| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:24 am Post subject: 95 killed on Iraq's deadliest day since US Handover |
 |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/19/iraq.violence/
| Quote: |
| The six explosions marked the country's deadliest day since the United States pulled its combat troops from Iraqi cities and towns nearly two months ago. |
I'd like to hear the liberal spin on this. Up until a few months ago, the Iraqi insurgents were "resisting the American Invaders". Well, the US troops aren't there in the cities. Just who are the insurgents bombing now?
| Quote: |
Two people believed to be connected to the bombings have been arrested, an official with the Iraqi army told CNN.
The two suspects were driving in a car rigged with explosives before they were arrested by Iraqi Security Forces, the official said.
The two suspects were believed to be al Qaeda in Iraq senior leaders, the official said. |
Al Qaeda in Iraq? You don't say.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Would these people have died under Saddam?
The liberal spin on this is that Iraq was an unnecessary war and nobody should have been there in the first place. Links between Al-Qaida and Saddam were tenuous at best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| The liberal spin on this is that Iraq was an unnecessary war and nobody should have been there in the first place |
On 9/11/2001, Islamic fundamentalists declared war on America. Now, there's a war between Islamic fundamentalists.
Just sayin' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
Would these people have died under Saddam?
The liberal spin on this is that Iraq was an unnecessary war and nobody should have been there in the first place. Links between Al-Qaida and Saddam were tenuous at best. |
There were no AQ-Saddam links. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
Would these people have died under Saddam?
The liberal spin on this is that Iraq was an unnecessary war and nobody should have been there in the first place. Links between Al-Qaida and Saddam were tenuous at best. |
There were no AQ-Saddam links. |
killed
Indeed. In fact, Osama and Saddam hated and would have killed each other if either had the chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The one point I read over the years that really stood out for me about how much better it could be in Iraq is the story of the Lawyer who defended a person who upset Saddams son.
The person who upset him by doing his job was executed (obviously)  The lawyer was tortured and held in prison for a number of years until the US arrived.
She came out pyscholigically traumatised and was known as the "crazy lady" by her neighbors.
You know, I feel sorry for those who died during the US involvement, but the one issue that has stick in my head is that Saddam, didn't even provide justice for the lawyers of those judged guilty.
I have no sympathy for the (real) bathists and the UN should have acted sooner to end the problem, thats why it was created. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Doesn't strike me as a whole lot different than attorney Lynne Stewart getting 28 months for defending the blind sheikh in the first WTC bomb right here in the good ol' US of A.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:26 am Post subject: Re: 95 killed on Iraq's deadliest day since US Handover |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| I'd like to hear the liberal spin on this. Up until a few months ago, the Iraqi insurgents were "resisting the American Invaders". Well, the US troops aren't there in the cities. Just who are the insurgents bombing now? |
This is what happens when you destabilize a country. Iraq has a long civil war to look forward to thanks to us.
US troops are in Kabul, but insurgents are bombing at will. Clearly, the US is become more and more irrelevant in these two conflicts.
The difference in Iraq and Afghanistan is that in Iraq, we've left a huge vacuum that will result in a long, bloody civil war. In Afghanistan, there's really no power vacuum. The Taliban aren't going anywhere and are just patiently waiting on us to leave, whether it takes 100 days or 100 years. They'll still be there long after we're gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
| Iraq has a long civil war to look forward to thanks to us |
Thanks only to us? If two tribes of religious lunatics want to set about butchering one another at the earliest opportunity, I fail to see how that can be anyone's fault but theirs. Many innocent people were killed by us in military conflict - and, for that, we are very responsible indeed - but the Sunni/Shia war is the fault, and solely the fault, of the parties involved and the sectarianism of Islam |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If these two sects are going to kill each other anyway, why must we go over there and kill them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
edited
Last edited by Sergio Stefanuto on Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| RJjr wrote: |
| Iraq has a long civil war to look forward to thanks to us |
Thanks only to us? If two tribes of religious lunatics want to set about butchering one another at the earliest opportunity, I fail to see how that can be anyone's fault but theirs. Many innocent people were killed by us in military conflict - and, for that, we are very responsible indeed - but the Sunni/Shia war is the fault, and solely the fault, of the parties involved and the sectarianism of Islam |
I fail to see how opening up that can of worms has promoted the interests of the American people. I'm sure many have gotten rich from the venture, but IMO it was a foolishly conceived and executed dipshit choice that will cost trillions.
F'in Bush had to have the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims explained to him after the choice to go to war had already been made. Amazing.
Amazingly obtuse. And according to Bush, "God" recommended he start the party over there. Either God hates America or he is just as freaking stupid as this shithead who claims to be doing his work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Caniff wrote: |
Bush had to have the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims explained to him after the choice to go to war had already been made. Amazing.
|
Don't believe you.
Sorry - the only alternative to my theory (that civil war is a big part of the plan) is that the US govt completely failed to consider it - in a country with such a history of violent sectarianism.
No way I'm that gullible.
Look, I know it's a bit sick. But while Sunnis are killing Shi'ites and vice versa in Iraq, they're not killing us over here. There are many reasons the US invaded Iraq - this is one. Indeed, it's got a helluva lot more to do with it than most people realize |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Look, I know it's a bit sick. But while Sunnis are killing Shi'ites and vice versa in Iraq, they're not killing us over here. There are many reasons the US invaded Iraq - this is one. |
That is all the more reason why we should not be going over there to stop it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Caniff wrote: |
Bush had to have the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims explained to him after the choice to go to war had already been made. Amazing.
|
Don't believe you.
Sorry - the only alternative to my theory (that civil war is a big part of the plan) is that the US govt completely failed to consider it - in a country with such a history of violent sectarianism.
No way I'm that gullible.
Look, I know it's a bit sick. But while Sunnis are killing Shi'ites and vice versa in Iraq, they're not killing us over here. There are many reasons the US invaded Iraq - this is one. Indeed, it's got a helluva lot more to do with it than most people realize |
Oh, so he knew this would happen. I recall hearing it differently as related by those present when he was being 'debriefed'. I'll try to google that (as I'm pretty sure my memory is correct, but whatever).
Just a question: How were they going to kill us over here? Iraqis, I mean. And why should the American taxpayers be paying trillions to head off this threat? Seems out of all proportion, if you ask me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
