Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mars01 on October 05, 2004, 01:01:55 PM
-
This is interesting.
Supposedly from a reporter for the Wall Street Journal.
WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends (http://www.poynter.org/forum/?id=misc)
scroll down a little an look for the title
"WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends"
Some Excerpts... This is only a small part of the email.
Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.
Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."
What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.
The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.
The Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.
As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.
The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.
God I pray for our troops, if this is even half true, what a terrible place for them to be.
-
It's hard work.
It's really hard work.
The work is really hard.
-
But don't worry, I have a plan.
I plan to talk the French and Germans into coming to Iraq so that we don't have to pay 90% of the cost and take 90% of the casualties. I think I can persuade them to split it 33% across the board in both money and casualties.
I have a plan.
-
didnt sKerry backstab the same guys forty years ago?
Iraq will sort itself out if the US doesnt pull the rug our from under them....if sKerry gets the job Iraq is screwed.
====
Toad, have you guys heard from WpnX lately?
-
Originally posted by Toad
But don't worry, I have a plan.
I plan to talk the French and Germans into coming to Iraq so that we don't have to pay 90% of the cost and take 90% of the casualties. I think I can persuade them to split it 33% across the board in both money and casualties.
I have a plan.
you give 33% of the oil ?
if so we have a deal.
-
No, war isn't disaster, disaster is much less destructive than war.
-
Kinda crazy how we controlled more of the country during SH's time than we do now..
-
Originally posted by straffo
you give 33% of the oil ?
if so we have a deal.
Does Iraq not sell its oil?
Can not the French buy it at world prices?
I understand they do and you can, is this not true?
I don't think they give away any oil, am I wrong?
Please help me understand this.
It sounds like we may have a deal, unless you do not want to pay for oil and in that case you would be wrong.
-
Whats the point of the US being there if they're going to kill more and more people because we are there?
-
Where does it says the word "French, or France" in this article?
Is it the average American behavior to blame his failure on the French?
-
Originally posted by straffo
you give 33% of the oil ?
if so we have a deal.
okay its a deal. one more condition though. france gives up all documents pertaining to oil for food program. shouldnt be a problem we all know french govt would never do anything underhanded with a program intended to feed iraqi civilians.
-
Ne casse pas ma tentative de troll !
Sur ce je vais au dodo et on vera demain si la pêche a été bonne :D
-
T'as pas vu la taille de mon filet?:eek:
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
Whats the point of the US being there if they're going to kill more and more people because we are there?
because allowing people to be ruled by whomever can scrap together the most murderous gunmen is not how things should be. self determination and such.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Where does it says the word "French, or France" in this article?
Is it the average American behavior to blame his failure on the French?
what failure? by your reasoning world war two should have been done with in less than a year or allies would have "failed" in fighting axis. i love the reasoning that clearcut victory not attained on a timetable set by a political party equals "failure". the coalition isnt the germans and the insurgents arent the french this thing is going to be a fight for awhile.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
T'as pas vu la taille de mon filet?:eek:
C'est Ma zone de peche !
n'oublie pas de remettre les plus petits à l'eau ;)
-
WW2 was looking pretty bad for how long?
yep, should have just said "It ain't worth it" and left
too bad all the good news in Iraq isn't reported but then when is good news newsworthy?
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Where does it says the word "French, or France" in this article?
Is it the average American behavior to blame his failure on the French?
I was only responding to the proposed deal from Straffo, I have no beef with the French people, I kind of wish things were different in this respect.
I wonder how the rank and file French feel about the American people all politics aside?
Ahh politics something hard to understand, but most people are not politicians, thank God.
Frenchy I would say no to your question (hope I’m right) many would not call it a failure and I hope most are educated enough to see this as a political problem that has two sides. Disagreement is not the end of a relationship, keep in mind marriage works at least half the time.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
what failure? by your reasoning world war two should have been done with in less than a year or allies would have "failed" in fighting axis. i love the reasoning that clearcut victory not attained on a timetable set by a political party equals "failure". the coalition isnt the germans and the insurgents arent the french this thing is going to be a fight for awhile.
