world

Iraq car bombing kills 32 north of Baghdad

33 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

33 Comments
Login to comment

"It is a 'suspicious agreement' that would bring “humiliation and degradation to the Iraqi people." That's Iraqi speak for putting more lipstick on a pig!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Goddam these terrorists, and liberals ask, why did we liberate Iraq? Isn`t this reason enough, they kill their own people daily.

We need to hunt out these guys big time. make an example of them . Mass executions taht will instill fear into the terrorists, and prevent further attacks.

These remanants , for that is what they are, after the surge, will be defeated soon.

These terrible attacks must stop!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No need to panic, the surge is still working. Violence is down. The Iraqis will soon take control of their own destiny.

Bring the troops home soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No the question is, why did george bush lie to the world about WMD? Why did he send Colin Powell to the UN with photoshopped evidence? Why did over 4100 US military have to die for a legacy of deceipt?

They didn't have this before we attacked.

We know why george bush attacked; OIL and Haliburton. War profiteers.

They never had police stations getting car bombed.

We have another incident of car bombing that wasn't happening in Iraq until after we attacked. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ColAmerica,

I don't think most liberals ask why we liberated Iraq. I think most of them point out that after 5 years we still haven't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho"; The country has democracy, a police force , army and education for all. When Saddam was in power thousands were tortured and murdered by Saddam and his thugs. These days that is all over, and people can air their political views without fear of reprisals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now over 600,000 are dead, over 2.5 million refuges, 100,000s wounded, 1000s of children with out parents, over 4100 US military dead, 100,000 wounded as a result of direct action and not, a debt that will grow to over $2Trillion and still not getting the oil contracts in Iraq.

Nah, these car bombings weren't going on either.

These deaths of......., god only knows a true total.

Finish training the Iraqis to train themselves and bring the troops home. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream; Fake figures to paint a black picture over the success of our campaign.

Iraq has its highest ever GDP.

Oil contracts are not important, freedom and dmocrcay are. The liberals just want business and money the Republicans love peace and freedom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BTW We've now been involved in this war for about two years longer than we were involved in WW2. That's right, our grandparents defeated the Germans and the Japanese in less time than our generation could suppress insurection in a country the size of California.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is interesting:

Army Spc. Joe Cook message to Obama:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLMa7hXAOhU

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes Sarge. That was interesting to watch a guy talk about all the things the Iraqis want (all of which could be achieved if that guy and his like went home!). Another brainwashed idiot on youtube...how original.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The religion of peace in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hoss1:

" es Sarge. That was interesting to watch a guy talk about all the things the Iraqis want "

Which "Iraqis"? The Shiites? The Arabic Sunnis? The Kurdish Sunnis? The Yazidis? Pray tell, the remaining Christians?

Are you telling us "the Iraqis" are a united nation with the same interest??? Groan...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But it's still Ramadan, isnt it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WiilliB Did you check out the video. The guy was talking about how the Iraqis just want to be able to raise their kids, make a living, and live in safety. I would assume that's what all Iraqis want...along with every other person on the planet. Hardly a novel idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have to laugh at the responses on this thread. We have the usual rightwing imposters, though they have run out of steam a bit late.

Then we have postes still rattling on about the "WMD" that didn't exist, five years on.

And then, we have the posters that supported and continue to support the invasion and it's ramifications, only it's not their fault the violence is out of control, it's Islam's.

Heh. Keep it up guys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When will Al Quaida stop killing the innocent? They just can't stand peace and quiet like the Taliban losers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"and people can air their political views without fear of reprisals." Boom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a terrible thing to happen, but it isnt the end of the world, when the next president comes in he can wave his wand and get rid of the factions that are fighting by removing the US presence. Anyone remember that Sadamm was in one group and killed allot of the other groups in order to keep the peace? or do you consider what he did ok?..This isnt new its just a continuation of the way they did things before, without Sadamm killing them all for it..

It is a 'suspicious agreement' that would bring “humiliation and degradation to the Iraqi people." That's Iraqi speak for putting more lipstick on a pig!

Always good to qoute the extremist radical priest when you want to make a point..... Hes so full of hot air he makes even you look deflated and that isnt easy....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hoss1

" The guy was talking about how the Iraqis just want to be able to raise their kids, make a living, and live in safety. "

Obviously the Iraqis who blew up the market didn´t agree. What do you expect the guy in front of the camera to say? Give a lecture about the history and political constellation of Iraq, and the teachings of radical sunni and shiite islam?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoa willi, you're not saying Iraq was better off with a strongman to keep the ethnic factions from killin' each other are ya?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry WilliB, I don't really know what point you're trying to make. All I was trying to point out was that Sarge said that it was "interesting" and it wasn't. It was a few minutes of the guy stating the obvious, and using it as a reason to continue the occupation. He may as well said "The sky is blue and ping-pong balls are round. Therefore we can't leave the Iraqis in a lurch here."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ColAmerica,

When Saddam was in power, the country had a nominal democracy and it had a police force and army. It had one of the most highly educated populations in the Middle East. It's true that Saddam was ruthless and it's true that he is no longer in power. It's not true that the country has been liberated and it is especially not true that people can speak freely without fear of reprisal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like Joe Cook asked, are Iraqis better off than they were in 2002 under Saddam's "nominal democracy"? Most Iraqis ( at least the Shiites and the Kurds ) would say "Hell, yeah!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Most Iraqis ( at least the Shiites and the Kurds ) would say "Hell, yeah!" "

And 98.5% of statstics are made up on the spot....

