Bahu Virupaksha Bahu Virupaksha

USA is Bogged down in IRAQ

▼

USA is Bogged down in IRAQ

A Stalemate is on Hand

from JoeUser Forums
The news from Iraq is getting messier by the day. The American public was told that once the elections are held peace and quiet will descend on Iraq. Those opf us who have been follwing that story knew better. Now after 150,000 Iraqi lives destroyed, billions of dollars worth of infrastructure destroyed, nearly 2000 US soldiers killed in action and the golbal image of the USA is tatters it is time to reflect on the whole issue. The neo conmen who led the country to war underestimated the power of the Iraqi Resistance. They were not aware that in1922-24 when the British administered Mesopotamia as part of its maNDATED TERRITORY there was hell in store for them at a time when the Iraqi civil society was far less developed than it is today. There is no way this war can be won. Luttwak is perfectly right when he says that USA must disengage itself from Iraq. Disengagement is not retreat and must not be perceived that way. In the last week alone Bagdad has seen the death of nearly 550 civillians in car bombs and other acts of violence targetted against Iraqi s.

A disturbing trend is that the troops are not being rotated. This means that after a tour of duty a soldier who could look forward to spending time with his wife and children can no longer do so. The morale of troops will be affected and more importantly even the top brass of the US army is admitting that the war is bearing down heavily on troop morale. Gen Raggis was chashiered from the US army for telling the truth.

At this rate the dreaded draft will be introduced and that is the only way the present level of American engagement can be maintained. As for as the Iraqis taking over the security operations just forget it. The Iraqis are nowhere close to reaching the target. AT THE FIRST SIGN OF GUNNFIRE THE iRAQI FLEES AND THE FEW who stand and fight find that they are usually overlooked for rewards which is cornered by the staff officers close to the Americans. Moreover the level of Intellegence of the Iraqi resistance is improving. This spells danger.
politics
31,418 views 112 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top
It clearly documents that Bush had decided to attack Saddam even though the Intel did not support the idea Iraq was a danger to the US


--The intell from more than 15 international sources....KGB,SAS,etc...
Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even if Saddam had WMD he was not a danger to the US. North Korea, Seria, Iran all have WMD . Bush did not think they were so dangerous that he had to attack them. Eight more memo's in England have been found that not only show Bush decided to attack Iraq early on but that he had no plan to deal with Iraq after Saddam Fell. The British documents describe the MESS we have today in Iraq. The Bush administration looks worse and worse EVERY DAY!
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even if Saddam had WMD he was not a danger to the US. North Korea, Seria, Iran all have WMD . Bush did not think they were so dangerous that he had to attack them. Eight more memo's in England have been found that not only show Bush decided to attack Iraq early on but that he had no plan to deal with Iraq after Saddam Fell. The British documents describe the MESS we have today in Iraq. The Bush administration looks worse and worse EVERY DAY!


--you seem to sound like a broken record player in this topic... :notsure:
Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
All that is not worth ONE AMERICAN LIFE


--do you believe the american revolution was


Iraq was not worth killinf in this scale for. Neither the USA nor the Iraqis have gained. Only the oil lobby which has ochestrated tyhis war has gained.
Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top
Iraq was not worth killinf in this scale for. Neither the USA nor the Iraqis have gained. Only the oil lobby which has ochestrated tyhis war has gained.


--Two things, 1) if you meant to answer the quesion...you were way off...2) I think another question is, "Is Freedom worth dying for?"...also...the bit about the oil and the usa, is a bunch of BS...you'd think we would increase the re-building of it...but nope, we've focused on other things,infrastructure,etc... oh, and please don't reply with the "we are only doing that so we can have the iraqi's trust us, then we will take their oi...crap."....
Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top

#76 by COL Gene
Monday, June 20, 2005

IslandDog

Yes the Downing Street Memo does exist. It was just on "HardBall" on MSNBC. It clearly documents that Bush had decided to attack Saddam even though the Intel did not support the idea Iraq was a danger to the US!


I knew this was a bunch of made up crap!