In WW2 Eisenhower didn't declare "Mission accomplished" on June 10th, 1944.
-
Originally posted by straffo
you give 33% of the oil ?
if so we have a deal.
Whats this? you mean your willing to trade blood for oil?
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
In WW2 Eisenhower didn't declare "Mission accomplished" on June 10th, 1944.
thats because the allies were fighting the german army. when bush said mission accomplished he was in part referring to cv coming off double deployment. as for military mission accomplished tell me where iraqi military was still active against coalition when he said this?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Whats this? you mean your willing to trade blood for oil?
only the blood of iraqi civilians.
-
Here's another plan - just claim victory e.g.,
"No, what I said was that, because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I mean, we thought we'd whip more of them going in.
But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operation, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they didn't.
And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work.
" - Bush 1st presidential debate
So let me get this straight - we won. We had a rapid victory. But we did it too fast, so we're taking casualties? It must be very hard work comming up with that convoluted logic. But I guess it comes in handy when one cuts taxes and increases spending.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Here's another plan - just claim victory e.g.,
So let me get this straight - we won. We had a rapid victory. But we did it too fast, so we're taking casualties? It must be very hard work comming up with that convoluted logic. But I guess it comes in handy when one cuts taxes and increases spending.
the logic makes sence. Least I fully understand what he ment.
Nice try on the spin though
-
Yes it's a mess right now. It was always going to be a mess. But maybe we all believed too much in the idea of the quick, minimum casualty, precision guidance war. But it seems they were always the exception. Now it's gone a bit like the Palestine issue, low level ongoing bloodletting and bitterness. Or perhaps Iraq is going down the road of Lebanon, virtual anarchy for many years.
America and everybody else could disengage right now and watch what happens while wringing their hands and crying that they did their best. That won't happen because Iraq is too important. So everyone is in it for the medium term. It will drag on, even if an acceptable government is elected, even if the Iraqis gain more control of their country from the terrorists. It will be the destination of many an American and British soldier (and the rest) for some time to come. There won't be any neat ending this year or the next.
It's mostly Iraqis dying in this war. We owe it to them to stay engaged because we can't let the Baathist or the fanatics to take it. It will only be a failure or a disaster if that happens.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
It was always going to be a mess. But maybe we all believed too much in the idea of the quick, minimum casualty, precision guidance war.
Not everyone did...
-
>>the logic makes [sense]. Least I fully understand what he [meant].
Nice try on the spin though <<
Its not spin at all. If the Baathists were retreating stategically (in order to form up for guerilla tactics), allowing them to do so by not modifying the attack (e.g., slow down and use more tactical forces to capture as many Baathists as possible), is a blunder and by no means a "victory."
It is my belief there weren't enough forces to to capture and hold the Baathists - thats why they were allowed to escape and reform to fight a guerilla war. Thats not spin. Claiming victory is spin.
-
Screwballs.
-
What is all this failure talk?
If John Kerry wins in november all you ameristalkers will sing a different tune as your hero assumes gloriouis command of his old band of brothers and brings in tyhe french and germans to help us in Iraq!
-
The more likely scenario, Grun, is that you will begin to blame Kerry for the mess over there. It is just going to get worse.
-
Kerry says he has the solution, if he does not produce it, why wouldn't anyone blame him?
-
I don't recall him saying he will create happy times over there. Could be wrong.... but I don't think so.
He's saying he has the best chance of creating happy times.
I don't like his odds either.
-
>>If John Kerry wins in november all you ameristalkers will sing a different tune as your hero assumes gloriouis command of his old band of brothers and brings in tyhe french and germans to help us in Iraq!<<
That aint gonna happen. No matter who wins, Iraq will be a drain for the next century. The problem is, George W. will be spinnig his memoirs before the economic toll hits home.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In your rather ludicrous analogy of WWII = Iraq War the Allies have already beaten the Axis and have occupied their territories for one and a half years. Tell me ... how do you think Germany was in 1947? Like Iraq now?
