CARNAGE IN IRAQ

This weekend should convince anyone that Iraq is falling into Civil War.

It's not a civil war col. The only people hoping for a civil war are you, liberals, and the media. Anyways col, what do you care? If it was up to you we would leave immediately and the violence would really get bad, and all chances for a stable democracy would be gone.

You are not different than the media in this country. There is no point to your blogs except to complain and celebrate terrorism. In one post you call them "stinking Iraqis", and then in another you complain that they are being killed, and in another post you advocate cutting and running and leaving the Iraqis to defend themselves. Why do you bother posting? Nobody here cares what you think, and your posts are so one-sided it isn't even funny anymore.

IslandDog

You have lost your mind. The violence that took place in Baghdad yesterday was NOT created by the media. It is escalating sectarian violence that we have enabled to take place.

You have lost your mind. The violence that took place in Baghdad yesterday was NOT created by the media. It is escalating sectarian violence that we have enabled to take place.

I didn't say it was created by the media. I said you and the media are hoping for a civil war. Both of you have been saying it for years and it hasn't come true. Just your like bs draft stories.

If you anything about Iraq you would know that this kind of violence was taking place when Saddam was still in power. Pro-Saddam and anti-Saddam groups collided all the time. This is nothing new except now the media and you blame Bush for it. What sad individuals all of you are.

Saying it will take place and hoping for a Civil War are VEEY DIFFERENT. I NEVER said I hope for any such thing. I just look at the events and accept what is taking place. I am not in denial like you, Bush and some others on this Blog Site.

Yes the violence was taking place when Saddam was in power. The reason Bush gave for our invasion was to STOP that VIOLANCE!

Saying it will take place and hoping for a Civil War are VEEY DIFFERENT. I NEVER said I hope for any such thing. I just look at the events and accept what is taking place. I am not in denial like you, Bush and some others on this Blog Site.

You are claiming a civil war as fact, and it's not. That'as how you operate here, factless allegiations and assumptions. Of course you are in denial. How many posts about good news from Iraq do you ignore? How many times have you abandoned your posts about taxes and Iraq because you were getting nailed to the wall and being proved wrong?

Yes the violence was taking place when Saddam was in power. The reason Bush gave for our invasion was to STOP that VIOLANCE!

You really have no idea which way you are facing do you? The reason Bush gave for the invasion and in which the Congress (including democrats) was Saddams failure to comply and his WMD programs (which democrats told us was a threat). Now you are just making things up.

The violence was going on before we invaded but you still blame Bush for it. You are just crazy. Seek help for your obsession with Bush and get over it.

The reason Bush FIRST gave was because Saddam posed such a danger to the United States we could not wait to invade Iraq. The reasons changed to non compliance with
U N Resolutions, Saddam was an evil Dictator and the most current reason was to give the Iraqi People the chance to elect a government and hope the SPREADING DEMOCRACY would make us safer.

When Saddam was in Power he was the source of violence. When we deposed him and his government we allowed the internal sectarian factions and the foreign elements to conduct the violence. The violence is the same no matter WHO initiates it!

I do not abandon anything. I make my points and watch you all ignore the facts to support the failed policies we are following under Bush and the GOP in Congress!

The reason Bush FIRST gave was because Saddam posed such a danger to the United States we could not wait to invade Iraq. The reasons changed to non compliance with U N Resolutions, Saddam was an evil Dictator and the most current reason was to give the Iraqi People the chance to elect a government and hope the SPREADING DEMOCRACY would make us safer.

Each of those reasons are true.

When Saddam was in Power he was the source of violence.

Still true.

NOTHING is helping and anyone that believes Iraq will become a stable democracy is on drugs!

Your opinion. My opinion says otherwise.

The reason Bush FIRST gave was because Saddam posed such a danger to the United States we could not wait to invade Iraq. The reasons changed to non compliance with U N Resolutions, Saddam was an evil Dictator and the most current reason was to give the Iraqi People the chance to elect a government and hope the SPREADING DEMOCRACY would make us safer.

The reason was Saddam was a danger (which democrats agreed) and his WMD programs based upon his non-compliance with U.N. resolutions. Spin in whatever way you want, you were wrong.

When Saddam was in Power he was the source of violence. When we deposed him and his government we allowed the internal sectarian factions and the foreign elements to conduct the violence. The violence is the same no matter WHO initiates it!

