houstonmacbro Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Yes, the President said things were gonna get worse before they get better ... but things over there (Iraq) seem like they are getting MUCH worse with NO possibility of them getting better. As I understand it, adding more troops won't help either because at one point or another we've had more troops there than the 'surge' would offer. Thoughts? **** Bombs kill 70 in Baghdad By Sally Peck and agencies Last Updated: 11:09am GMT 22/01/2007 US troops surge into Baghdad as 25 are killed in day of bloodshed Two nearly simultaneous bombs struck central Baghdad today, killing at least 70 people and wounding dozens, police said. The violence came as the US military reported a particularly bloody weekend for American forces in Iraq. A bomb left in a bag hidden between the market stalls of vendors selling DVDs and secondhand clothes exploded shortly after noon in the predominantly Shia Bab al-Sharqi area. It was followed almost immediately by an explosion from a car parked just feet away. The explosions left body parts strewn on the bloodstained pavement as Iraqi police sealed off the area and ambulances rushed to the scene to evacuate the victims. Twenty-five US soldiers were killed Saturday in the third-deadliest day since the war started in March 2003, and two US marines died in separate attacks on Sunday. The heaviest tolls on Saturday came from a Black Hawk helicopter crash in which 12 US soldiers were killed northeast of Baghdad as well as an attack on a provincial government building in the Shia holy city of Karbala that left five American soldiers dead. Full article here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 If you are referring to the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Yes, the President said things were gonna get worse before they get better ... but things over there (Iraq) seem like they are getting MUCH worse with NO possibility of them getting better.As I understand it, adding more troops won't help either because at one point or another we've had more troops there than the 'surge' would offer.Thoughts?I personally think that we should commit more than 20,000 troops. We should be doing the job, doing it quickly, and with overwhelming force. It isn't a job that can be done by mere superiority of firepower, but that requires warm bodies on the ground.The worst that can happen if we put troops in is that more of them are killed because there are more targets to be shot at and blown up. And that is reasonably acceptable. Compared to wars of the 20th century, the number of dead soldiers that we've had for the time that we've been there really isn't all that much. And losing a few more of our people isn't fun, but the alternative is to let the situation (a situation that we created) degenerate. ...and approach which do you think will spawn more terrorism? One in which we're perceived as having invaded a country, toppled its government, sat around for several years and then left, allowing the puppet state to dissolve and the country to fall into a civil war so bloody that genocide may be a more appropriate term? And after all that is over, we'd be left with an uncertain ruler. Perhaps one that was worse than Saddam, perhaps not. Perhaps one that recognizes that we'll never again have the political willpower to invade Iraq, and that will overtly seek WMDs (i.e. the Kim Jong Il model) and be a destabilizing force in the region...or, alternatively, perhaps the Saudis and Iraqis will go at it, destroying one another's oil infrastructure. On the other hand, we might also be able to give rise to a government that acts as a moderate buffer state in a region that desperately needs one and symoblically demonstrate to moderate Muslims that it truely wasn't a religious thing and that we actually did have their well-being in mind. The chances of that 'success' aren't enormous, but I'd say that the alternative is gloomy and probable enough that we should take out an insurance policy, even at the cost of bloody sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Bush is right in that it's an ideoligical war. As long as there are Conservative Muslims and those who oppose it, there will be terrorism. I'm not sure the war against terrorism can be won, only contained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 I'm not privy to every little thing that happens in Iraq, but I would say that my observation is that since the beginning of the year things quieted down quite a lot over there, then in the last week things got worse. I'm not sure why all of a sudden.There are about a dozen regular HAIFers currently in Iraq. Maybe one or more of them will give us a first-hand perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 I'm not privy to every little thing that happens in Iraq, but I would say that my observation is that since the beginning of the year things quieted down quite a lot over there, then in the last week things got worse. I'm not sure why all of a sudden.There are about a dozen regular HAIFers currently in Iraq. Maybe one or more of them will give us a first-hand perspective.Religious Holiday, that's why, same reason why they hung Saddam so quick, they wanted to do it before the Muslim Holiday, and not during. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 I'm not privy to every little thing that happens in Iraq, but I would say that my observation is that since the beginning of the year things quieted down quite a lot over there, then in the last week things got worse. I'm not sure why all of a sudden.There are about a dozen regular HAIFers currently in Iraq. Maybe one or more of them will give us a first-hand perspective.It could be because of the "State of the Union Address" tonight.I heard today that some factions don't necessarily want to make one party or the other look bad. Rather they want to expand the rift between the two parties. I thought that was an interesting concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Yes, the President said things were gonna get worse before they get better ... but things over there (Iraq) seem like they are getting MUCH worse with NO possibility of them getting better.As I understand it, adding more troops won't help either because at one point or another we've had more troops there than the 'surge' would offer.Thoughts?It's really a mute point. He's the President and can do it if he wants.My only reason to support it would be to add additional cover while we get our people safely out of the country. I have no intrest in staying in this civil war any longer than nessessary-especially with the totally inept and incompetent "leadership" we have running the show at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmm Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Religious Holiday, that's why, same reason why they hung Saddam so quick, they wanted to do it before the Muslim Holiday, and not during.Actually, the US Government wanted it after the holiday. The New Maliki government wanted it ON the holiday to make it a memorable event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted January 24, 2007 Author Share Posted January 24, 2007 It's really starting to feel like this war is ... well ... just a big drain on the national psyche and morale and no one really knows the way out of it. It has also widened rifts between the so-called 'left', 'right', and independent (progressives?) ... it just feels like this war is tearing THIS country apart and HAS torn their country apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 It's really a mute point. He's the President and can do it if he wants.My only reason to support it would be to add additional cover while we get our people safely out of the country. I have no intrest in staying in this civil war any longer than nessessary-especially with the totally inept and incompetent "leadership" we have running the show at present.Your signature bothers me nmainguy..."Support the troops: Get them out of Iraq NOW!"so would it be kosher to say "Support the Bakers: Ban all starches from you die!"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Your signature bothers me nmainguy..."Support the troops: Get them out of Iraq NOW!"so would it be kosher to say "Support the Bakers: Ban all starches from you die!"?Well, I'm not sure what the relevance is-unless you just mis-typed "from you die"In all seriousness, I firmly stand by my signature. If this was a justified action I would support sending my nephew off to war. Since it appears not to be, I support the troops by advocating their safe withdrawl from Iraq in addtion to keeping my nephew here and safe in case we need him alive and breathing to fight in a real conflict.It's easy for a President to wage a war on the backs of our kids while his kids, nieces and nephews sit it out slamming back shots on 6th Street. Lets not forget the meaning of "shared sacrifice" and let's not forget the hypocrisy of he who demands that sacrifice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Well, I'm not sure what the relevance is-unless you just mis-typed "from you die"In all seriousness, I firmly stand by my signature. If this was a justified action I would support sending my nephew off to war. Since it appears not to be, I support the troops by advocating their safe withdrawl from Iraq in addtion to keeping my nephew here and safe in case we need him alive and breathing to fight in a real conflict. It's easy for a President to wage a war on the backs of our kids while his kids, nieces and nephews sit it out slamming back shots on 6th Street. Lets not forget the meaning of "shared sacrifice" and let's not forget the hypocrisy of he who demands that sacrifice. *Diet. haha, Sorry, I can't help but laugh at how silly it looks... Infact, I don't even want to change it. Maybe a better one would be "Support the Bakers: Burn the wheat fields!" Hasn't it always been just a main figure 'waging' a war on everyone's backs? I just think if you join the army, and you have to fight, backing out would seem silly. If you don't want to go to war, don't join any military service. Just like if you don't want to be out at sea, don't become a crew aboard a cruise ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdude Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 *Diet. haha, Sorry, I can't help but laugh at how silly it looks... Infact, I don't even want to change it.Maybe a better one would be "Support the Bakers: Burn the wheat fields!" If the wheat fields are poisoned and infects those who touch it, the bakers should stop baking. Of course, there