Remember, you used WWII as an analogy. Total failure in Iraq is approaching rapidly.
okay seer gscholz. give me rough date for total failure and tell me what you mean by total failure. i used the "rather ludicrous analogy of WWII" because of the similarities between germany crushing france faster than anyone thought possible. and the coalition crushing the iraqi military faster than anyone thought possible. how soon some forget what was actually said. how afghanistan would be a slaughter of the good guys. how iraq was a quagmire and how bio and chem weapons were certain to be used on coalition troops. debating much easier when actual facts can be ignored. the military attack on iraq was a sucess that exceeded almost everyones expectations. the insurgency is an entirely different situation and the only people unable to separate the two knowingly do this because they couldnt use the idiotic arguments that they choose to use if they didnt treat the military operation against iraqi govt and military and post op insurgency as one and the same. im serious about your definition of total failure in iraq and when its going to happen. let me hear it.
-
None of you actually think a Kerry administration in power will be saying the same things about Iraq as the Kerry campaign is saying now in trying to get itself elected and the current admistration kicked out of office...
For example when France and Germany say no to President Kerry after he asks them for help do you think he will call a press conference and say:
"My admistration has no plan for Iraq and has no Allies for Iraq and has a coalition of the coerced in Iraq and of course that's why it's the current admistration's fault that the USA has 90% of casualites and 90% of the cost... "
President John F Kerry May 15, 2005
Because thats probably the way things will be Iraq for some time to come...
You guys like Kerry because he dont live in a "fantasy world of spin" right? He will tell you the truth, right? You like him because you like to hear the truth about how awful it is in Iraq... Right?
Well do you think the Kerry people will say that Iraq is a failure when the french and germans refuse to join? Nope, not a chance..
Will the president Kerry people say Iraq is a failiure when their tulips are on the line politrically?
They will spin it and say that we " have to win" that we "must be strong" and of course that its "hard work" over there..
Will you buy it?
Or will President Kerry's master plan for Iraq simply boil down to blaming the Bush administartion... Or might he just cut and run...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I am torn over whom I'd like to become/stay President of the USA. If Kerry wins he will take the fall, and the success or failure of the neocon's philosophy of pre-emptive strike and regime change will remain undecided. If Bush wins their philosophy will be debunked by the fact that they have no one else to blame for their failure in Iraq.
so youre saying that iraq will be a failure if it isnt self governing and secure in five years? if it is in seven will it still be a failure? how about ten?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I am torn over whom I'd like to become/stay President of the USA. If Kerry wins he will take the fall, and the success or failure of the neocon's philosophy of pre-emptive strike and regime change will remain undecided. If Bush wins their philosophy will be debunked by the fact that they have no one else to blame for their failure in Iraq.
Heh... I heard somebody say recently that the Democrats should be hoping for a Bush win, and the Republicans should be hoping for a Kerry win. The next four years are going to be no cakewalk.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Heh... I heard somebody say recently that the Democrats should be hoping for a Bush win, and the Republicans should be hoping for a Kerry win. The next four years are going to be no cakewalk.
what wise predictions. what would we do without nash to tell us that implanting a democratic republic in the heart of the middle east and keeping it secure until it can defend itself "will be no cakewalk".
-
Prediction? I thought it was self evident.
It was the take on that reality that I thought was funny.
Lighten up missus.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>the logic makes [sense]. Least I fully understand what he [meant].
Nice try on the spin though <<
Its not spin at all. If the Baathists were retreating stategically (in order to form up for guerilla tactics), allowing them to do so by not modifying the attack (e.g., slow down and use more tactical forces to capture as many Baathists as possible), is a blunder and by no means a "victory."
It is my belief there weren't enough forces to to capture and hold the Baathists - thats why they were allowed to escape and reform to fight a guerilla war. Thats not spin. Claiming victory is spin.
