world

Worst violence since U.S. pullback hits Iraq with 60 dead

49 Comments

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

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

49 Comments
Login to comment

TokyoHustla: "Remember: Every single death in Iraq was caused by the terrorists."

Hahaha... wow... denial is alive and well. Are you saying then that, let's say, the boys of Haditha were terrorists? or are you just wrong? Which is it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you don't want the truth, it's not there. If you want the truth, look for it.

I don't care a bit about your religious hulla-ballu. This is just one link that gives facts. < :-)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-02.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TokyoHustla at 02:22 PM JST - 12th July

Every single death in Iraq was caused by the terrorists.

I guess you just work up. We killed thousands during our initial "Shock and Aw" US military contractors have killed many many. We have actually murdered a few ourselves. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3: You're saying thousands have not been killed and injured, that DU is not causing injuries and illnesses (among Iraqis and Americans) and that no one was uprooted and displaced?

Oh is that was your claim is now? Seems to have changed a bit....."hundreds of thousands" has changed to "thousands"......"4.25 million" has changed to "no one". And let's skip the whole DU argument, that's for the especially weak minded. You can put on your dog and pony show for daydream but it's beneath me.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19055852/

Nice article. From June 2007. Lemme guess....it's probably the highest number you could find so you bookmarked it? Here's my challenge to you: find a higher number. :) I doubt you can because if you had found a higher number you'd already be using it. Because that's what you do. Bush would do the same.

And by the way, what's the cost of the war? I haven't seen totals from you for a while.... I believe your last claims where that the US has spent over $3 trillion? Or did you finally clean up that little grammar trick as well? Why use facts when distorting reality gets a more emotional response.... That and bold text, apparently.

I'd especially like to see your links showing how the war was the catalyst for the current recession. Still have no confirmation on that, but you've throw it out there so many times you must have some information on it besides your imagination.

Honestly, you could have worked for Bush. I think he'd like you....a lot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would go with the low figure. All deaths in Iraq have come at the hands of Al-Quaeda butchers, who are killing Americans and Iraqis while the US Peacekeeping Force tries to keep the peace. Remember: Every single death in Iraq was caused by the terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib, when you...

He just distorts, leaves out information, twists things around

and knowingling do it, that lies.

I sent both links purposely. No matter the numbers you may believe, at least 150K to over 1Mil have died in a war that george bush distorted the facts, left out thruths and twisted information to get people to believe lies.

And after all that, we're down to trying to get the hell out of Iraq with some level of dignity for the fiasco george bush started. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: Lieing. I don't lie. I don't go in back rooms and dream up plans to attack a country for about 23 different reasons, based on the time questioned.

Bush doesn't lie, either. He just distorts, leaves out information, twists things around. So who does it more....you or Bush?

And thanks for your links. One says 150,000 people have died. The other says it's over a million. Which should I believe?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey, if it was such a Neo-Con plan as you suggest, why is it that oil is still going up, and no one is really making any profits on the oil from Iraq. The oil companies are making money, but not from Iraqi oil.

As far as ingrates, if they disagree with each other, do they have to bomb each other, or is it all the US's fault. At what point do they take some accountability for thier own actions. OK, so we bombed and invaded them. I get it, but the last time I checked, we are not going out and taking new territory actually we are pulling back,so why do they need to still blow up innocents. Since you seem to be such in the know, why don't you enlighten me so I can understand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge-"Can you prove that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died ( excluding the bad guys and people over 75 )? Thanks a whole lot in advance."

I don't need to. No matter how many you think died needlessly in Iraq, the general figure of hundreds of thousands is going to be a lot more accurate than saying Saddam killed millions.

Moderator: Comparisons to the Saddam era are irrelevant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape said:

the violence is done by Iraqi's against other Iraqi's? It't [It's] there [their] country (as so many who opposed the war said and I agree with), so if they can't get their act together after all of the crap they have been through, then they are ingrates.