We know this to be untrue, but the left just won't let it go. Even the so-called smoking gun Downing Street memos it turns out, as I suspected they might, are unverifiable fiction - typed up "copies" of the originals, the latter allegedly destroyed to "protect the identity" of the source.
Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

As usual, you ignore anything that you believe is negative to Bush. These memo's DO EXIST in fact eight more were released and were all over the national news. They not only show Bush intended to remove Saddam PRIOR to 9/11 but warned of the danger we are in today of controlling Iraq after Saddam was removed. Evey day Iraq shows how wrong Bush was and there is no end in sight!
Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
No they don't. I conducted a poll and 98% responded that you don't know what you're talking about.


Bwahahahahahahha........ mason conducted a poll.

Was it a poll of joeusers? Your best friends and buddies; maybe your family? Of course you're gonna get 98%. But, unfortunately for you the national polls tell a very different story. Less than 50% support this war fiasco. Less than 50% support Bush. More than 50% now wish we never started this mess.

Mason conducted a poll... That's a good one.
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is no "memo". There is only an alleged memo that this "reporter" copied and is telling people it's "reliable".


Do I see island dog with his head in the sand? Oh yeah............ there is really such a memo, and these jingos will be proven wrong. Mainstream press is now finally, finally picking it up, though reluctantly. They are not really questioning whether the memos exist. They are questioning how Bush is going to field this issue. Fact is, finally the press is connecting the dots to dates and events, proving what a lying sack of sh*t the bushies really are. Even Bush is now starting to twist in the wind a bit, trying to figure out how he's gonna get out of this one.

The bushies and blairies will be held accountable. As for blaming it on Clinton, that's total nonsense. Clinton did not start this war. Hello.............
Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
zinkadoodle

Not only do these memo's exist but there is the statemen from Paul O'Neil saying Bush talked about the Iraq War in early 2001. We could wind up with an Iraq that is an anti-American terrorist haven that will be another problem for America and the West. If that happens, the real insanity of the Bush policy will be clear after all the American deaths and injuries and the hundreds of Billions spent on the Bush War! In addition to the 1,700 dead and 10,000 combat injuries there are 15,000 non-combat injuries in Iraq that go unreported. Bush has also choosen to pay for the War by adding it to the National Debt so our children and grand children can pay for his folly! Much will be written about what the Bush policies have done to America and MOST of it will be very negative!
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
As usual, you ignore anything that you believe is negative to Bush. These memo's DO EXIST in fact eight more were released and were all over the national news. They not only show Bush intended to remove Saddam PRIOR to 9/11 but warned of the danger we are in today of controlling Iraq after Saddam was removed. Evey day Iraq shows how wrong Bush was and there is no end in sight!


You just don't listen do you? These "memos" have never been proven to exist. They are typed up copies from a "reporter". Even if they do exist, they show no direct quotes. They provide no facts to back up their claims.



Do I see island dog with his head in the sand? Oh yeah............ there is really such a memo, and these jingos will be proven wrong. Mainstream press is now finally, finally picking it up, though reluctantly. They are not really questioning whether the memos exist. They are questioning how Bush is going to field this issue. Fact is, finally the press is connecting the dots to dates and events, proving what a lying sack of sh*t the bushies really are. Even Bush is now starting to twist in the wind a bit, trying to figure out how he's gonna get out of this one.

The bushies and blairies will be held accountable. As for blaming it on Clinton, that's total nonsense. Clinton did not start this war. Hello.............


There was also a "memo" about the service record of Bush, and we all know what happened to that. The media never jumped on this story in the first place because it's not a smoking gun, and it proves nothing.

I never blamed anything on Clinton. I stated a fact. Clinton signed an order declaring regime change in Iraq. Clinton attacked Iraq because of WMD's and non-cooperation. That is all fact. Iraq has been a problem for years and to say it just became an issue is nonsense.

Not only do these memo's exist but there is the statemen from Paul O'Neil saying Bush talked about the Iraq War in early 2001.


Link please?
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top

#83 by COL Gene
Tuesday, June 21, 2005





drmiler

As usual, you ignore anything that you believe is negative to Bush. These memo's DO EXIST in fact eight more were released and were all over the national news. They not only show Bush intended to remove Saddam PRIOR to 9/11 but warned of the danger we are in today of controlling Iraq after Saddam was removed. Evey day Iraq shows how wrong Bush was and there is no end in sight!