Heh, or out of Denial.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I must bow to Madverts at this point - he obviously knows for sure that most Iraqis say they were better off under that harmless old coot Saddam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, the Joe Cook video. Now that's funny sarge. A McCain supporter makes a You Tube video and you say this is prove that "Most Iraqis ( at least the Shiites and the Kurds ) would say "Hell, yeah!" "

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hoss1:

" Sorry WilliB, I don't really know what point you're trying to make. "

I wasn´t making a convoluted "point", I was simply pointing out that the term "the Iraqis" is meaningless, because there is no such thing as "the Iraqis". There are 3 main ethnic groups who hate each other and would prefer independence, if they can not dominate the place. Speaking about "the Iraqis" makes about as much sense as speaking about "the Middle Easterners".

In this case, the Shiite Arabs in Iraq would of course have the Americans leave as quickly as possible since they are in power and can deal with the minorities their way, with a little help from Iran (and their way is not Mother Theresa`s way). On the other hand the Kurds are enjoying relative independence and security in the current system, so if you ask the Kurds they of course prefer a weak Bagdad government and the Americans in place forever to keept the status quo. Just to give 2 examples.

It is totally insane to speak about "the Iraqis", pretending that all the groups have the same attitude.

Is that clearer now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A sobering thought isn't it, Hoss1?

A classic example of hubris and VERY piss poor planning. Post occupation plans for Germany/Japan started several YEARS before the end of WW2. Post occupation plans for Iraq? A mere few months.

Not to mention one of the most misbungled "efforts" of "running" a country after war. Rummy and his failed go in quick, "liberate," and have Iraqis love us long time, screw the rest of the world "strategy" (ignoring advice of a more sizeable force needed to stabilize Iraq). Dubya repeatedly mocking and blatantly ignoring early reports of insurgent activity. Bremer's disastrous decisions in fueling political discord, animosity, and the bourgenoing insurgency. The list goes on and on.

All added up to a war that is STILL not over, cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, thousands of coalition lives unnecessarily. I am not arguing about the right or wrong of invading Iraq here, it was done, so be it. I am livid about the reckless way the bush administration handled things after, all based on hubris, they treated post occupation as seriously as some scratch their head.

They all have blood on their hands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rjd jr:

" A sobering thought isn't it, Hoss1? A classic example of hubris and VERY piss poor planning. "

The best planning in the world does not help if it is based on false assumptions. In this, Bush/Wolfowitz/Bremers etc.s assumption was that miraculously democracy would develop (with tender help from Shiite clerics), if only Saddam was removed. Well, that one blew up in their face.

But there are plenty more wrong assumptions to go around, based on wishful thinking and ignorance. You can not tie this to one particular party, they are all guilty of such stupididy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB - But there are plenty more wrong assumptions to go around, based on wishful thinking and ignorance. You can not tie this to one particular party, they are all guilty of such stupididy.

This was a republican war.

All post Shock and Aw operations and decisions were republican.

The past 7 years of the Iraqi was a republican operation.

The republican majority of the congress and the veto power of the president have kept the Iraqi war going and taken any democratic suggestions away.

The arrogance and ignorance of the republican party have kept this a republican war, even though the people told the country 2 years ago, they were tired of the "Stay thbe course" mentality and the republicans and george bush ignored the voice of the people.

No, these bombings weren't going on before george bush attacked. I pray that the Iraqi Army and Police get trained as we've been led to believe, that our troops are training them. The Iraqi people don't trust the Americans/occupiers. The Iraqi security forces should be working with the neighbors, locals to crack down on insurgent action and planned actions against citizens. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream:

" The Iraqi people don't trust the Americans/occupiers. "

There you go again. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. What "Iraqi people"? The Shiite majority who is no in the catbird seat? The Arab Sunnis, which dread life under Shiite rule? Or the Kurdish Sunnis, who have achieved de facto independence in the current situation and dread the day the Shiites want to control Kurdish areas again?

There no "Iraqi people" who are united against the evil Americans. Repeating your talking points does not make them true.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adaydream:

" No, these bombings weren't going on before george bush attacked. "

There are plenty of arguments to be made for having left the Saddam government in place, but a lack of violence is not one of them. There were no jihadist bombings under Saddam, but the mass graves produced by the Saddam regime dwarf even the jihadist violence of the last few years. Again, an empty talking point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites