Iraq detains 1,000 in anti-al-Qaida crackdown

Un freaking believable. I thought al qaeda in iraq was on its last legs? Yet here they are, another 1000 detained, yet thousands more probably scattered.

And so it goes on and on and on..............

Iraqi forces rounded up 1000 Al Qaeda Islamofascists?

Quite and amazing force multiplier effect the surge has had.

Of the nearly 1000 people detained, I wonder how many of them actually have ties to al quaeda and how long will they be detained before it is determined that they have no ties to al quaeda.

Hearts and minds.

2 things (of many) of which the white house has zero understanding.

Taka

"Of the nearly 1000 people detained, I wonder how many of them actually have ties to al quaeda and how long will they be detained before it is determined that they have no ties to al quaeda."

You sound like you probably wonder what really hit the Pentagon on 9-11.

Super delegate

Apparently only Taka has the right to accuse without evidence.

"I wonder how many of them actually have ties to al quaeda"

Quess you still believe that American troops are the only real terrorists in Iraq.

RR

Well, we certainly know that not all of those detained at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib had ties to terrorism, so it seems to me that Taka's question is legitimate. George W. Bush himself has "ties" to terrorism if you measure by small degrees of separation so even on a definitional basis arresting people for ties to terrorism is problematic. It wasn't so many weeks ago that people here were banging the drum on Obama's "ties" to terrorism.

You mean "This" Al-Qaeda? http://whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html

Taka;

"Of the nearly 1000 people detained, I wonder how many of them actually have ties to al quaeda and how long will they be detained before it is determined that they have no ties to al quaeda."

And I wonder how many will be tortured also to determine the "facts".

All I know is that there were 0 al-Qaida members in Iraq before the American invasion put them there.

Superlib;

"Apparently only Taka has the right to accuse without evidence."

What evidence have we seen to show these 1000 wretches actually are "al-Qaida"?

Kidding ourselves that the Iraqi "government" and the army isn't full of fundie elements has been pretty dangerous in the past. For all we know they just happened to be sunni's and in the way.

"All I know is that there were 0 al-Qaida members in Iraq before the American invasion put them there."

What evidence do you have ?

I think only a fundie could speak like you do.

The evidence part lies with the accuser old friend.

You, and all the other war cheerleaders, right up to the people in Bush Co that tried to convince the rest of us Saddam had ties to al-Qaida failed miserably.

Heh. Again.

How the anti-liberation crowd longs for the old days of 3 or 4 car bombings a day, hundreds of Iraqis dying each week at the hands of their fellow Mohammedans.

"How the anti-liberation crowd longs for the old days of 3 or 4 car bombings a day, hundreds of Iraqis dying each week at the hands of their fellow Mohammedans."

This is the best you can muster?

The only problem with the people who long for more dead bodies from the Iraqi conflict, is that they only exist in the minds of the radical war supporter.

In fact, it's like the alleged "liberation". That too, only exists in the mind of the radical war supporter.

It's too easy-

Zarqawi in Iraq as early as 2001.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm

"The only problem with the people who long for more dead bodies from the Iraqi conflict, is that they only exist in the minds of the radical war supporter."

Yes, why else would the Lancet inflate mortality figguhs 10 times...

Heh,

Yeah that's the report when he lost his leg. Heh, only to find it again.

super-d, your own link tells us "He first appeared in Iraq as the leader of the Tawhid and Jihad insurgent group, merging it in late 2004 with Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network."

So at best, a future al-qaida member was in Iraq in 2001.

Heh. Please try harder.

So the Lancet, according to you, inflate the mortality figures because they long for more dead bodies from the Iraqi conflict?

You actually believe what you write?

"In fact, it's like the alleged "liberation". That too, only exists in the mind of the radical war supporter."

I'd wager that when it comes to political debate liberated Iraq has a freer press than many EU members.

And as ever - you've fallen over your own claims so now you're introducing the EU. Classic.

"So the Lancet, according to you, inflate the mortality figures because they long for more dead bodies from the Iraqi conflict?"

How else to explain the wild variation their "figguhs" show when compared with Iraqi organizations like Iraqbodycount ?

Iraqbodycount themselves claim to under-estimate the number. But trey and saty focuses on the al-Qaida bit please - your worse than a leftist for introsucing as many topis in an attempt to obfuscate the issue...

