Let al Queada send them there and they can die there. I like that better than them sending them here and we kill them here.

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

In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

Different name but still al Queada.

but what am i doing!?! i'm offering an intelligent explanation to the complete idiot who thinks the nyt photoshops pentagon pics!! lol

how can we possibly begin to count five years after this illegal war began?

1.... 2..... 3..... 4.... 1.2million. or there abouts.

what is meaningless are your childish stupid excuses that try to deny the facts. pathetic

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Here are some facts any idiot could grasp: Tommy Franks isn't the commander in Iraq and hasn't been for years; and Rumsfeld hasn't been the Secretary of Defense for 1.5 years.

Your "facts" pretty much are meaningless.

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.

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.

"We don't do body counts." General Tommy Franks

"We don't do body counts." Then Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Poll: Civilian toll in Iraq may top 1M

A British survey offers the highest estimate to date.

September 14, 2007

.... a new survey suggested that the civilian death toll from the war could be more than 1 million.

The figure from ORB, a British polling agency that has conducted several surveys in Iraq, followed statements this week from the U.S. military defending itself against accusations it was trying to play down Iraqi deaths to make its strategy appear successful.

ORB said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: "How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?"

Based on Iraq's estimated number of households -- 4,050,597 -- it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/l...

W.H.O. Says Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Than Cited

January 10, 2008

"The World Health Organization on Wednesday waded into the controversial subject of Iraqi civilian deaths, publishing a study that estimated that the number of deaths from the start of the war through June 2006 was at least twice as high as the oft-cited Iraq Body Count."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middlee...

R(D)umsfeld wants Saddam dead. We still haven't learned that our meddling around in the various ME regions causes nothing but "collateral damage."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/189525347/

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.

"Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections....

....we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf

hmmm, looks like the lies are all yours, endoscope

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.

The treaty Saddam signed ending the first Gulf War said otherwise. So did the U.N.

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.

Reducing troops to pre-surge levels means at least 30,000 going home soon.

Do you think before you post??

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.

And, try reading the papers: 3,500 troops to be pulled out if Iraq in the next few weeks.

As for Bin Laden? ...."Now if he is alive, he's holed up in some cave with no family, no nation and no life...."

Dont think so. He's roughing it out on the ranch in Crawford. Bo Peep looks after the girlfriends he shares with Dumbya.

On January 21, 2008, they'll all turn up in South America for a well earned "victory" vacation. That will finally be Mission Accomplished!

You are saying the 9/11 commission was lying when they said there were al-Queada training camps there.

They said that Hussein was not part of the conspiracy so you take that to mean that they were not there. Typical lib.

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.

There were zero al-Quaeda in Iraq. Now there are many.

Many almost always is more than none.

BS.

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.

Yes. I also have a friend who works for our US security company there. He's not to excited about being there, but it's part of his contract.

al-qaeda-iraq DID NOT EXIST

Bush proposed funding, congress approves or disapproves his requests.

Based on U.S. participation remaining relatively constant, I question the assertion of greater Iraqi involvement

One story is great news, but let's see the bottom line.

The "Iranian insurgents" and "Saudi Al Qaeda" where not in Iraq when Saddam was in power. You are misleading people who have never been to Iraq.

You have a very twisted definition of the word.

People are no longer terrorized by al-qaeda-iraq, an organization that did not exist prior to the Bush invasion?

Too bad for him the Saudi government turned him down and invited the U.S. to come in and kick Saddam's hind end back to Iraq. Sure, the CIA helped Muslims defeat the Soviet empire with weapons and specialist support. Bin Laden was all for it then. There was a time when Ho Chi Minh accepted U.S. support to help fight the Japanese.

But Bin laden lost his head and lost his nation and family in the process. Now if he is alive, he's holed up in some cave with no family, no nation and no life.

The article said nothing of paying groups - mercenaries, you called them. But you are going to believe what you want. That is your right - no matter how wrong you are.

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.

Even I have read about the first rule of war: KNOW YOUR ENEMY

If the commander in chief has dispached 160,000 troops and is spending billions of dollars a month to conquer an enemy or unknown strength there is a real problem..

