Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Iraqi Sunnis we Supported Now being Screwed bythe Democratically Elected Iraqi Govt

  1. #1

    Iraqi Sunnis we Supported Now being Screwed bythe Democratically Elected Iraqi Govt

    [QUOTE][B]The Iraq legacy: the awakening[/B]
    Lawrence Korb
    March 21, 2008 8:00 PM

    [url]http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/lawrence_korb/2008/03/the_iraq_legacy_the_awakening.html[/url]

    Much of the decline in violence in Iraq, which began in late 2007, can be attributed to the emergence of "sahwa", or "awakening", groups. These groups, essentially Sunni militias, are comprised of tribes and former insurgents who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) and other extremist militants in late 2006, long before the surge was even proposed. The willingness of these insurgents to turn against AQI resulted from the presumptuous brutality of AQI when these Sunni tribes resisted their efforts to exercise command and control, force marriages and take over illicit economic activities.

    These sahwa groups, which now number 90,000, receive money, material support and training from the United States, which has politically empowered tribal sheikhs and former insurgent leaders who now enjoy de facto control over wide swathes of Anbar province and some Baghdad neighbourhoods.

    Ironically, some US military leaders wanted to begin working with these groups in 2005 but were overruled by the Bush administration because they refused to pledge loyalty to the central government. But by late 2006, the security situation was so bad, we took them in anyway.

    [B]Unfortunately, the awakening has also exacerbated existing political divisions and fomented new political cleavages in an already fractured and fragile Iraqi body politic. These newly empowered sahwa leaders are already challenging each other, traditional Sunni political parties and the Iraqi government, and are now losing patience with US forces.[/B]

    [B]The most critical problem created by the sahwa movement, however, is
    the division between the sahwa militias and the Iraqi government[/B]. The key to truly co-opting these violent militants will be the willingness of the Maliki government to take these militants off of the streets and integrate them into the Iraqi security forces. However, [B]the Maliki government believes the tribal awakenings and CLC militias are a direct challenge to its authority, and it is fundamentally opposed to their significant incorporation into the ISF.[/B] As one awakening commander put it in late February: [B]"We'll all be patient for another two months. If nothing changes, then we'll suspend and quit. Then we'll go back to fighting the Americans."[/B]
    As of March 2008, fully a year and a half after the beginning of the sahwa movement, less than 11% of the 90,000-plus force has been integrated into the ISF. Moreover,[B] the Maliki government has stated that under no circumstances will it integrate more than a quarter of these militants into the ISF.[/B]

    [B]The sahwa movement has further fractured Iraqi politics and ironically made national reconciliation much less likely - even as it delivers improved local security in the short term to critical areas such as Anbar province and some of Baghdad. Their growing disaffection will likely lead to their return to the insurgency if the Maliki government refuses to do undertake more than a token integration. This could ultimately undermine the security progress that has been made.[/B][url]http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/lawrence_korb/2008/03/the_iraq_legacy_the_awakening.html.printer.friendly[/url][/QUOTE]

    There were quite a few idealistic and naive guys posting here who thought that these Sunni militias would join forces and be welcomed by the Iraqi govt. I warned that they would be shunned and we are potentially arming and funding an army that will be an enemy to the ruling democratically elected Iraq government that we hoped would be a beacon of light in the ME. When will we learn???

  2. #2
    [QUOTE][B]Sunni militia strike could derail US strategy against al-Qaida[/B]

    Maggie O'Kane and Ian Black The Guardian, Friday March 21 2008



    The success of the US "surge" strategy in Iraq may be under threat as Sunni militia employed by the US to fight al-Qaida are warning of a national strike because they are not being paid regularly.

    Leading members of the 80,000-strong Sahwa, or awakening, councils have said they will stop fighting unless payment of their $10 a day (5) wage is resumed. [B]The fighters are accusing the US military of using them to clear al-Qaida militants from dangerous areas and then abandoning them. [/B]
    A telephone survey by GuardianFilms for Channel 4 News reveals that [B]out of 49 Sahwa councils four with more than 1,400 men have already quit, 38 are threatening to go on strike and two already have.[/B]
    Improved security in Iraq in recent months has been attributed to a combination of the surge, the truce observed by Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, and the effectiveness and commitment of the councils, which are drawn from Sunni Arabs and probably the most significant factor, according to most analysts.