"Iraq detains 1,000 in anti-al-Qaida crackdown"

Amazing headline.

Unimaginable a year ago.

No wonder Gen. Petraeus has been promoted to head of Cent Com.

"many of the fighters have fled to nearby areas"

Scurrying around like the cockroaches they are.

The evidence part lies with the accuser old friend.

Surely you won't make Taka an exception to that rule.

In what way have I made Taka an exception to the rule?

super-d;

So are you actually going to come clean an admit the invasion allowed al-Qaia to run amok in Iraq, or would you prefer to remain oblivious to these cold hard facts?

Well the question itself is absurd since Al Queda is having their asses handed to them in Iraq, mostly by the same insurgents who choose to work with the US rather than Osama Bin Laden (how's that for Arab support). You framed it as "run amok" which means you aren't being honest, but I'll address the point you were getting at anyway.

I understand that there was no Al Queda in Iraq before the invasion, but you've yet to discuss anything about the type of government that was required to do that. You're simultaneously criticizing someone for "allowing in Al Queda" while distancing yourself from the type of government (dictatorship) required to make that happen. You're playing both sides of the fence. I've asked you this many times but I've never gotten an answer from you: Would you be willing to live under a government like Saddam's to free yourself from the threat of Al Queda? You sure seem to make it a good sales pitch to the Iraqi people for it.

Your only solution to Iraq is always the never ending dictatorship. But you don't say that, do you? You're not for a dictatorship, you're against an invasion, right? That's how you play both sides. Now you're not responsible for action (invasion) or inaction (dictatorship). You sit on the side and just say that you support neither, then you walk around throwing the consequences in other people's faces while thinking you can't be held responsible for anything. Maybe you should look at Burma and see what happens when the world fails to act. But lemme guess...you don't support the junta and you don't support removing the junta. But you sure aren't shy about criticizing the junta while also mocking Bush for not invading. I'm just dying to know your "death free" solution that gives you the moral high ground to criticize both.

My original response was to Taka who was actually doing the same thing he's accusing the US of doing, which is accusing without proof. It seemed like an odd tactic to use.

Madverts - I can't say it any better than superlib did:

You're not for a dictatorship, you're against an invasion, right? That's how you play both sides.

I'll only add it strikes me as a thoroughly European position to take; very nuanced, ol' chum.

super-d;

Simplified cop-outs from other people's posts do not answer the question you've avoided since tripping up over your own al-Qaida claims.

madverts -

Just out of curiosity - Have UK bookmakers quoted odds on the disturbing possibility that the Sunni-Shia rift and the violence it engenders could replicate among Europe's Mohammedan population ?

" You framed it as "run amok" which means you aren't being honest, but I'll address the point you were getting at anyway."

Al-Qaida haven't been running amok in Iraq since the US invasion?

Are you look for the revisionist prize of the week?

"You're simultaneously criticizing someone for "allowing in Al Queda" while distancing yourself from the type of government (dictatorship) required to make that happen."

My position is it's none of your damned business. You know this. And this has never changed. It is your position that is weak, Superlib, in saying that if you didn't support the invasion you automatically suported keeping a dictator in power - the anti-war group had its' hand forced by the idiots that shrieked to let loose the bloodshed so your position is intellectualy dishonest.

"I've asked you this many times but I've never gotten an answer from you: Would you be willing to live under a government like Saddam's to free yourself from the threat of Al Queda?"

Other than the fact this is the first time I've seen you asked me this question, a) it's irrelevant and b) the Iraqi's didn't ask Saddam to take power to get rid fo 'qaida so I'm not sure I fully understand your point. You're defending the invasion and the blood letting it's caused - you're also railing against the obvious fact that you don't want to hear which is the so-called war on terror actually gave this ubiquitous enemy free run of a country in which access was previously denied.

"Your only solution to Iraq is always the never ending dictatorship."

My solution? When have I offered a solution and more to the point, why should the oness be on me? Heh, buddy, I've already told you if you want to walk the moral high ground and then proceed to get it so very Wrong then you should expect to get critisized and where possible, laughed at for defending all that shrieking that ended up with this much suffering. It wasn't my problem when Saddam was crapping on them and it isn't my problem now they're crapping on each other. It's yours. So deal with it.

