Do No Evil – The most interesting discovery during a visit to Jalalabad, where Osama bin Laden planted his flag in 1996, is that Al-Qaeda seems to have all but disappeared. The group is on the run, too, in Iraq, and that raises some interesting questions about how to pursue this terrorist enemy in the future. "Al-Qaeda is not a topic of conversation her
Sounds like intelligent engagement works wonders...Why don't we talk to our other "enemies" again???
Talking to our enemies? We've won the hearts of the locals and common people. They're very much like us. They want many of the same things Americans do. Clean water, good jobs, good schools, safe communities, a little plot of land to call their own. Like in America it's the little guy who will do most of the working, fighting and unfortunately the dying to win this thing. This is the same group that the Iranian insurgents and Saudi AlQeada made really mad. You see, they're all too chicken to actually face the Iraqi Army or American forces. They like soft targets. Schools, markets, road side bombs and the like. Any where they can hide a bomb. Generally they'll have 2 or more planted. The first one is to hurt civilians, the second and third are to target police and rescuers. Real brave.
I saw another news report regarding this and the point was made that the people that Al-Qaeda usually requites are not joining up. Seems they have found reasons to look forward to having a life. This is the result of what we and our allies have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Part of that is the fact that pictures and stories of our soldiers helping the hurt and scared people are being seen where these people are recruited. All of a sudden they see we are not the monsters that the super libs and terrorists like to paint our military. Our military is made up of the best in the country and we need to recognize what they are doing and that they are showing the world that we care about people.
Endo
Is it OK to ask in this thread that if we invaded a country that had no WMD ( and they didn't), no organized Al-Queda (and they didn't ),hadn't threatned us,were complying with the Inspections, and had been bombed daily for ten years prior to the invasion, why did we invade? The cost has been staggering in lives, dollars, and the future of Iraq's people. Just what was it that Iraq did to us to warrant the devastation of their country, the killing of the innocents, about one million with over 60% being women and children? Why wouldn't they think of us as monsters? I voted Republican all my life until 2004.
A rewriter of history. All of the western countries intelligence agencies were saying that he had WMD. They were not cooperating. The UN issued order after order for him to comply. He always talked and allowed the inspectors into a few places and required advance information as to where they wanted to go. Towards the end they were allowed to pick a place that morning but Iraq soldiers were to drive and they could take 4 hours to go across town. Why did he do this. He told his captors that he was afraid of Iran. Remember that war he had with them. He didn't want a recurrence.
People like you get angry that Haliburton was given the contract to go in and help build up the infrastructure. Then you complain that damage was done and not completely fixed yet. No other company has the resources to do it but you complain.
This is progress?
People are no longer terrorized by al-qaeda-iraq, an organization that did not exist prior to the Bush invasion?
al Qaeda existed long before we set foot in Iraq.
Quit twisting the words please.
al-qaeda-iraq DID NOT EXIST
No they had a much more organized terrorist...that used chemical weapons on his own people...murdered thousands that had the nerve to dissagree with him...withheld basic services to people belonging to the wrong political group. OHhhh yeh they had it much better before
"No they had a much more organized terrorist...that used chemical weapons on his own people"
What Saddam was doing in his own country was none of our business. It was up to the Iraqis to get rid of Saddam. It's their country, not ours. There are other brutal Dictators in this world, Saddam isn't the only one.
Our interference in the various Middle East not only hurts them, it has always backfired on us. We do it because they have oil, & we depend on their oil. War is a very serious matter. Al Qaeda didn't have a presence in Iraq prior to our invasion. The last thing our government should have wanted is Al Qaeda to have a presence in Iraq. It destabilizes the entire ME regions, killed thousands of innocent people on all sides (ours and theirs). Our interference in the various Middle East costs us our troops lifes, costs us billions of dollars, hurts our economy. We need to develop an alternative for oil. We need to withdraw our troops from all ME regions.
"Quit twisting the words please.
al-qaeda-iraq DID NOT EXIST"
al Qaeda isn't like a boy scouts troop with specific geographic locations. Don't be foolish enough to think al Qaeda had no one in Iraq. Besides, what's it matter if we are killing al Qaeda in Iraq or if we are doing it in Afghanistan? So long as we are killing al Qaeda.
quackpot
What an appropriate name. You are calling the 9/11 commission a liar. They said there were al Quaeda training camps there. A recent story on here talked about a person that was in Afghanistan when we invaded and he left to go to Iran. He was captured and released by using lawyers and he went back there and blew himself up in Mosul.
"You are calling the 9/11 commission a liar. They said there were al Quaeda training camps there."
you said the same thing at the start of the thread and i refuted it with the original words from the report itself. something you don't seem to be able to do. if you have something from the 9/11 commission's report that contradicts itself and you can use to back up this bullsh!t put it on the table now or stfu.
Teagan
The only people who believe you are people who have never been to Iraq. Iraq was much more peaceful under Saddam then it has been since we invaded Iraq.
Saddam was a brutal Dictator. But, destroying a country & killing thousands of innocent civilians is not exactly the right approach to bring about "peace." Iraq has been in a state of complete chaos since our invasion. Iraq's infrastructure is completly destroyed. The entire country is in shambles. Children are not able to attend school, grown men are unemployed, and women are scared to step out of their homes. Our troops are having a difficult time distinguishing between Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Iraq's military & Al Qaeda. Bombs are flying off everywhere. Any "rosy picture" of Iraq is a bunch of complete BS. Al Qaida never had a presence in Iraq prior to our invasion. Our troops have been placed in a dangerous wasteland with not enough resources to take care of their own.
Only if you consider war with Iran, invading Kuwait and slaughtering millions of his own people "peace."
