lol Hell must have frozen over..

[AKIron]

France has all those nuke plants now and just wants to raid Iran for their uranium. No blood for uranium!!!

[crockett]

Originally posted by Torque
afghanistan is coming alone fine... the big difference being the afghans actually want us to be there.

Funny seems the news tells different stories.

"Suicide attacks are a relatively recent phenomenon in Afghanistan, with the first being the assassination of military leader Ahmad Shah Massoud on 9 September 2001, according to a UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) report released on 9 September 2007 entitled Suicide Attacks in Afghanistan.

The report goes on to say that only four suicide attacks occurred in 2003 and 2004, but 17 occurred in 2005 and 123 in 2006. In the first eight months of 2007, 125 suicide attacks have killed over 120 civilians, establishing suicide missions as an integral part of insurgent strategy."

There have been more suicide attacks this year in Afghan than any other year, not to mention opium is at a all time high and the Taliban are returning. Hell, even Australian and Canadian govt's are trying to pressure more troops out of NATO, because they don't have enough troops on the ground to make progress.

So what part is going just fine?

[bj229r]

Exactly how are we supposed to stop suicide attacks, short of building a wall between them and Pakistan? (And Israel was roundly bit***d out by the world for building ITS wall)--Russia tried to occupy Afghanistan with a huge, overwhelming force, and it back-fired--our plan there was always a small footprint, special-ops thing...us working with their army. They thought same thing would work in Iraq.....alas no--Iran/Syria have much easier access to Iraq... And if I may inquire, WHY does it seem that bad news in Iraq/Afghanistan is seized upon with such glee by leftists in this country?

THIS guy is retiring, and has NO reason to protect Bush...he actually says what he believes, a thing common for military officers, but unknown in Washington

"One of the mistakes I made in my assumptions going in was that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Army would welcome liberation, that the Iraqi Army, given the opportunity, would stand together for the Iraqi people and be available to them to help serve the new nation," Gen. Peter Pace said.

But "they disintegrated in the face of the coalition's first several weeks of combat, so they weren't here," Pace said.

Had he known that would happen, he would have recommended more troops be sent at the outset of the Iraq war, he said.

In addition, Pace said, if he had been asked in January 2006 whether the United States should build up its Army and Marine Corps contingents in Iraq, he would have said no, because the plan at the time was to build and equip an Iraqi Army and turn over security duties to it.

The force was built and equipped, Pace said, but the February bombing of the Golden Mosque -- one of the holiest *****e sites -- ignited long-simmering tensions between Sunni and *****e Muslims, further destabilizing the region and cutting short any plans for U.S. troop reduction.

Thousands of people have died in reprisal killings and bombings since the attack.

Still, Pace said, "Given what I knew at the time, I'm comfortable with the recommendations that I made." Any errors that were made are to be learned from, he added.Video Watch how Pace details the mistakes made at Iraq war's start »

And he continued to voice his support for the Iraq invasion.

"Twenty-six million Iraqis have the opportunity now," he said. "They are working their way through 3˝ decades of being trod upon, held down, no opportunity at all for freedom of expression, for living their lives the way they wanted to, for picking [their] leaders."

link

[RedTop]

Originally posted by crockett


So what part is going just fine?

It wouldn't matter if someone posted an article with good things happening...youd find one of the oppisette to counter that...and so on and so on......

If a terrorist straps a bomb to themselves....walks into a building and blows themselves up , is that the U.S. fault?

Terroist dead=good
No troops died = good
Civilians died = bad

Yet you will make it the U.S. fault that those civilians died. Almost to the point of U.S. troops strapping the bomb on the terrorist and sending them in there.

You could really care less the good that is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere we may have troops helping in anyway. Your a doom and gloomer and just want to gripe and blame the U.S. for everything bad. Blame Bush and the admin and totally forget that the left voted to go to war as well. Its all about Haliburton and a huge plot to go to war for oil and the "Man" getting rich off the plight if the under priviledged and war torn people of where ever you feel the need to take up the cause for that day.

The whole left whinning anti war we were lied to impeach Bush lets get high and keep the world green due to global warming politically correct battle the government crowd make me tired.

[crockett]

Originally posted by RedTop
It wouldn't matter if someone posted an article with good things happening...youd find one of the oppisette to counter that...and so on and so on......

If a terrorist straps a bomb to themselves....walks into a building and blows themselves up , is that the U.S. fault?