"Maybe you should look at Burma and see what happens when the world fails to act."

Good point. I guess they aren't to be sat on the oil reserves that were the real reason for the invasion, so on that score, I think you should probably keep quiet and get back on topic.

The invasion allowed al-Qaida into Iraq and allowed them to wreak murderous havoc. Period.

"Iraq detains 1,000 in anti-al-Qaida crackdown"

Amazing headline.

Obviously pretty demoralizing for the anti-liberation crowd.

How their numbers have dwindled.

And to all the others that herald the US arming and aiding of the Sunni minority in Iraq, I seem to remember an old saying that says somthing about he who forgets history, is doomed to reapeat it and all that....

...3000 years of blood-letting in the region isn't going to cease due to the delusions of a few American madman. Even if the Sunni's were to erradicate al-Qaida in Iraq, Reality dictates who they'll be erradicating next.

"Obviously pretty demoralizing for the anti-liberation crowd. "

Heh. How many of these uhm, "people" are running round in your head now? Are these the same people that long for car bombings and all that?

Introduce the EU more,to this discussion. It's sure to enrage them.

yes, verts -

where are they now - http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2570

I would rather have see Saddam in charge and 100s of 1000s of innocent Iraqis still alive.

I would rather see Iraq still under Saddam instead of a destroyed country.

1000 so-called Al QAuaeda insurgents detained that weren't there 6 years ago.

Also, these 1000 Al Quaeda that were arrested. Did they have some special papers or tattoos or some distinquishing marks that absolutely defined them as Al-Quaeda?

The only reason we attacked Iraq was for oil. Trying to make Iraqi oil flow to the US, instead of through Europe being sold for euros instead od USD. Where's those low prices that we were promised?

This is a farce.

adaydream

I would rather have see Saddam in charge

No offense, but that is about the saddest thing I've seen since I have been posting here.

I was waiting for a bite.

And we've gained what from attacking Iraq?

Killed Al-Quaeda in Iraq? Redused our oil costs? Freed poor Iraqis? Stopped the prolitheration of WMD? Wasted over $600,000,000,000.00 destroying Iraq?

Saddest thing you've seen?

How about when george bush amassed 200,000 troops along the border of Iraq to attack for Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Maybe to stop Saddam from selling oil for euros instead of USD?

If what I posted is the saddest thing you've seen, what did you feel for the 100s of 1000s of dead innocent Iraqis? That's not a sad thing?

I was waiting for a bite.

Of course you were, that it is what is all about "a bite" and of course your sincere concern for the Iraqi people with your wish for Saddam back.

<strong>Moderator: All readers back on topic please. Saddam is not relevant to this discussion.</strong>

super-d,

Stop flailing man. You claimed al-Qaida were in Iraq before the invasion put them there. Then you've introduced as many stupid things, including the EU as you can to avoid answering the question.

Better luck next time.

"And we've gained what from attacking Iraq?"

Proof that we can spend trillions of dollars to liberate the country and keep the extremist wackos from making it into a base of operations, and still drive our SUVs to the mall where we can waddle around.

Uh, sarge;

"and keep the extremist wackos from making it into a base of operations"

You've yet to achieve this claim.

And good luck.

Hey, Madverts, you constantly whine about our efforts in fighting al-Qaida and the other extremist wackos in Iraq. You know these scumbags would torture and kill you without hesitation. My question is, what the heck is wrong with you?

Uh, madverts, you've yet to offer any proof that the extremist wackos have made Iraq into an unhindered base of operations. Good luck with that.

Sarge,

Hey, Madverts, you constantly whine about our efforts in fighting al-Qaida and the other extremist wackos in Iraq. You know these scumbags would torture and kill you without hesitation.

PROOF!!!!

I think we've proved that we will kill to prevent Iraqi gas from being sold for euros instead of USD.

And these 1000 Iraqis that were arrested were Al-Quaeda? PROOF??

I'm not whining at heh, "your" efforts. I even said I was impressed on the Koran sniper thread.

I'm critisizing Bush Co's disasterous mid-east policies, and the wars he started, one of which allowed al-Qaida (an every other fundie nutter with a grudge) to run amok where it was previously impossible.

I guess in your case, that is what is wrong with me. Sorry you don't like free speech or hearing the cold, hard, Reality of the so-called war on terror!