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.

where is the evidence to prove that the AQ numbers have gone up because we are in Iraq

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.

When I read the article, I got the distinct impression that the reason for less friction with Al-Queda was due to the alliance with groups who are not Al-Queda. And as I recall this alliance is actually a "put them on the payroll" type peace. I'm not sure that is any different from using Mercenaries. At any event, the peace lasts only as long as the money.

By the way. Osama Bin Laden didn't arrive in Afghanistan in 1996, he went there in the 80's as an ally of the United States. We armed the Mujjhedean ( which included OBL ) in the proxy fight against the USSR. Actually OBL was a hero to the U S until we placed a base in Saudi Arabia. He warned before we did it that he would take the placing of the base as a declaration of War. Guess he meant it.

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.

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.

So, it is possible to tell, and there are plans to reduce troop size.

As far as "reliable estimates," how would you suggest we get them? Go door to door conducting a census: "Is any member of your household a member of al Qaeda? If so, how many and what ages?"

Bush does not handle war funding. Congress does.

Iraqis are taking over a greater share of policing Iraq.

You might have read the story yesterday about an Iraqi force raiding an al Qaeda stronghold and saying they caught the top al Qaeda leader in Iraq. The U.S. military says it's mistaken identity. But the point is, Iraqis ARE policing more and more of their own nation. In time, they will police all of it.

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."

I am only puzzled by Mr. Bush's plans to keep u.S. troop levels constant.

I am only puzzled by Mr. Bush's plans to keep war funding constant.

I am only puzzled as to why the Iraqis can't, after five-plus years, take over a greater share of policing Iraq.

If the numbers are so hard to come by, how can a person judge the significance of a decrease?

---I wonder since the U.S. has no plans to reduce it's troop size.

---I wonder since the U.S. has no plans to reduce the dollars spent.

Does this mean that al-qaeda-iraq was not that important to begin with?

Now their line of illogic says they just will show up elsewhere. If you capture or kill an al Qaeda leader, they say it was a waste of time because another on will take his place. But they still whine about catching Bin Laden.

If you uproot them from a former stronghold, lefties will tell you it was a waste of time because they will go elsewhere. In the meantime, Obama said he would take military action in Pakistan to uproot al Qaeda.

I like what the story here suggests about the need to get Pakistan more involved as Afghanis and Iraqis have. Makes more sense than the Obama approach.

Another issue the press forgets are the positives we've been doing. Contrary to the lies of the left, more people now have running water, sewers and electricity. During Saddam's time, even downtown Baghdad didn't have real sewers. If you were a village not related to his tribe, you might not even have a city well with clean drinking water. He was a real SOB in keeping his people down. Most Iraqis understand we want to leave as much as they want control of their own country.

To date we can claim to have made some progress in both of the countries where US military forces are directly involved, but the radical Islamists have established a new (and perhaps more persistent) stronghold cross the border in Pakistan. We have, through aid to our allies, perhaps weakened them in the Phillipines, but we have certainly lost ground in Malaysia. Further, we have accomplished virtually nothing in Somalia, Mauretania, Indonesia, along the Argentine-... border, Nigeria, Algeria, or among the Islamic nations of Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc.). Killing al-Qaeda is like pulling vines--you never seem to get all the roots, and they keep popping up where you think you've cleared them away.

"evidence from the field suggests two conclusions:

First, Al-Qaeda isn't a permanent boogeyman; it's losing ground in Iraq and Afghanistan because of US counterinsurgency tactics, especially the alliances the Americans have built with tribal leaders and the aggressive use of Special Forces to capture or kill its operatives. ......shouldn't require a big, semi-permanent US military presence in Iraq or Afghanistan. Local security forces can handle a growing share of responsibility

Second, the essential mission in combating Al-Qaeda now is to adopt in Pakistan the tactics that are working in Iraq and Afghanistan. This means alliances with tribal warlords to bring economic development to the isolated mountain valleys ........."

seems to be a lot of covert operations going on that we never hear about....