are some who would still want them to continue baking, even if it means ending up with a poisoned cake, or making a cake that cannot be eaten, or die while baking it. That's ok, after all, their purpose is to bake, no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 If the wheat fields are poisoned and infects those who touch it, the bakers should stop baking.Of course, there are some who would still want them to continue baking, even if it means ending up with a poisoned cake, or making a cake that cannot be eaten, or die while baking it.That's ok, after all, their purpose is to bake, no matter what.Its their own choice, If you don't want to bake then don't become a baker. I don't know how many more examples I can use until someone gets it.If I hate analyzing people's thoughts, perhaps becoming a therapist would not be the best career choice.If I don't want to inject animals with shots, then I might not want to be a vet.If I don't want to fight in a war, I probibly shouldn't join the armed forces. (catching on yet?) anybody? no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 I would encourage everyone to watch this video from NBC news. It gives a perspective not often shown by the media. It's all of 2 1/2 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Actually, the US Government wanted it after the holiday. The New Maliki government wanted it ON the holiday to make it a memorable event.Yup. They hung him on a Sunni holiday to piss people off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Yup. They hung him on a Sunni holiday to piss people off.No west, they did it the day before, but regardless, it was gonna piss the Sunnis off if they had hung that sorry S.O.B. in July ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 No west, they did it the day before, but regardless, it was gonna piss the Sunnis off if they had hung that sorry S.O.B. in July !No, it was on the day of a festival that Shiites celebrate on a different date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 It's easy for a President to wage a war on the backs of our kids while his kids, nieces and nephews sit it out slamming back shots on 6th Street. Lets not forget the meaning of "shared sacrifice" and let's not forget the hypocrisy of he who demands that sacrifice.Your statement bears no logic when speaking of an ALL-VOLUNTEER Military. The only hypocrisy here is that you think that the politicians in power should have to send their family to war alongside those who volunteer to go in their place, as some sort of ethical or moral mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 No, it was on the day of a festival that Shiites celebrate on a different date.The hanging was done BEFORE the official start of Eid al-Adha. NOT during the holiday. Regardless, the world is a better place without him, oh, look at that, 6:49pm, I think Saddam and Hitler are probably getting their daily "Pineapples up the Wazoo" from Beelzebub right about now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Most sources put it on December 30, but its possible that Shiites might celebrate it the next day. That would probably send a clearer message that the Shiites are in charge and unwilling to share power in Iraq's governing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Most sources put it on December 30, but its possible that Shiites might celebrate it the next day. That would probably send a clearer message that the Shiites are in charge and unwilling to share power in Iraq's governing.No, we are splitting hairs, his hanging occurred about 6 hours before the holiday actually begins, so I think you can look at it both ways. I agree with the December 30th date. He was supposedly hanged at 6pm our time or maybe it was 6pm their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Well they are all worked up over there, they hung Saddam, they needed a martar to try and justify their means, hell they decapitated the second guy, can't really see how they pulled the guys head off, was he that heavy or what? I don't know, Jason has been over there for several years now, First Afghanistan now Iraq, it's been going on and on. A lot of people keep going on about the fatalities and the number of deaths, but it is a far cry from the number that were killed in Southeast Asia, and the reasoning behind both conflicts are very similar, they both started out as civil wars tat we decided to intervene in. Whether it was Ho Chi Minh or Saddam or Giap, same difference, it was a police action. I think the death toll has been very light in comparison. How many soldiers died the first couple of years of Nam? Bound to be a stat on that. I am just grateful for my daily email letting me know he's okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Well they are all worked up over there, they hung Saddam, they needed a martar to try and justify their means, hell they decapitated the second guy, can't really see how they pulled the guys head off, was he that heavy or what? I don't know, Jason has been over there for several years now, First Afghanistan now Iraq, it's been going on and on. A lot of people keep going on about the fatalities and the number of deaths, but it is a far cry from the number that were killed in Southeast Asia, and the reasoning behind both conflicts