It's like the other day when I tried to explain that whilst the US occupier is fighting the al-Qaida they allowed to be there, the sunni extremists, the shiite extremists.....and whilst the sunni's continue to fight the shiites and the shiites continue to fight the other shiites (insert your head implosion here )...but that Iran will be the only winner....

Heh. No wonder the war cheerleaders get in such a strop.

Sarge, proof.

It seams that everytime you're ever ask for proof of your statements you don't seem to find a single one.

It wasn't impossible for al-Qaida to operate in Iraq before the liberation - it's just that they were happy with the previous mis-leader whose name we can't mention here.

Proof??

And these 1000 were Al-Quaeda?

Right.

These were innocent Iraqis sick and tired of American occupation.

"you've yet to offer any proof that the extremist wackos have made Iraq into an unhindered base of operations. Good luck with that."

Why? I haven't made that claim? You just made that up.

At least that was more creative the, uhm, heh, super-d...

He made claims that al-Qaida were in Iraq before your invasion allowed them to be there. Only he could only bleat about the EU instead of proving it. That's some team y'all have got y'selves there.

adaydream,

"These were innocent Iraqis sick and tired of American occupation."

We know neither as fact. JapanToday has posted a report in which the Iraqi "government" claims to have detained 1000 al-Qaida supporters.

We know neither whether they are or whether they are not.

The radical left clearly think they are all incent by-standers.

The radical right are shrieking "PROGRESS", look at us, something finally went right in our isaterous little sand-pit!!! THE SURGE LIVES//!!

Both sides should be quiet until we see proof, and I mean evidence not gathered under duress (I believe that when I see it).

Oh Madverts,

Do you advocate that we stay in Iraq and occupy a country that we attacked for their oil.

A country that we would kill 100s of 1000s of innocent Iraqis to steal their oil. To prevent it from being sold in euros.

The radical left clearly think they are all incent by-standers.

They were innocent by-standers until we attacked. Or have you found proof to the contrary?

We will have wasted over a 2 Trillion dollars. Worth it?

Madverts - I didn't make anything up. You claim we haven't kept the extremist wackos from making Iraq into a base of operations. Go back and re-read your posts ( especially your 10:15 post ).

No uh, sarge. The accusations are on your part when you said "you've yet to offer any proof that the extremist wackos have made Iraq into an unhindered base of operations".

Now, you added the "un-hindered" part for typical radical effect. Not that I'm complaining, it makes my job a whole lot easier. This is how the radical left also operates, like adaydream who doesn't like me pointing out we have no facts about these suspects, or Superlib on the other side who lashes out that my submission of the fact the US invasion caused the appearance of al-Qaida in Iraq means that I'm "sitting on the fence".

Both points of view are ridiculous, and sadly for the radicals of both persuasions, it does not change the fact that what I'm saying is true...

...unless you can pick up where uhm, heh, super-d...'s back-side collapsed, and show us how 'Qaida were pulling of the kind of operations they are now in a pre-invasion Iraq.

Once again, good luck with that one. Your leader an his minions failed miserably, but I appreciate young talent, so here's your moment sarge......

"That's my point Madverts. They attack insurgents and label them Al-Quaeda."

But we do not know the facts. I don't, you don't and neither does anybody else yet. Many people draw what they wish to see out of an article. You yourself don't want to believe that these detainees are al-Qaida because you claim they are all simply resistance fighters rising up against the Occupier.

This simply isn't true.

The radical right want to dearly, oh-so dearly believe that every last one of these thousand or so suspects (note the bold) were red-eyed al-Qaida members desperate to set off bombs and steal people's freedumbs (oh and the surge is working).

But that deluded little fantasy simply isn't true either.

Let me ask you a kwestion Madverts,

Most posters refuse to answer this kwestion because they don't want to justify anything that the insurgents are doing.

If the US had been attacked and occupied by another country, would you stand up and fight against these occupiers?

I would. I can understand and would stand up against occupiers that attacked my homeland. The same as I claim these 1000 individuals are doing. I definately don't look for a war to justify, but I would justify insurgent action against any country that might attack and occupy us.

You don't?

adaydream,

Despite the bullsh!t that took you to Iraq, the mission has been a mission to help them move on from Saddam's dictatorship into a western style democracy. I know it's neocon delusion, but the effort, and the money has been spent to do this.