To both Col and doodle. If this "memo" is such a big hot deal, then why is it that the man who has sworn to lead the fight to get GW impeached (John Kerry) over these "memo's" has backed off and shut up about it?
Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
To both Col and doodle. If this "memo" is such a big hot deal, then why is it that the man who has sworn to lead the fight to get GW impeached (John Kerry) over these "memo's" has backed off and shut up about it?



Well genius, I don't have Kerry's phone number, so you're just gonna have to ask him yourself.
Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
To both Col and doodle. If this "memo" is such a big hot deal, then why is it that the man who has sworn to lead the fight to get GW impeached (John Kerry) over these "memo's" has backed off and shut up about it?



Well genius, I don't have Kerry's phone number, so you're just gonna have to ask him yourself.


Aw come ON! This is NOT rocket science! He backed off because he "knows" he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Since they can NOT produce the originals as evidence, no one is going to take this seriously!
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
Aw come ON! This is NOT rocket science! He backed off because he "knows" he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Since they can NOT produce the originals as evidence, no one is going to take this seriously!


And you know this how? Oh yeah, on top of your bs genius, you're a bs psychic, too.
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And you know this how? Oh yeah, on top of your bs genius, you're a bs psychic, too"

--BS...no, not likely...genius,yeah...at least compared to some other no brain comments...
Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
Aw come ON! This is NOT rocket science! He backed off because he "knows" he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Since they can NOT produce the originals as evidence, no one is going to take this seriously!


And you know this how? Oh yeah, on top of your bs genius, you're a bs psychic, too.


Get a grip! Where are the original documents? I realize that you personally don't know. The problem being is that nobody else does either. No judge in his right or left mind for that matter is going to give serious credence to these "copies" without seeing the originals.
Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact remains, that the lack of planning for the occupation of Iraq is 100% correct. That is the reason why America has most of the deaths and injuries in Iraq. Therefore, Bush is responsible for placing our military into danger without proper planning and the manpower Bush was told was needed to control Iraq after Saddam fell! Our problem is if we remove Bush we get Cheney. If we remove Cheney we get Haster. We have the Three Stooges
Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact remains, that the lack of planning for the occupation of Iraq is 100% correct. That is the reason why America has most of the deaths and injuries in Iraq. Therefore, Bush is responsible for placing our military into danger without proper planning and the manpower Bush was told was needed to control Iraq after Saddam fell! Our problem is if we remove Bush we get Cheney. If we remove Cheney we get Haster. We have the Three Stooges


You had your chance to remove Bush. You failed. And your "facts" are your opinions.
Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is the reason why America has most of the deaths and injuries in Iraq.


--Really..I always thought that the roadside bombs,etc... were the things that there were deaths and injuries...(sarcasm just incase you didn't know that COL )
Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top
Keep feasting on the blood of soldiers killed in Iraq, Colon Gene. Man you are a pathetic loser!! Does your hatred for Prs. Bush know no shame?
Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes your are correct. The reason that the terrorists are able to kill our military is because we were never able to control Iraq from the time Saddam fell. We allowed hundreds of Amo dumps to be unguarded. Did not stop foreign terrorists from comming into Iraq. We did not go back and deal with the pockets of resistance. WHY? Because Bush did not send a military force large enough do meet the requirements even though his generals told him that it would take 300,000. Bush sent 130,000. Great work Mr Commander-in Chief!
Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, so Colon Gene, you want to have another war that is fought from Washington DC? No Thanks!!!

The Generals in CENTCOM have requested what they say they need. Quit second guessing them from your useless lawn chair!!!!
Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top
he Generals in CENTCOM have requested what they say they need. Quit second guessing them from your useless lawn chair!!!!


Exactly. I see the Generals in Iraq saying they have, and had enough troops. More troops would not have guaranteed anything different. As usual, col is giving us his opinion as fact.
Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top
We allowed hundreds of Amo dumps to be unguarded.

Did not stop foreign terrorists from comming into Iraq.

We did not go back and deal with the pockets of resistance

--Hmmm, Lets see, we have discovered countless,granted not all ofthm, ammo dumps..., Our soldiers are doing what they cand do to stop them from coming in, it is the bordering countries jobs to stop them from exiting their respective countries, like border patrols, or stepped up ones... and what the hell do you think some of the groups of soldiers have been doing in Operations lightning, fear,etc...(not sure if i am correct on names...) oh col, oh col....why art thou so quick to ignorance others and belated to reasoning...