are very similar, they both started out as civil wars tat we decided to intervene in. Whether it was Ho Chi Minh or Saddam or Giap, same difference, it was a police action. I think the death toll has been very light in comparison. How many soldiers died the first couple of years of Nam? Bound to be a stat on that. I am just grateful for my daily email letting me know he's okay.Check out these stats. Vietnam make Iraq look like a walk in the park. It is what I'd call a difficult war. ...but on the other hand, for every dead soldier of ours or our allies', about four NVA or VC were killed. That's a pretty good ratio. My understanding is that the ratio in Iraq, though ,made much more clouded and uncertain by the fog of war, is extremely high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Bad stuff happens to our people when we step away from a "kill kill " policy.Its doesnt take the sharpest knife in the drawer to know that catch and release is a poison soup that will bring disaster. Our military isnt a bunch of policemen. Our military exist to kill people and not play role of policemen. Our forces should be sent into to battle for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to WIN. Every one of those limp wrist Admirals/Generals that support anything other than kill kill should be fired and brought up on charges!! To support anything other than winning through brut force, gets the military involved in policy making and that to me is about as dangerous as a standing enemy army. This isnt a dictatorship. Its time to stop coddling these enemy bastards and start killing them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Bad stuff happens to our people when we step away from a "kill kill " policy.Its doesnt take the sharpest knife in the drawer to know that catch and release is a poison soup that will bring disaster. Our military isnt a bunch of policemen. Our military exist to kill people and not play role of policemen. Our forces should be sent into to battle for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to WIN. Every one of those limp wrist Admirals/Generals that support anything other than kill kill should be fired and brought up on charges!! To support anything other than winning through brut force, gets the military involved in policy making and that to me is about as dangerous as a standing enemy army. This isnt a dictatorship. Its time to stop coddling these enemy bastards and start killing them!I thought you hated Clinton. Bosnia was definatly a brilliant campaign where we went in to win and not one American service person was killed. We "kill kill"ed like bats out of hell. But you seem to be oblivious to facts so whats the point in once again trying to educate you? I just think you are like shooting fish in a barrel-fun for a minute or so but ultimatly boring.Go have a cocktail, think it over then come back and educate us on what kind of charges Admirals and Generals should be brought up on because everyone but you seems to know there are none.Man, thank god you show up every once in awhile to make the rest of us look like we have our heads screwed on straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I thought you hated Clinton. Bosnia was definatly a brilliant campaign where we went in to win and not one American service person was killed. We "kill kill"ed like bats out of hell. But you seem to be oblivious to facts so whats the point in once again trying to educate you? I just think you are like shooting fish in a barrel-fun for a minute or so but ultimatly boring.Go have a cocktail, think it over then come back and educate us on what kind of charges Admirals and Generals should be brought up on because everyone but you seems to know there are none.Man, thank god you show up every once in awhile to make the rest of us look like we have our heads screwed on straight.Shame shame to disobey your master. Your master Redscare gave an order to all freaks and degerates to ignore me. Be good and obey his orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Shame shame to disobey your master. Your master Redscare gave an order to all freaks and degerates to ignore me. Be good and obey his orders.Well, you know Red is not my master so we'll just write that off as another of your incohearant rants. BTW, I was repremanded today by the editor for repeating Parrot's description of herself as a fag hag but have never heard any reprimand for your mocking of my health status and suggestion that I should kill myself or whether he accepted a plagerist like barnes' $1000 bribe. It's odd how you and the editor are so two-faced and get away with it when all I do is reference your maniacal rant.While I appreciate Wayne Lorentz/Artefaqs Corporation for offering this forum, I and many like myself do not approve of the vile postings of you, barnes and others like yourselves. Many of us-like myself and parrot-vehemantly disagree on the fundementals but don't threaten each other's lives or bribe the editor to have another expelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htmPOLL: AMERICANS 'WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ'Tue Feb 20 2007 16:21:32 ETIn the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are. *for more click on link above* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.