds snowplows made in the apartment parking lot.
Right!  And whoever was on top of the hill had to be knocked off - maybe we have so many wars because we never grew up!
Logged

I can't reach the hill like I used to, but I'm not at a standstill yet!
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2019, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!