They did not violate "sanctions" as you said. So don't give me this "I'll type slowly crap." They violated a UN resolution; UN Security Council resolution 707 (1991), UN Security Council RESOLUTION 687 (1991) and UN Security Council RESOLUTION 688 (1991) to be specific. They can violate "provisions" of a resolution but like I initially said they can violate resolutions or agreements. But you insisted once again in your last post that they violated "sanctions." Sanctions are imposed after resolutions are violated. So when you say "so I hope that you can get this." I already got it and I am still waiting for you to understand. I was well aware of the No-Fly zone imposed; I have mentioned it many times when people were trying to say our country was in some, no any danger from Iraq the time. Unlike Alphaape's statement the no-fly zone was never explicit but interpreted from United Nations Security Council Resolution 688.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0707.htm

Here is a list of the UN resolutions concerning Iraq just in case you want to go through them for yourself.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0707.htm

Your accuracy leaves much to be desired. But it is your logic that I find most disturbing. However your reference to me being slow is hilarious. I am very interested in where you derived the part where we may resume the conflict? “hose sanctions that I talked about were put in place after the first Gulf War, that did have a clause in them that said that the U.N. and others had the right to "resume" hostilities against Iraq if they are violated. “ There is no part of the resolution that says anything about resuming hostilities. For the life of me I can't figure out why people just make stuff up!

... what does being conservative have to do with the fact that the violence is done by Iraqi's against other Iraqi's?

That's a joke right? The Neo-Con movement had been planning this for years. Wolfowitz developed this policy years before we reentered Iraq. If you want to believe in the Republican Politburo's part line of "this was an act to liberate Iraqi people" that is just fine. But why do you have to insist that a people who had no say over the matter are ingrates. Alphaape said "but look at how much we have done there to "rebuild" and tried to make up for it." So what your basically saying is they are ingrates for not being thankful we rebuilt some of the things we destroyed either through intentional or unintentional consequences of the war we perpetrated. Could "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" have a more poignant application?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can you prove that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died ( excluding the bad guys and people over 75 )?

Sarge, do you have evidence to the contrary? Please share. You know, millions of non-combatants were killed in WWII though some would deny that fact. The Iraq War has lasted longer than WWII and 100s of thousands does not seem an exaggeration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died needlessly since the invasion"

Can you prove that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died ( excluding the bad guys and people over 75 )? Thanks a whole lot in advance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3: Oh, and let's not forget the possibly hundreds of thousands killed, many more injured and maimed, the 4.25 million who were uprooted and fled, and the effects that depleted uranium will have on their people and soil for decades to come thanks to U.S. ordinance.

Bang on, again, my fine friend. Your posting is simply fantastic, and the few remaining supporters here of the worst president ever, from the get-go (that would be bush, for certain FOOLS her) simply can NOT trump you,and so I am rolling around on the floor laughing at them, and my arse is coming off.

The invasion of Iraq was based on lies from the loser bush and his loser friends in Texas.In the end they couldn't even get the oil they wanted.Hahaha ha.

Well, anyways, Obama continues to amaze, but if things get worse in Iraq(which they WILL, and EVERYBODY knows it) it will still be bush's fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, I challenge you to prove where my statement is wrong and I look forward to a good laugh. :-)

Here's a link that is a start to showing why your claim I was lying was such a joke:

"U.N.: More than 4 million Iraqis displaced"

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19055852/

You'll have to try harder next time instead of simply posting totally false claims to back up a non-existant point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3: Oh, and let's not forget the possibly hundreds of thousands killed, many more injured and maimed, the 4.25 million who were uprooted and fled, and the effects that depleted uranium will have on their people and soil for decades to come thanks to U.S. ordinance.

Superlib - "All lies said by a man who knows he lying but trying to gain support from people who aren't intelligent enough to know the difference."

You're saying thousands have not been killed and injured, that DU is not causing injuries and illnesses (among Iraqis and Americans) and that no one was uprooted and displaced?

Denial, denial, denial - Can you see why no one takes you seriously on this board?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When you say "(never mind that little thing about them breaking U.N.

sanctions but that is another story)" it would appear that you are using that (implicitly) as, at least partial justification, for the current war in Iraq. I sure hope that logic is never used as the standard because many nations have disobeyed U.N. resolutions. I don't know what "them breaking U.N. sanctions" means. Sanctions are brought against someone who violated U.N. resolutions. So I had to conclude you meant agreements or resolutions. My point is that I think you will find far too many nations who meet that criteria to go to war with them.

goodDonkey, I will type slow so I hope that you can get this. Those sanctions that I talked about were put in place after the first Gulf War, that did have a clause in them that said that the U.N. and others had the right to "resume" hostilities against Iraq if they are violated. For the years after the war, I was in the Gulf in the USN enforcing those sanctions like the "No Fly Zone" that was set up in Iraq so that Saddam could not use his military planes to bomb the Kurds and others. So there was a precedent set after the first war.