And I will ask again col. What do you care? You would leave the Iraqi people alone right now and let them all be killed by terrorists? So why are you acting now like you care so much. Hypocrisy I say.

Anyways, Saddam was not he source of all the violence. Like I told you before sectarian violence was in Iraq way before Saddam was removed. These factions were fighting among each other for decades. Only you could blame Bush for it. Sad.

I do not abandon anything. I make my points and watch you all ignore the facts to support the failed policies we are following under Bush and the GOP in Congress!

Of course you do col. I could direct you to all your threads that people like myself that prove your ridiculous accusations wrong, and you simply abandon the post and start another Bush bash thread to get away from it.

Yes col, you make points, and that's it. Please do not EVER accuse anyone else here of avoiding FACTS because you take the lead there. How many facts have you completely ignored when posted to you? Answer that question col.

Col really does take that old saying "repetition is the key to success" very seriously. Somehow he feels that if he says the same crap enough times that sooner or later we will get it. That's more or less the same thing most people in mental hospitals do. Hmmm. I know there are PC's with internet in prison, what about mental hospitals? Are crazy people allowed to us PC's? After all most are not there cause they stupid.

Col

Grow up already. Hows about you label something once it actually happens rather than before. Talk about a true American, your ideal is that everyone is guilty till proven innocent. What a sad existance your family has simply cause they related to you. I feel for them.

IslandDog

I do not care what the Iraqi People do but I do not want OUR troops and OUR tax dollars being spent on Iraq. It is the responsibility of Iraq to run their country not the U S.

Singrdave

Saddam was NEVER a threat to this country. The other reasons were developed by Bush AFTER we invaded.

The situation in Iraq is in our face EVERY day. It has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence. It is the sectarian violence that has developed since we removed Saddam and failed to provide the force levels NEEDED to prevent the sectarian violence from developing. The terrorists in Iraq are Iraqi's fighting Iraqi’s. That is a CIVIL WAR. We need to get out NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush told us all we needed was a new government, and then we needed the major government officials to be appointed for the violence to be brought under control.

You lying SOS. He never said any such thing - only that those were necessary precursors to stability. He also said explicitly that they would not by themselves bring an end to the violence. But then, why would you choose now to get your facts straight?

There is no "civil war" - unless the random senseless murder of civilians constitutes such a war, which would give the phrase a new definition. Civil war is just a code phrase used by American chickenshits and the anti-American media in their ongoing effort to make sure America is seen as the loser in operation Iraqi Freedom, no matter how successful it is. But you keep it up, Gene. It's what you live for.

The violence in Iraq is not being resolved and without security there will be no stability. Bush has been telling us for over three YEARS that things are getting better WHICH IS A LIE!!!!!

He first said we needed the elections. Then it was the formation of the new government. Then it was the appointment of the Prime Minister, Interior director and defense director. All these things have taken place and the violence continues. IT IS TIME FOR U S TO LEAVE. We are NOT helping establish stability.

Today another 15 were killed in Iraq. It NEVER ENDS!

There is no "civil war" - unless the random senseless murder of civilians constitutes such a war, which would give the phrase a new definition.

It's not random, senseless murder that the central government is powerless to control. That would be anarchy. This is targeted sectarian killings and ethnic cleansing of mixed Sunni-Shiite areas. Sunnis are slaughtered because they are Sunnis, and Shiites are targeted because they are Shiites. It's similar to Lebanon in the 80's with Hezbollah and the Christian Militias

Today another 15 were killed in Iraq. It NEVER ENDS!

How many people were killed in violent crime in the U.S. today col? And I ask again, what do you care?

Keep it up col, I'm sure the terrorists appreciate the continued support from you.

If a rooming gang went into Washington D C executing people there would be a panic in the nation's Capital. Iraq looks like Northern Ireland some years ago.

Saddam was NEVER a threat to this country. The other reasons were developed by Bush AFTER we invaded.

So Colin Powell's anthrax speech was to convince the UN that Saddam was a threat to America? Or that he was in material breach of UN obligations dating back to 1991?

Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).

By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.

Link

Regardless of what you want to think, the truth bears out every time.

If a rooming gang went into Washington D C executing people there would be a panic in the nation's Capital.

Roaming gangs are in most major cities. The violence they bring to neighborhoods is really no different. I'm sure you will find a way to blame Bush for that also.

I'm sure you will find a way to blame Bush for that also.