When Bush claimed victory, he claimed it over the Iraqi army. Major combat operations had ceased. Now we are fighting against guerillas. The terrorists sure dont want us to win this one, or rebuild Iraq.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>the logic makes [sense]. Least I fully understand what he [meant].
Nice try on the spin though <<
Its not spin at all. If the Baathists were retreating stategically (in order to form up for guerilla tactics), allowing them to do so by not modifying the attack (e.g., slow down and use more tactical forces to capture as many Baathists as possible), is a blunder and by no means a "victory."
It is my belief there weren't enough forces to to capture and hold the Baathists - thats why they were allowed to escape and reform to fight a guerilla war. Thats not spin. Claiming victory is spin.
Right. Thats what he meant so how is that logic convoluted?
OK and in a country where everyone is the same race and the enemy has taken off its uniforms and dresses like everyone else exactly how would you propose to identify the hard core Bathists from the rest of the population to capture and hold them?
Or would you just herd the entire Iraqi population into pens until you could sort each man woman and child out? After all its not like these guys were standing around with tattoos on their heads that say "Im a bad guy"
I may be wrong but I don't remember him claiming overall "victory" but rather the cessation of organized military action.
The current problem is hardly what anyone can call organized except perhaps on a very local level.
Certainly not on a national level and with no grand plan other then to harass and grab headlines
And the last I remember hearing, a great deal of these actions are being conducted (as much as 75%) not by the Iraqis but by insurgents from other countries.
Assuming for a moment you are right and the plan should have been modified, or done completely differently that would have been the call of the field commanders.
But then again this in retrospect nothing more then hindsight. And it far easier to look back and say this or that should have been done instead then to know the best course of action at the moment.
And its easy for you or I to second guess and say this or that should have been done instead. But then again we weren't there and in control of the forces were we. and we didn't then nor do we now have all the info that was available at the time.
And considering none of us was the man in charge there at the time we cant really say what we would have done or that you or I would not have blundered.
Hindsight is 20/20
Its a simple thing to be right in hindsight. Much harder to be right at the moment
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Kerry says he has the solution, if he does not produce it, why wouldn't anyone blame him?
Well I dunno but if I were a soldier over there right now I wouldnt be exactly be happy with or have alot of cinfidence in a commander that tells me
"Your in the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. But I want you to fight and bleed and die to win it anyway."
Which in a nutshell is exactly what Kerry has said
And if I were the leader of another country I wouldnt be exactly enthusiastic about joining him in the endeavor either.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
1. Total failure is when the Iraq War becomes the Iraqi Civil War. I seem to have misplaced my crystal ball, so I'm afraid I cannot give you an exact date.
2. Only a fool would not realise that victory over the Iraqi military would be swift. The outcome of a war between the mightiest country on Earth and a defeated and sanctioned third-world country was a given.
3. I don't remember anyone saying "afghanistan would be a slaughter of the good guys".
4. In future encyclopaedias the entry under Iraq will be "See quagmire."
Yes, all of the above.
you may not recall it but it was said. when a couple of supply columns got lost and shot up it was "why doesnt our military protect all the supply columns". "quagmire" started popping up when advance delayed due to sand storms. and you dont remember the predictions of an "urban bloodbath" when coalition had to enter baghdad and fight "diehard republican guard units"? many predicted much higher coalition losses and a longer fight.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You mean that the many people that disagreed and warned about this war had 20/20 foresight.
no they didnt. youre conveniently ignoring the motives and stated motives of the people against attacking iraq.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You mean that the many people that disagreed and warned about this war had 20/20 foresight.
Damn.. I just hate it when I'm right. ;)
-
Originally posted by anonymous
"quagmire" started popping up when advance delayed due to sand storms.
Are you kidding me? "Quagmire" got LAUGHED at here.
-
While 1100 or so men killed in action in Iraq is unfortunate, let's put those numbers into perspective, shall we?