Now, when everyone wants the U.N. to put in harsh sanctions against N. Korea for what they are doing, but I will admit, none of them have the right for attacks (even though technically we are still at war with N. Korea since only a cease fire was agreed upon in 1953, and not a out right end of the war, similar somewhat to what we had with Iraq in 1990).

I may have a conservative lean, but I realize you can't just stay on one course through life or you are bound to end up hitting a wall, but what does being conservative have to do with the fact that the violence is done by Iraqi's against other Iraqi's? It't there country (as so many who opposed the war said and I agree with), so if they can't get their act together after all of the crap they have been through, then they are ingrates.

Did I type slow enough for you to understand?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/09/iraq/main2165206.shtml

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRd3Bi6CXI94ke9t9CgxqcZ1wPNw

Lieing. I don't lie. I don't go in back rooms and dream up plans to attack a country for about 23 different reasons, based on the time questioned.

Let's have that conversation. Where are the WMD? Where is the nuclear program? Where are the missile tubes. Tell me about the uranium purchased from Niger. Where is the tons of sarin gas? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape said:

All while the US was active fighting in Iraq, here as well as many other places you could here pretty much the same mantra, the U.S. had no right to invade a soverign [sovereign] nation (never mind that little thing about them breaking U.N. sanctions but that is another story). O.k. in hindsight the U.S. invasion was probably not the best thing. They are getting what they wanted, the US out. So yes I am blaming it on the "ingrates" since if you look, yes we took Iraqi lives, but look at how much we have done there to "rebuild" and tried to make up for it.

I must first make a disclaimer that I have never understood the logic of your posts so commenting on this one leaves me at a disadvantage. When you say "(never mind that little thing about them breaking U.N. sanctions but that is another story)" it would appear that you are using that (implicitly) as, at least partial justification, for the current war in Iraq. I sure hope that logic is never used as the standard because many nations have disobeyed U.N. resolutions. I don't know what "them breaking U.N. sanctions" means. Sanctions are brought against someone who violated U.N. resolutions. So I had to conclude you meant agreements or resolutions. My point is that I think you will find far too many nations who meet that criteria to go to war with them.

Alphaape also said, "I am blaming it on the "ingrates"[.]" Wow, I just find that amazing. I have heard the conservatives switch back and forth between saving the world from Iraq and saving Iraqis from Iraqi government. However, I can't see how one can blame another who never wanted their assistance in the first place for rejecting it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: The numbers of Iraqi citizens that the US has killed could never amount to the amount of Iraqis that Saddam ever killed or could have killed.

At this point we could probably have a conversation about whether adaydream or Bush lies more about Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: It's not so black and white.

Your comment asked why the US wasn't removing other dictators. It's not so black and white.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: I support the concept that we leave other countries alone.

I don't. I support creating a system where the world works together to remove dictators that are responsible for the deaths of millions of people. I don't support the current system of "they're a threat to us so let's play the 'freedom and democracy' card and remove them" vs. the "they're no threat to us to let's play the 'none of our business' card and do nothing." I think the world should look at everyone as a citizen and not say that it's OK for someone to kill someone else just because he's doing it within certain lines on a map.

It all comes down to your own peace of mind. People are OK with Saddams's policies killing millions as long as they don't have any involvement in it. Out of sight, out of mind. You want clean hands so you're more than happy to let more people die over the long run because at least your not involved and you don't feel responsible for any of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Maybe Russia or China can step in...

Why would they help, the US attacked Iraq based on lies. I don't recall Russia or China ever advocating that we ever attack Iraq.

adaydream, I read a report the other day that said that the Iraqi's were looking at making deals with Russian and Chinese companies to do econstruction in Iraq. I guess it will be the US's job to create the destruction, and the Russians and Chinese job to get the jobs and the money to rebuild, all the while denouncing the US actions in war.

The US can't seem to win in either situation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "You certainly fall into that category."

I know you hate being lumped into certain groups, so allow me to clarify. I don't mean to imply that you are one of the people who believes that if you don't support the bombast and rhetoric, or even calls to bomb NK, that have clearly led to zero success it means that you support Kim, I meant that on quite a number of occasions you do the whole 'with us or against us' argument that has gotten your nation into so much trouble in the past.