I don't blame the Americans for the fundieness they're experincing in occupied Iraq - I blame them for being either too stupid to understand the region and what would happen if they did invade, or for simply not caring - like the money grubbers that make up Bush Co.

You still have to convince me how I can safely determine all these suspects (bold again there) are legitimate "freedom fighters" and not, as the Iraqi "government" claims, al-Qaida agents.

The radical right can't even muster up an ounce of credibilty to disprove my claim that the invasion put al-Qaida on Iraqi turf as we've seen.

Convince me, z.

That's what I don't need to do.

We're talking about Iraq. We're talking about the country that we attacked for their oil. Not for freedom. Not for WMD. Not for attacking us on 9/11 not for any of this B/S.

These people are in Iraq. Not in Afghanistan. Not Pakistan. This is Iraq, the country that george bush attacked. If Al-Quaeda in Iraq, who are really Iraqis that have taken up the Al-Quaeda banner against the Americans, are fighting the Americans, wouldn't you if you were an Iraqi?

But I know, you can't answer that one. I honestly believe all these republicans who refuse to answer this kwestion aren't Americans. The republicans have refused to answer this kwestion over and over again. Must mean either you are not American or you wouldn't defend our own homeland.

Just because these 1000 insurgents have been labeled Al-Quaeda, doesn't make it so. Just because insurgents take up the banner of Al-Quaeda doesn't make them any less Iraqis, than those who bow down to the Americans.

But, be my guest and play the republican game.

No I don't have to convince you. Convince me that these Al-Quaeda arrestees, as they are labeled, are Al-Quaeda rather than strong Iraqis fighting their occupiers.

<strong>Moderator: The word is "question," not "kwestion."</strong>

My solution? When have I offered a solution and more to the point, why should the oness be on me? Heh, buddy, I've already told you if you want to walk the moral high ground and then proceed to get it so very Wrong then you should expect to get criticized and where possible, laughed at for defending all that shrieking that ended up with this much suffering.

You don't support invasion and you don't support a dictator. It's just all so absurd, adverts. I mean it really is. You're saying that you're refusing to take a position, then you're telling me that I must suffer the consequences of my position. I'm talking to someone who is debating from the standpoint that he can do no wrong, as if inaction cannot possibly have consequences. And judging by the amount of criticism you dish out, the irony of it all is completely lost on you, and I can't see how you don't get that.

Good point. I guess they aren't to be sat on the oil reserves that were the real reason for the invasion, so on that score, I think you should probably keep quiet and get back on topic.

And again. Burma is slapping you in the face right now. The world did nothing and now hundreds of thousands are going to die. Here is a perfect example of what happens when the world chooses to do nothing. But obviously you feel none of the sting, you're too busy making cracks about Bush and oil. Guess what? Allowing dictators to stay was your solution. None of our damn business, remember? Well here is the result of the "none of our damn business" policy. But I guess since you probably don't support people dying at the hands of a dictatorial government then you shouldn't have to burden yourself with the consequences, however real they may be. Smith is saying in another thread that he's considering kind-of maybe thinking about force as an option. Even he can see that at some point you have to say enough is enough and the world needs to act because the cost of inaction is getting to be too high. But the cost of inaction just doesn't exist in your world and surely isn't a part of any decision that you make.

"I've asked you this many times but I've never gotten an answer from you: Would you be willing to live under a government like Saddam's to free yourself from the threat of Al Queda?" Other than the fact this is the first time I've seen you asked me this question, a) it's irrelevant

Why is the question relevant? Because I know you'd never live under the system you are telling other people to live under. You'd never choose it for yourself, but it's a great option for them, right? When you have to face the consequences you reject it, but when others have to face the consequences your position does a 180.

And again: You don't support a government using Saddam-style rule to keep out Al Queda, and you don't support Al Queda in Iraq. You're right on that fence again with your entire position being anti-option A and anti-option B. Please share with us your mythical option C where there's no Saddam and no Al Queda. We're all ears.

You advocated keeping a dictator in power. Period. That was part of the package. Part of the decision. You're trying to say that you don't support dictators like it's some kind of disclaimer which removes that reality from your position. If that option exists in your world then here's my official position on Iraq: I support the invasion but I don't support the killing.