You have a very twisted definition of the word.
"You have a very twisted definition of the word."
I wrote Iraq was more peaceful prior to the Bush led invasion. Saddam was killing people who opposed him. When Saddam was in power, the Iraqis could leave Iraq if they wanted to. Many left. Also, getting rid of Saddam didn't require a massive "shock & awe" invasion that killed thousands of innocent civilians. His whereabouts where always known. I know, that's called state sponsored assassination. And, the CIA has done it before. Would have been a lot better then killing thousands of civilians in a massive "shock & awe" campaign & destroying a country's infrastructure. But heck, I guess some people prefer playing "Rambo" in a sovereign country. Thereby creating more enemies then we ever had before.
LOL
You are ridiculous. He had the Republican guard that would kill anybody who even thought of disobeying him. There were several mass graves. He gassed the Kurds. Such a peaceful guy internally.
Al Queada had training camps there along with other terrorist organization. He allowed them there and supported them to some extent. Read the 9/11 commission report.
You forget that liberals forced a law that the US is prohibited from doing assassinations. Forced on Bush 1. They were afraid after the Kuwait war was over that that would be done. Now you say we should have done that? You would probably have been one of the first to scream about it.
Our shock and awe saves lives on both sides but you don't seem to understand that. The people killed are the opposing armed forces. Care is taken to avoid civilians.
When Bush decided on a "shock & awe" campaign he also put names on each bomb. 1 was meant for Saddam, 1 was meant for Chemical Ali & so forth. Somehow, during Bush's "shock & awe campaign," lots of bombs where dropped on Iraq. 1000's of Iraqi civilians died, their infrastructure was destroyed. Hundreds of our own troops have died in Iraq.
As if a law would deter our very own CIA. I wouldn't have screamed about a state sponsored assassination if it came down to the difference between killing Saddam quietly vs a shock & awe campaign & saving the lifes of our very own troops. I've seen what Bush's invasion has done to Iraq & the Iraqi civilians. Al Qaeda didn't have a presence in Iraq prior to the Bush led invasion. Saddam wanted to be in control of Iraq. If the Iraqis hated Saddam, they could leave the country (many did). There was no way Saddam could deter people from leaving Iraq.
"There was no way Saddam could deter people from leaving Iraq."
It is called family members. If someone left they would have to take their entire family. Remember that his sons liked killing people. It was a death sentence to be an athlete and lose an international competition. If they didn't go back their family would die.
Nice people the Huseins.
"As if a law would deter our very own CIA. I wouldn't have screamed about a state sponsored assassination if it came down to the difference between killing Saddam quietly..."
A liberal saying that he would not scream if a Democrat law would be violated. Your statement is talking hindsight not reality. You would scream very loudly. LOL
Not a member? Sign-up today!
soulkeeper009
tkeeley
birddog54
Teech
ssusak
AlphaGnosis
bibbicletus
nickjones321
mcarpentry
lovemylibs
thinkingserious
windy01
BJTJ
hurr1
eddie107
Amroch
crghss
avpd85
ckurasri
aust
Generica
icono1
capnews
simonsez
omerazam
abntv
aleksander_konrad
Mdiar
udwxgx46
Endoscopy
MichaelRhodente
Hustler101
itisoysustas
laynekerr1972
bugluver
BoBo in Texas
Wolfie2007
mmrhe
nightcrawlerX
Klarissa
xorabotta
ningyo
tbkennedy53
dandt1612
ZiegfeldGirl
nostalgia
tanglang
nowsourcing
alamala
oldgringo
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
94)
Vote
You're wrong, but I suspect you're used to that. The locals are fighting alongside us. They know who belongs and who doesn't. We've won the hearts of the little guys and they're the ones taking the fight to the terrorist. The average Iraqi is tired of the attacks and murders. They're mad and not taking it anymore. When they find a insurgent, they're reporting them to the Iraqi or American forces. The fear they had towards police and army during Saddam's time is gone. It's been replaced by anger at those being supplied from Iran. The one problem is the leadership of Iraq. They're is a lot of corruption but I suspect this will be remembered over the next series of elections. I think Iraq is on the right track.
You apparently have an academic deficiency in reading.
I acknowledged in my post above that progress had been made in Iraq--but I pointed out that little progress had been outside those two nations where our troops are directly involved. You have not chosen to address what I actually said, even though you start your response with the words, "You're wrong, but I suspect you're used to that." The only appropriate response I can make is obvious, "You're stupid, but I suppose that you've been living in that condition for a long time."
This is the BEST news, Tegan.
I am, however, puzzled by the lack of news about any increase in the U.S. turning over the policing operations to the Iraqis.
I would be quite happy to see news of some of the troops coming home, but Bush says no
I would be happy to see news of fewer dollars going to Iraq, but Bush says no.
What gives?
After five-plus years, the Iraqi "leadership" needs to get the message that the U.S.-provided gravy train is about to be over.
"What gives?"
You aren't paying attention.
Here is a story showing a bit more about Iraqi forces growing, training and taking over more...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/19/mideast/...
And just in the past week there have been stories about Iraqi forces raiding, killing and capturing al Qaeda and other insurgent operatives. Sometimes with U.S. tactical air support. Sometimes without.
Please send this excellent news to Mr. Bush.
He appears not to have heard it based on his requests to congress for funding and his maintaining troop levels to near the breaking point.
Try reading current news. 3,500 troops scheduled to be sent home in upcoming weeks.
....as part of reducing troops to the pre-surge level, which is to remain constant.
Ohhh ... so now you are qualifying it lol
Reducing troops to pre-surge levels means at least 30,000 going home soon.