I don't like war, plain and simple, nor do I think it's 'necessary' in any capacity. This war was based on complete lies, and has lead to nothing, and that nothing is leading to the inevitable installing of someone worse than the person deposed. Critics of the war predicted this, while proponents, who deny being lied to (still), and some who even claim there are still WMDs, say the reason was to rid the world of a dictator, and that is a good thing. That's reason #5 after the lies came to light, by the way (ties to AQ, WMDs, etc.). The easy question is that if it's so right to remove one dictator, why not them all? Asking such an obvious question to point out the flaw in logic in NO WAY indicates, as I said, that the people who ask it are therefore in favour of dictatorships.

Noliving: Why are you addressing those points towards me as though my question were not rhetorical? I KNOW why the US won't 'do what's right' in other countries; you only forgot the reason that 'ridding the world of an evil dictator' was never the reason for invading to begin with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib: "So I'll go ahead and assume that you support keeping every current dictator in power. It works both ways, not that you'd take the time to think through your own arguments. If you did, you wouldn't be smithinjapan. :)"

Nice try at deflection, but it doesn't break through the lack of logic in your argument. No, it doesn't at all mean I support all dictators. Let's take Kim Jong Il as a prime example; I don't support him or his regime one bit, but I support dialogue over war. Not ironically, such stance has lead people on this board to believe that desiring dialogue means you support said regime, you know, things being 'for us or against us' and all that. You certainly fall into that category.

In short, arguing 'because it was the right thing to do' indeed opens yourself up to the fact that equally bad dictators exist elsewhere that need 'dealing with' (but you won't do it), while thinking it was the 'wrong thing to do' (as the world does) does not at all mean you support Saddam or any other dictator. It's not so black and white.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: Actually the answer is to oust saddam. So then your question is why not all the other dictators? Well its called resources, the US doesn't have the money, nor the troops, nor the political capital domestically and internationally to be able to do it along with the military hardware to do it. Plus when you consider how much of a failure iraq was it wouldn't be smart to launch more wars and strain the military along with thinning out the resources to more conflicts when they are needed in just Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh plus it is also illegal according to the UN to start wars for the sole purpose of regime change. Bush is dumb but he isn't that dumb.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3: Actually Iraqis have greater access to electricity and water then under saddam. For example Iraq produces twice as much electricity then under saddam, it clearly is not enough for 24 hours a day but when you go from 2-4 hours on average per day for the whole country excluding baghdad to around 16 hours on average for the entire country including baghdad that is pretty impressive. Iraqis also have greater access to clean drainkable water, it still isn't enough though and they are still building more water treatment plants and building sewer systems in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib are you saying that SushiSake3's statement is incorrect? What part is incorrect? Curious?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib

So I'll go ahead and assume that you support keeping every current dictator in power.

I support the concept that we leave other countries alone. We got our noses in Iraq and really made it worse then it was.

Look at Iran right now. Some citizens are standing up and speaking out. If they want liberty, then they have to work for it. The United States wasn't just given the New World. They sailed there/here and then stood their ground in creating a new country.

Some Irani citizens are in the process of standing up for their rights. Some die, some get through. But this is their war. This is changing from one form of government for another.

Now Iraq has to rebuild a country that has been destroyed by outsiders. Now Iraq has to learn to fight and defeat the insurgents who weren't there 7 years ago.

The Iraqi Police and Army will get control of Iraq eventually. It's going to take a very long time. Many more innocent civilians will die. But we can't stay there. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3: Oh, and let's not forget the possibly hundreds of thousands killed, many more injured and maimed, the 4.25 million who were uprooted and fled, and the effects that depleted uranium will have on their people and soil for decades to come thanks to U.S. ordinance.

All lies said by a man who knows he lying but trying to gain support from people who aren't intelligent enough to know the difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: But go ahead, define 'what the right thing to do' is: and keep in mind, you cannot answer it with some, "ousting Saddam" lame answer, as that still applies equally to the other dictators and you need to explain why you won't do that, too.

So I'll go ahead and assume that you support keeping every current dictator in power. It works both ways, not that you'd take the time to think through your own arguments. If you did, you wouldn't be smithinjapan. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts - "So how does that knowledge help us improve the current situation?"

SushiSake: It doesn't.

I think the exchange above defines Sushi more than any other post I've ever seen. And it came straight from his own keyboard.

SushiSake: get (conservatives) to tone down the partisan bickering and provide constructive ideas to help fix the mess in that country.