Terroist dead=good
No troops died = good
Civilians died = bad

Yet you will make it the U.S. fault that those civilians died. Almost to the point of U.S. troops strapping the bomb on the terrorist and sending them in there.

You could really care less the good that is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere we may have troops helping in anyway. Your a doom and gloomer and just want to gripe and blame the U.S. for everything bad. Blame Bush and the admin and totally forget that the left voted to go to war as well. Its all about Haliburton and a huge plot to go to war for oil and the "Man" getting rich off the plight if the under priviledged and war torn people of where ever you feel the need to take up the cause for that day.

The whole left whinning anti war we were lied to impeach Bush lets get high and keep the world green due to global warming politically correct battle the government crowd make me tired.

From an article today..

"Militant attacks in southern and eastern Afghanistan have escalated over the past 19 months, marking the bloodiest period since the beginning of the war."

So where do you get the idea that it's going fine? Is it because you don't hear about "American" troops getting killed?

Number one you don't even have a clue as to what I think about the war in Afghan. I'm pissed off that Bush pulled troops out of Afghanistan to put them in a BS war in Iraq. I totally supported the war in Afghan because it is the "war on terror". Yet Bush has fumbled it every step of the way and then pawned it off on our allies to go screw off in Iraq.

I've also "always" supported a war against Iran because I know they are "real" supporters of terrorism. In fact the only war I don't support is the Iraq war. So take your consertive BS and stick it some where unpleasant.

However I would never support "any" war with Bush as the commander in chief because he's screwed this country over on the current two wars and pretty much anything else he's done.

[Elfie]

From an article today..

"Militant attacks in southern and eastern Afghanistan have escalated over the past 19 months, marking the bloodiest period since the beginning of the war."

That kinda proves Redtop's point

I totally supported the war in Afghan because it is the "war on terror".

You don't get to decide where the war on terror is fought, neither do I or anyone else on this board for that matter. If the government decides they want to fight it in Siberia, thats where it will be fought.

Saddam was supporting terrorists in various ways, it's been shown here, you refuse to see it. Granted, he wasn't supporting terrorism on the scale of Iran, Syria or Afghanistan but he was doing it.

[Heater]

GWB will be pissed off. if the French get there first!!

[babek-]

Originally posted by crockett
I've also "always" supported a war against Iran because I know they are "real" supporters of terrorism.  

There is an organisation called MEK.

An organisation which killed in its history US citizen, later they fought for Saddam and tortured POW´s and also normal iraqi civilians in the name of Saddam. The MEK is an extremely brutal organisation, which butchered iraqi kurds by rolling over them with their tanks so they "didnt have to waste" ammunition.

The USA defined this MEK as a terrorist organisation.

It is still defined today as a terrorist organisation by the USA.

But after the liberation of Iraq the MEK-members were not arrested.
The MEK-members were allowed to have weapons. They have to give up their tanks and heavy weapons, but the strange situation came that the USA allowed terrorists to keep light wepons.
The MEK was allowed to keep its main base in Iraq.
When the iraqi kurds wanted to take revenge against their former torturers, the MEK was protected by US-troops.
The MEK still performs terroristic operations against civilian targets. The last one was a bomb explosion which killed civilians.

So there is the paradox situation that on the one hand the USA defines the MEK as a terrorist organisation and on the other hand MEK terrorists have no problem to live in Iraq, even protected by US-forces against iraqis.

Maybe you can tell me, where the logic in this behavior is.

Or maybe there is a rule like "We are making war against terror, but our terrorists are good terrorists, even if they do criminal and barbaric acts like all the other terror-organisations."?

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Elfie
That kinda proves Redtop's point

 

You don't get to decide where the war on terror is fought, neither do I or anyone else on this board for that matter.

 

Wrong, ...............vote!

[FBBone]

Originally posted by babek-
There is an organisation called MEK.

An organisation which killed in its history US citizen, later they fought for Saddam and tortured POW´s and also normal iraqi civilians in the name of Saddam. The MEK is an extremely brutal organisation, which butchered iraqi kurds by rolling over them with their tanks so they "didnt have to waste" ammunition.

The USA defined this MEK as a terrorist organisation.

It is still defined today as a terrorist organisation by the USA.

But after the liberation of Iraq the MEK-members were not arrested.
The MEK-members were allowed to have weapons. They have to give up their tanks and heavy weapons, but the strange situation came that the USA allowed terrorists to keep light wepons.
The MEK was allowed to keep its main base in Iraq.
When the iraqi kurds wanted to take revenge against their former torturers, the MEK was protected by US-troops.
The MEK still performs terroristic operations against civilian targets. The last one was a bomb explosion which killed civilians.