That's a domestic policy subject. Give him time to be defeated in this thread and I'm sure he will move on(.org?) to other topics soon...

Iraq is a good example of all that is wrong with US policy in the region, and I have been saying this for the last several years to anyone who cares to read my posts. First: Instead of Terrorism becoming weaker, Bush and the Bushmen have made their Iraq policy the best bet for strengthening the Al Qaeda. Without the occupation of Iraq, the recruitment to Al Qaeda would have declined. Second: The Sectasriasn strife between then Shiaas and Suinnis is a direct result of the Americasn style Identty Politics introduced and encouraged in Iraq. The Americans successfully created the impression that the Saddam Hussein regime was a Sunni one, when in reality Saddam was an Arab nationalist and tried to subsume sectrian idntities under the carapace of Arab natiionalist idrntity. Third: The Iraqis know that the Quisling Government in the Green Zone will not last a day without the US marines and privater security contractors. The people have utter contempt for al Maliki and the Shiaa goons in his regime. His ministers are actively encouraging death squads to hunt and kill suspected Sunni resistance fighters. Unless the Americans distance themselves from this regime there will be no peace in Iraq. Fourth: The record of US occupation is dismal to say the least. Security is so poor that Baghdad is unsafe except for the Green Zone. Abu Gharaib, Mahamoudiya and Haditha are metaphors of a war gone horribly wrong.

Virupaksha

What you say is correct. We have used our resources to help those that hate us become stronger. No matter what happens in Iraq, we have lost this round in the war on Terrorism.

Singrdave and others talk about U N resolutions. When did the United States become the enforcement agent for the U N? The reason Bush gave to invade Iraq was BECAUSE SADDAM was a DANGER to our country. Those mushroom clouds over our cities! Powell has admitted the worst thing he did in his career was the U N Speech supporting the invasion of Iraq. Bush made two basic errors--

Invading Iraq

Sending troop levels that could not prevent the development of the sectarian violence we see every day.

First: Instead of Terrorism becoming weaker, Bush and the Bushmen have made their Iraq policy the best bet for strengthening the Al Qaeda.

Wrong. Terrorism was just as much strength when we didn't act against them. The first WTC attack and the others following it during the Clinton administration. Osamam himself said our failure to respond showed weakness and gave them strength.

Second: The Sectasriasn strife between then Shiaas and Suinnis is a direct result of the Americasn style Identty Politics introduced and encouraged in Iraq.

Wrong again. This violence was going on way before the war. There were pro and anti-Saddam factions in Iraq before we invaded. The only difference now is the liberal media is reporting it.

What you say is correct. We have used our resources to help those that hate us become stronger. No matter what happens in Iraq, we have lost this round in the war on Terrorism.

What a defeatist liberal you are. I will never refer to you as an American again. You have disgraced our troops once again by saying we have lost.

Singrdave and others talk about U N resolutions. When did the United States become the enforcement agent for the U N?

The United States has enforced U.N. resolutions before. Were you complaining about them too?

The reason Bush gave to invade Iraq was BECAUSE SADDAM was a DANGER to our country. Those mushroom clouds over our cities! Powell has admitted the worst thing he did in his career was the U N Speech supporting the invasion of Iraq. Bush made two basic errors--

Saddam was a danger. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and other prominent democrats said that also. I see that in your other post where we corrected you on your Powell bs that you still use it. What a pathetic terrorist supporting liberal you are.

Singrdave and others talk about U N resolutions. When did the United States become the enforcement agent for the U N?

Hey clueless, it happened when the US became a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Wrong again. This violence was going on way before the war. There were pro and anti-Saddam factions in Iraq before we invaded. The only difference now is the liberal media is reporting it.

The violence BEFORE we invaded was created by Saddam who attacked anyone that opposed him. Now the violence is between the factions that were kept in check under Saddam. The death and destruction is the same. OUR POLICY has killed over 2,500 Americans, Injured about 35,000 more and will end up costing a Trillion dollars we BORROWED to exchange one type of killing for another type of killing. Great POLICY King George!!!!!

The violence BEFORE we invaded was created by Saddam who attacked anyone that opposed him. Now the violence is between the factions that were kept in check under Saddam.

No col. Saddam had his part in the violence but these factions in Iraq were fighitng among each other also. This is nothing but a pathetic attempt to blame Bush for something else. What a sad individual.