The US Civil war caused over 850,000 dead if you count both Union and Confederate casualities. This remains the worst war in US history. This is the true disaster, especially since we were fighting ourselves.
WW2 caused us to lose more than 400,000 soldiers.
When we made the world safe for democracy in WW1, over 110,000 of our soldiers didn't come back.
There are more than 56,000 names carved on the Vietnam Memorial.
Over 54,000 Americans died during the Korean war.
The American revolution cost the lives of about 25,000 men, who like their descendants died in the name of freedom.
The utterly forgotten Mexican War resulted in more than 13,000 dead.
Compared to that, we're getting off amazingly light in Iraq. War is always ugly, but it's been a whole lot uglier in the past. Whether you agree with the Iraq conflict or not, it's pretty clear that current weapons, equipment, and tactics are doing a great job of minimizing American casualties.
Perhaps that's why each individual soldier killed collectively hurts us so much more--it's hard to identify with someone when there are a couple hundred names being flashed by on the TV each week. But with soldiers being killed individually, here and there....it becomes a lot more personal.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
While 1100 or so men killed in action in Iraq is unfortunate, let's put those numbers into perspective, shall we?
The US Civil war caused over 850,000 dead if you count both Union and Confederate casualities. This remains the worst war in US history. This is the true disaster, especially since we were fighting ourselves.
WW2 caused us to lose more than 400,000 soldiers.
When we made the world safe for democracy in WW1, over 110,000 of our soldiers didn't come back.
There are more than 56,000 names carved on the Vietnam Memorial.
Over 54,000 Americans died during the Korean war.
The American revolution cost the lives of about 25,000 men, who like their descendants died in the name of freedom.
The utterly forgotten Mexican War resulted in more than 13,000 dead.
Compared to that, we're getting off amazingly light in Iraq. War is always ugly, but it's been a whole lot uglier in the past. Whether you agree with the Iraq conflict or not, it's pretty clear that current weapons, equipment, and tactics are doing a great job of minimizing American casualties.
Perhaps that's why each individual soldier killed collectively hurts us so much more--it's hard to identify with someone when there are a couple hundred names being flashed by on the TV each week. But with soldiers being killed individually, here and there....it becomes a lot more personal.
J_A_B
While I agree that the deaths in Iraq pale in comparison to past wars, it is of different context.
The Civil War was fought in the U.S., using massed armies with outdated tactics with advanced firearms = bloodbath.
The Revolution was fought in the colonies against a well trained army.
World War I was trench warfare with massed artillery bombardment, mustard gas, and the machine gun. Mix that in with mass trench charges = bloodbath.
World War II had us fighting in land, sea, and air. We landed in multiple islands in the Pacific, endured suicide attacks as well. Europe itself was against the well trained and efficient German Army and it's force.
Vietnam was a protracted war with sneak attacks, ambushes, and a determined enemy.
Now looking at Iraq, 1100 casulties isn't much, but there are also injuries that could render a soldier combat ineffective or basically disabled. I had a friend over there who recieved numerous pieces of shrapnel from a grenade and its not pretty.
From past actions the US military has done, with quick, effective manuevering and pinpoint attacks. We are used to achieve victory quickly and safely.
Another point about the casulties is that it could be in a day or 100 years, its all about how it was fought. If we were occupying a country roughly the size (for example) Vermont and we were taking these casulties, would that be different than holding onto a much larger country? I believe yes.
Putting names to the faces is a big deal and you can list names and numbers but there are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, daughters and sons that are crying from their loss. And for those with family over there right now, hearing reports of rampant terrorist attacks and car bombings, do you think they accept that their loved ones are safe? From news reports, its looking REAL easy to just blow stuff up over there. While success in destroying an army may seem all great and good, the victory arrives when there is peace.
At this rate it won't be for a long time.
Another big deal is that with the election. At this point, Bush is still our President while we're in Iraq and we still don't have a peaceful Iraq. The big question is that what will happen if Kerry becomes President? I say it can't get much worse than it is now, maybe he'll be able to do some good there, you never know.