So there is the paradox situation that on the one hand the USA defines the MEK as a terrorist organisation and on the other hand MEK terrorists have no problem to live in Iraq, even protected by US-forces against iraqis.

Maybe you can tell me, where the logic in this behavior is.

Or maybe there is a rule like "We are making war against terror, but our terrorists are good terrorists, even if they do criminal and barbaric acts like all the other terror-organisations."?

MEK = Methyl Ethyl Ketone?












Actually theres an old quote that answers your questions, one that has at times gotten the U.S. into tight situations:

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

[cpxxx]

As a matter of historic fact, France attacked Iraq along with everyone else in '91.  On another point, Germany and France have been good friends for quite some time much to the discomfort of the British as times. Indeed there is even a Franco-German brigade based in Mulheim in Germany.

With the pro American, Sarkozy in power now there may yet come a time when all the ignorant French bashers will have to choke on their freedom fries and find another country to have a go at.

[babek-]

Originally posted by FBBone
MEK = Methyl Ethyl Ketone?





Actually theres an old quote that answers your questions, one that has at times gotten the U.S. into tight situations:

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

1. MEK means Mujaheddin-e-Khalk

2. Yes - I know this quote.

The USA called the Taliban-like Mujaheddin noble freedom fighters when they performed their terroristic acts against the soviets in Afghanistan.
The USSR called them terrorists.


That is understandable for me.

I have problems to understand, when the USA calls the MEK on the one hand officially a terrorist organisation and on the other hand helps them.
At least they could remove these terrorists from the US-Terrorist list and call them noble freedom fighters

[Tiger]

Originally posted by cpxxx
As a matter of historic fact, France attacked Iraq along with everyone else in '91.  On another point, Germany and France have been good friends for quite some time much to the discomfort of the British as times. Indeed there is even a Franco-German brigade based in Mulheim in Germany.

With the pro American, Sarkozy in power now there may yet come a time when all the ignorant French bashers will have to choke on their freedom fries and find another country to have a go at.

It would be nice to see the French go fight a war that we don't have to bail them out of.   WWI, WWII, Vietnam (thanks for that mess by the way)

I'd also be glad to moev on to the next country, maybe we can go after Belgium, Belgian Waffles become Freedom Waffles.

[crockett]

Originally posted by babek-
There is an organisation called MEK.

An organisation which killed in its history US citizen, later they fought for Saddam and tortured POW´s and also normal iraqi civilians in the name of Saddam. The MEK is an extremely brutal organisation, which butchered iraqi kurds by rolling over them with their tanks so they "didnt have to waste" ammunition.

The USA defined this MEK as a terrorist organisation.

It is still defined today as a terrorist organisation by the USA.

But after the liberation of Iraq the MEK-members were not arrested.
The MEK-members were allowed to have weapons. They have to give up their tanks and heavy weapons, but the strange situation came that the USA allowed terrorists to keep light wepons.
The MEK was allowed to keep its main base in Iraq.
When the iraqi kurds wanted to take revenge against their former torturers, the MEK was protected by US-troops.
The MEK still performs terroristic operations against civilian targets. The last one was a bomb explosion which killed civilians.

So there is the paradox situation that on the one hand the USA defines the MEK as a terrorist organisation and on the other hand MEK terrorists have no problem to live in Iraq, even protected by US-forces against iraqis.

Maybe you can tell me, where the logic in this behavior is.

Or maybe there is a rule like "We are making war against terror, but our terrorists are good terrorists, even if they do criminal and barbaric acts like all the other terror-organisations."?

I know all about MEK.. that's another one that pisses me off. We have US troops being used to protect these guys inside Iraq. Even the Iraqi govt want them out but the US govt lets them stay and even uses US troops to guard convoys and offer general protection for this terrorist group.

I think the MEK example shows just how "F" up our govt really is. The second example to show how "F" up our govt is, is that we allow mercenaries to fight in Iraq.

Now today we get to see why that's such a great idea.. Say good by to Iraq Blackwater, you just got kicked out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998788.stm

[crockett]

Originally posted by FBBone
MEK = Methyl Ethyl Ketone?

Actually theres an old quote that answers your questions, one that has at times gotten the U.S. into tight situations:

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

yea that worked real good for us with bin Laden didn't it?