Do as I say, not as I do. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes there's violence in Iraq. You got crazy people trying to get a handle and trying to subvert Iraqi values to theirs. This will go on for quite a while. It's not going to stop in even 10 years. george bush opened a door he couldn't control.

So after all the violence, after the "shock and aw", after the deaths of coalition troops and Iraqi civilians how much oil are we getting from Iraq? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love how the republicans like to make this Obama's war. I love how they try to lay this off onto Obama now that he's the president. The thing that is funny is that the republicans never owned up to their/bush's war when he was in office. Then as soon as Obama is president, it's Obama's war.

I hear the garbage that the republicans spew that this is Obama's war, but they never own up to the truths that feith, cheney and bush put together bold faced lies and spoon fed them to the American public.

The US has to leave Iraq someday. Republicans like to talk about how unstable situations in Iraq are, but never own up to how this war was created in a back room.

The Iraqi Police and Army have to stand up and take control. We can't stay there forever to control the fiasco that the republicans accept as a part of just doing business. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I say retreat to the oil fields and let the Iraqis massacre each other and work with what ever is left. Been saying that for years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Need to edit more often: "why on earth did the Republicans lose the ELECTION in such a slaughter".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "Or, the U.S. liberated Iraq based on what was the right thing to do."

Nope. It's the former, 100%. If the US attacked Iraq because it was 'the right thing to do', please define what 'the right thing to do' is, my friend. I bet you can't. And if you're going to bother with things like 'ridding the world of evil dictators', you've still got NK, which has the world's attention, Iran, which does too, and numerous other dictatorships where your 'the right thing to do' could (and should, according to your logic), easily apply.

But go ahead, define 'what the right thing to do' is: and keep in mind, you cannot answer it with some, "ousting Saddam" lame answer, as that still applies equally to the other dictators and you need to explain why you won't do that, too.

Tick tock, sarge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the US attacked Iraq based on lies"

Or, the U.S. liberated Iraq based on what was the right thing to do. Heck, even Obama was praising U.S. troops recently for the wonderful job they've done in giving Iraqis their freedom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Maybe Russia or China can step in...

Why would they help, the US attacked Iraq based on lies. I don't recall Russia or China ever advocating that we ever attack Iraq.

The numbers of Iraqi citizens that the US has killed could never amount to the amount of Iraqis that Saddam ever killed or could have killed. Some of you are so proud of george bush's actions. I hope you're just as proud of the deaths he created.

Unfortunately, Iraq is now in a state of chaos that the US created. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Maybe Russia or China can step in and provide the kind of help they need to help them rebuild"

Har!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape - "So yes I am blaming it on the "ingrates" since if you look, yes we took Iraqi lives, but look at how much we have done there."

What, exactly? Iraqis still have less of the main necessities of modern living - power and water - than they did 7 years ago under Saddam.

Oh, and let's not forget the possibly hundreds of thousands killed, many more injured and maimed, the 4.25 million who were uprooted and fled, and the effects that depleted uranium will have on their people and soil for decades to come thanks to U.S. ordinance.

And you say "look at how much we have done"????

Are you freaking kidding??

Alphaape - "maybe Saddam wasn't so bad after all.

I'm sure many Iraqis would agree.

But it's too late now because the invasion has already happened, people have already been killed for no real reason and you can't wind back the clock.

Alphaape - "They wanted us out, we are leaving. So if they can't settle their differences without blowing each other up, maybe Saddam wasn't so bad after all."

That's exactly the kind of nonchalent, who-gives-a-toss attitude we really don't need right now.

Sorry for sounding like I am angry - I am. You really need to think more about your attitude.

People have lost their lives here and there is no way to bring them back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3 You could lay blame to the British also, but using your logic, we should expect to see India in a complete shambles. They ran India with a "rough hand" and look where it has gotten them. True they still have issues with strife among each religious faction or side in India, but at least you are not reading about them blowing each other up like in Iraq.

All while the US was active fighting in Iraq, here as well as many other places you could here pretty much the same mantra, the U.S. had no right to invade a soverign nation (never mind that little thing about them breaking U.N. sanctions but that is another story). O.k. in hindsight the U.S. invasion was probably not the best thing. They are getting what they wanted, the US out. So yes I am blaming it on the "ingrates" since if you look, yes we took Iraqi lives, but look at how much we have done there to "rebuild" and tried to make up for it. I don't think even Japan after they ran through Asia during WW2 has made the same amount of reparations to the countries that it did things to could even compare to the amount of infrastructure work that America has expended in Iraq.