Where is tne new Al Qaida number 2?

Superlib;

"You don't support invasion and you don't support a dictator. It's just all so absurd, adverts. I mean it really is."

No, you're making my position and then arguing from that point on. It's like us living in the same neighbourhood and a known paedophile comes to live there. You say to me after a couple of beers "right Adverts, I'm going to get the gun out and kill this disgraceful individual - I'm not having him near the kids". To which I say, "Whoa there Super, he may be a bad apple but gunning him down is really not a good idea". And then you turn around to me an say "so you support paedophiles in the street? What are you, some sort of goddamn paedophile sympathizer??"

That is your argument here, old friend.

Either way, it doesn't change a thing here to the point in contention. The invasion that was billed as a fight against al-Qaida, acually put 'em there. And they've been running amok, with all the other very different factions of fundies since day 1. This is because of the invasion whether you want to hear it or not, and it has caused the loss of many, many lives.

Also, I don't get why you're so riled about the original comments that Taka made - we have no idea whether these suspects have anything to with al-Qaida. I have warned you about the fundies in the Iraqi army and the "government". And I have also warned you about getting cosy with the sunni's to help fight this battle.

Good luck. You're going to need it.

z, you're absolutely right and I'm wrong. There is nothing at all the matter with insurgents, sorry freedom fighters, turning to the al-Qaida flag to free their country.

In fact, if America invaded my country, I'd be the first to strap a suicide bomb on to an impresionable young man or woman, and send them to the market to blow up my innocent country men and women in order to show the invaders who's boss.

OK?

That's the honest answer I expected.

You would not fight for your country, but you would willingly send someone else off to die in your place.

Words of a true patriot.

<strong>Moderator: Readers, please focus your comments on the story, not at each other.</strong>

Oh and Superlib,

On re-reading, you want to talk about a truly absurd position. I've got one from your earlier post:

"I support the invasion but I don't support the killing."

Heh...I mean, WTF?

"they've ( al-Qaida in Iraq ) been running amok"

Heh, more like they've been running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Oh, and Madverts, SuperLib's "I support the invasion but I don't support the killing" is an example of your logic.

No, you're making my position and then arguing from that point on.

Then by all means, please give us your position, adverts. Last I checked it was "none of my damn business" with the caveat that you aren't responsible for anything that that policy might allow, whether it be Iraq or Burma.

No, you're making my position and then arguing from that point on. It's like us living in the same neighbourhood and a known paedophile comes to live there.

Why not use Iraq as an example of Iraq? But I'll use your example if I must, but with changes for appropriate realism and context. Instead of the guy just being known, imagine he has someone locked in his basement. The threat is real and it's happening right now, right in front of you. You do nothing. You don't call the police. You look away and say, "None of my damn business." Then you go about your day while hearing the screams from the house next door. Your positions consistently leave out the consequences of inaction.

we have no idea whether these suspects have anything to with al-Qaida.

Right, that's my point. You and Taka have no idea if these suspects have anything to do with Al Queda. So making the accusation that they've arrested people who have nothing to do with Al Queda doesn't hold.

On re-reading, you want to talk about a truly absurd position. I've got one from your earlier post: "I support the invasion but I don't support the killing."

I'm borrowing the logic that exists to create your position and I'm using it in mine. I'm telling people that I want to act, but I'm conveniently excusing myself from the consequences of that decision. So now I'm officially anti-Saddam and anti-killing.

"Where is the new al-Qaida number 2?"

Who knows? They come and go all the time.

It is funny how many of you think Iraq was a little garden of eden before the invasion. In fact, it was a ruthless dicatorship that controlled the population by killing anyone opposed. And let's not forget the Kurds or a little invasion in 1991. Now, taking that in mind, if my country was attacked and the evil dictator (i.e. mussolii) was killed then i would not fight back. why didn't italy, germany, japan fight on against the occupier? your point makes no sense. sane people do what is best for their country. brainwashed or terrorists blow themselves up and kill their own countryman for no purpose but to cause anarchy.

The whole notion that US went into Iraq to help Iraqis because they cared about the people is as absurd as people believing that bunnies live on the moon. Let us not forget that US politicians when confronted about the hundreds of thousands of children who died of famine in Iraq said It is worth it.