If I could do anything, I'd say send more aid than troops. Replace the troops with workers and aid. Sure, you say they'll get kidnapped, but those that were kidnapped was due to the fact they worked with the US Mlitary. If we send workers there to repair the damage we done, build new buildings, give food and power, then would the terrorists stop? Would they bite the hand that feeds them?
We don't know, but it'd look better to the UN and the world if it looked like we want to rebuild Iraq rather than occupy it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What motives did say ... I ... have for disagreeing and warning about an invasion of Iraq, and what were my stated motives?
sorry to waste your time looking up what you said. i was refering to prevailing media comments at time of these events.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Is it the average American behavior to blame his failure on the French?
Nah, we usually blame Canada
-
America really isn't the bad guy here. Freeing a country from oppressive tyranny is something we've done before and will likely do again so long as our people believe it's the right thing to do. Guess I shouldn't be surprised to find so many in opposition to this and anyone able can try to stop us. Don't be too surprised when you get yer bellybutton kicked trying though, metaphorically speaking of course. ;)
-
Death Race 2000 man.
"Our enemies, the French...."
Heh, I thought this thread was about conditions in Iraq. I dunno guys, I judge any policy on its results. These were certainly not the results the current administration intended, yet they were the ones many of us predicted. Now we're being told to accept these results and that kicking the idiots who made these dumb decisions out is a bad idea?
I mean, what is W going to do ? reinstitute the draft, send a half million troops overseas and secure Iraq, city by city, locking down city streets and searching every dirt pile for weapons, summarily executing anyone suspected or accused (preferably by anonymous accusers) of conspiring against the occupying forces, and shooting those who break curfew?
Or support a sham election, give the "keys" to the new powers-that-be and say "it's your problem now", withdrawing as the civil war spreads?
Do we really need a president whose "Gentleman's C" approach to education means he gets his history lessons at the expense of american, british and iraqi blood?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
didnt sKerry backstab the same guys forty years ago?
Iraq will sort itself out if the US doesnt pull the rug our from under them....if sKerry gets the job Iraq is screwed.
====
Toad, have you guys heard from WpnX lately?
Kerry gets the job Iraq is screwed? He wasn't the one who screwed Iraq and the world in the first place with invading Iraq on a bunch of lies.
Iraq was always going to turn into a long drawn out mess.
...-Gixer
-
"When we made the world safe for democracy in WW1, over 110,000 of our soldiers didn't come back"
Whats with this crap? When "WE" made the world safe. Please what about the massive sacrafice by other nations in that war. Everyone else like WW2 was in it from the begining.
I can't see how you can compare the loss of life in those wars to Iraq. Iraq is nothing more then a unjustified war of choice by a US president who's foreign policies seem nothing more then an extension of his own idological religious beliefs.
...-Gixer
-
Iraq is nothing more then a unjustified war of choice by a US president who's foreign policies seem nothing more then an extension of his own idological religious beliefs.
====
you realize how whacked out your beliefs seem? you are seemingly one seriously ungodly whacked out fellow.
-
major powers like France, Germany, Russia and China
Major powers?
*Snicker*
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Iraq is nothing more then a unjustified war of choice by a US president who's foreign policies seem nothing more then an extension of his own idological religious beliefs.
====
you realize how whacked out your beliefs seem? you are seemingly one seriously ungodly whacked out fellow.
And Bush's constant democracy,free world, and dosn't seem like a personal crusade?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"My admistration has no plan for Iraq and has no Allies for Iraq and has a coalition of the coerced in Iraq and of course that's why it's the current admistration's fault that the USA has 90% of casualites and 90% of the cost... "
President John F Kerry May 15, 2005
Didn't knew you were a scifi writer
Btw your style suck ,I won't ever buy any of your book :D
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Whats this? you mean your willing to trade blood for oil?
You didn't smell the troll ?