They wanted us out, we are leaving. So if they can't settle their differences without blowing each other up, maybe Saddam wasn't so bad after all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape - "Instead of blaming conservatives or liberals, how about laying the blame where it really belongs, with kncukleheaded Iraqi's who can't put aside their own differences to work for their own country."

Oh, I thought you were going to lay the blame at the feet of the British, who earlier last century arrogantly carved up the area and created what is now Iraq without doing much thinking about tribal differences.

That's what I thought you were going to say...

Alphaape - "A lot of valuable American lives and treasure was lost there" because the American leadership failed to study the history books.

But of course, it's always easier to blame the "ingrates," isn't it Alphaape?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Instead of blaming conservatives or liberals, how about laying the blame where it really belongs, with kncukleheaded Iraqi's who can't put aside their own differences to work for their own country.

To tell the truth, I would rather see the Iraqi's get their act together, and declare a full state of war exists between them and the US, than to see them "knickle and dime" themselves to death. At least in the first case, they would have had enough forsight to come together as some sort of nation and work for their common good. Now what we have, is a bunch of ingrates who couldn't blow themselves up while Saddam was in charge because he kept an iron fist on them, and now that they have a chance to get from up under that type of regime, now all they do is fight among themselves.

A lot of valuable American lives and treasure was lost there for these ingrates, and I say for the US to just leave. Hey, I was for the war and from those who frequent this blog know I lean to the right on most issues, though I don't drink all of the "kool aide" from both sides, but this one, I feel is just a waste of our US time.

Let them kill themselves for all I care. Maybe Russia or China can step in and provide the kind of help they need to help them rebuild.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts - "So how does that knowledge help us improve the current situation?"

It doesn't.

What it will hopefully do is get some conservatives (I'm not holding my hopes high here) to acknowledge their role in the consequences of this invasion, and get them to tone down the partisan bickering and provide constructive ideas to help fix the mess in that country.

I personally think the barest minimum requirement should be the issuing of a full public apology from the GOP and Bush Administration officials to the Iraqi people for invading their country without just cause or sufficient intelligence, followed by fixed payments to surviving members of every Iraqi who has been killed, displaced or imprisoned without verifiable reason, and fixed ongoing payments to the Iraqi government and local Iraqi authorities to cover infrastructure rebuilding costs.

And to get anywhere near that stage, the GOP and conservatives have to realize and acknowledge what they have done and the damage they have caused.

But from what I have seen, none, especially on JT are man enough to do that.

To them, it's always someone else's fault.

Hence, I keep reminding them it's not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The GOP and conservatives so totally own the Iraq fiasco."

So how does that knowledge help us improve the current situation?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a joke. We only have U.S. conservatives and the GOP to blame for this.

But wait - U.S. conservatives and the GOP will try to lay the blame equally on the doorstep of the Democrats, who they will say also voted to give president bush the power to decide whether or not to invade - while at the same time neglecting to mention that the intelligence behind the decision to invade was thoroughly whitewashed through the Bush White House before the Ultra-Spin version was disseminated in Congress.

Whichever way you look at it, this disaster in Iraq is and always will be the fault of the U.S. conservatives and the GOP.

But be prepared - some conservatives will try and tell you that no - the aim of the invasion was to 'liberate Iraqis from a cruel tyrant' (that was excuse #6 after the previous 5 excuses were ridiculed or came up false.)

Or to 'spread democracy' (excuse #7).

The GOP and conservatives so totally own the Iraq fiasco.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This article would be the cue for conservatives to blame Obama for keeping Bush's timetable, laid out in an agreement, set up with the Iraqis, for U.S. troops to pullout of cities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US JUST pulled out and gave power over to the Iraqis. To say it's 'the worst violence since' then is simply to say the worst violence this week. It's most certainly not the worst violence Iraq has seen since the invasion, nor will it be the last. The only policies that are having any affect on this are the original decision to invade for no reason, and the inability of Iraqis to make/enforce any policies themselves. The US could have stayed the 100 years McCain suggested and it wouldn't make one iota of difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The United States can't and won't stay in Iraq till they have settled their differences. The Iraqis will have to work this out themselves.

Whether they start teaching "Human Relations" or "Though shall not kill my neighbor" classes, this is Iraqs problem now. < :-)

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