Uh, sarge,

I see you're a no show with the elusive proof. Heh. Nothing changes eh?

Oh superlib,

What happened to you man? I'm not living in the binary "with or against us" bush world that you apparently are.

You make it sound like I suported Saddam Hussein becuase I didn't support the invasion. I supported neither and my position is valid, whether you like it or not. And the reason I did not support it, you know fine well. What were the words I used in 2002 that got shrieked down by the bush supporters....? Was it something about the creation of a monumental breeding ground for terrorists? Could I have been pondering on the ramifications of litteraly handing the country to its' shiite brothers in fundie Iran? Could I have been worried about the already seething tensions in the region?

No, no, no you're right. That was totally un-reasonable. I was supporting Saddam. You're with us or you're against us. That's the mentality I'm sadly dealing with here.

So let me try your game here, just per se. You Superlib, as a supporter of the invasion, actively supported al-Qaida entering Iraq a nd wreaking havoc, rather than leaving a secular Dictator in power.

Heh. It's easy to argue like that. Only it's intellectualy dishonest.

We both know that the reasons Bush Co attacked Iraq had sod all to do with the opression of the Iraqi people. And then you bring up Mynamar, but how many other vile dictatorships operate right now with impunity other than a few strong words from the outside world? We know fine well there will be no regime change via US invasion because there is simply no strategic or economic interest worth the risk - unlike Iraq. And you want me to agree with this position?

If the invasion of Iraq had been a success and all that b/s we heard from bush/wolfie/rumsfeldt would alreay have come to pass. You'd have been proven right I'd be sat where you are right now thinking it was a really good idea for once for America to take it upon itself to invade another country and dictate to them how to live.

But it hasn't been a success by a long shot.

As far as I can see, there is the potential for as many victims since the invasion as there was during Saddam's entire reign of kicking his people into line, though albeit, not through the wars Hussein started. So I think your humanitarian argument looks more than a little pale these days, especially since Saddam had from the late sixties to implement his policies an we're into what, the 6th year of the occupation?

Also, your humanitarian issue was a secondary, last-minute justification, when the neocons realized all that shrieking about the WMD's they invented and all the terror threats they kept creating were only working on the weak-minded, and heh, they know who they are.

But this, believe it or not Superlib, is the topic that we're supposed to be discussing - the continued presence of al-Qaida in Iraq. A presence that was allowed by the invasion and a presence that secular Saddam, despite his mis-givings, refused them. You all seem to be have a real problem being presented with this fact.

"You and Taka have no idea if these suspects have anything to do with Al Queda. So making the accusation that they've arrested people who have nothing to do with Al Queda doesn't hold."

Rubbish. It's the accuser that needs to bring his/her proof to the table as I said earlier to sarge and super-d..., only they copped-out as to be expected.

Here we have the fairly new Iraqi "government", that has been proven to be at best impotent in picking up the pieces of where the invasion left off, though who are under tremendous pressure from their US backers to finally show some positive results. Therefore they've rounded up a load of people, told Reuters or whichever news source picked it up that they're al-Qaida suspects, though neither you nor I will know for sure if they are, or how these suspected al-Qaida members will be treated in their time in captivity in what is if you're honest, a broken third world country rife with Islamic fundementalism.

Clearly the threat of this Islamic fundementalism, and the internel power struggle that has been happening since the invasion Iraq doesn't seem to worry you. You're really expecting the Iraqi "government" had impartial agents to detain these people and that everything will sort itself fairly soon to the point where there's a Macdonalds on every Baghdad street corner, monster truck extravaganza's every Saturday night and somewhere in this fantasy, the Islamic findies will mysteriously vanish.

Frankly I think all that is simple delrium. And that it's dangerous to live that far in la la land.

But go on calling me a Saddam supporter if it somehow makes you feel better for what has happened in Iraq. The dead bodies no longer to belong to Hussein. They belong Bush Co and all the supporters that gave legitimacy to this invasion - and it looks sadly, as if the cadavers are in no short supply.

War for oil? I sure haven't noticed it at the gas pump, or the supermarket. I wonder what they are doing with all of this oil they are stealing from the poor Iraqis?

"War for oil? I sure haven't noticed it at the gas pump, or the supermarket"

Heh, where do you live? Saudia Arabia?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7414093.stm

Oil soars to new record over $135