    In his speech marking the fifth anniversary of the war George Bush highlighted the significance of what he called "the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden". Iraq, he said, "has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al-Qaida out."

    But dozens of phone calls to Sahwa leaders reveal bitterness and anger. [B]"We know the Americans are using us to do their dirty work and kill off the resistance for them and then we get nothing for it," [/B]said Abu Abdul-Aziz, the head of the council in Abu Ghraib, where 500 men have already quit.

    [B]"The Americans got what they wanted. We purged al-Qaida for them and now people are saying why should we have any more deaths for the Americans. They have given us nothing."[/B]

    In Dora, a southern suburb of Baghdad, the leaders of a Sahwa group of 2,400 men said they were [B]considering strike action because none of the 2,000 applicants they had put forward for jobs with the police and military had been accepted. [/B]
    The Shia-dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki has found jobs for only a handful of the Sahwa fighters.

    [B]"We need to get all the Sahwas in the country together and organise a national strike,"[/B] said Ahah al-Zubadi, leader of 35 Sahwa councils, the largest group in Iraq. [B]"When the areas started to cool down and the situation began to get better the Americans really cooled to us."[/B]
    In the area south of Baghdad where more US troops have been killed than anywhere else in the country the Sahwa forces have formed the backbone of the surge. The councils first appeared in Anbar province a year ago when tribal leaders turned against al-Qaida and were tempted by offers of cash and jobs from the Americans, attracting many former insurgents to their ranks. Anbar today is one of Iraq's safest provinces.

    But the movement's driving force, Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, was killed in September. In Diyala province al-Qaida delivered videos of beheaded Sahwa members to their families to try and stop others working with the Americans.[/QUOTE]

    This is a big problem. Americans better wake up to the reality that our govt is screwing this up once again.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE] [B]Green Zone shelling mirrors militia ire[/B]

    By HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press WritersMon Mar 24, 5:33 PM ET

    Rocket attacks on the U.S.-protected Green Zone may carry a message with implications across Iraq: rising anger within the Mahdi Army militia.

    The Shiite fighters led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are reorganizing their ranks, taking delivery of new weapons from Iran and ramping up complaints about crackdowns by U.S. and Iraqi forces that could unravel the Mahdi Army's self-declared cease-fire, according to militia commanders.

    U.S. commanders credit the 7-month-old cease-fire for helping curb violence in Baghdad and slow the pace of U.S. military deaths, which reached 4,000 on Sunday. Washington also is highly concerned over any signs of expanding links between Iran and rank-and-file al-Sadr supporters before local elections this year.

    The latest rumblings in the Mahdi Army are provoked by the [B]belief that the Americans and their Iraqi allies abused the cease-fire by conducting raids that have targeted hundreds of al-Sadr's backers and aides.
    [/B]
    Militia commanders told The Associated Press [B]they viewed the arrests as a move by Shiite rivals to deny them a prominent political voice.[/B] They also cited al-Sadr's statement this month that his cease-fire did not preclude his followers from self defense.

    The three commanders, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not supposed to comment on policy matters, said al-Sadr's statement gave them the nod to take on their adversaries.

    That could lead to new attacks on the Green Zone, which was pounded Sunday by rockets in the most sustained assault in months. Al-Sadr's followers have not claimed responsibility for the attacks, but the weapons were fired from areas where the Mahdi Army operates.

    U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Gregory Smith blamed Iranian-backed Shiite militia factions for the rocket attacks, which killed at least 12 Iraqi civilians outside the Green Zone. U.S. Embassy spokesman Philip Reeker said two U.S. government employees an American and a Jordanian were seriously injured and six other people required medical attention.

    Smith said the rockets were supplied by the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
    [B]
    The Pentagon has dubbed the Iranian-linked Shiite military as "special groups" or rogue cells to distinguish them from mainline Mahdi militiamen. But the Mahdi Army commanders claimed many members of the "special groups" have been reintegrated into the militia in recent months after they swore allegiance again to al-Sadr.[/B]
    [B]
    "They don't seem to realize that the Sadrist trend is like a volcano,"[/B] Abdul-Hadi al-Mohammedawi told worshippers Friday in Kufa, referring to the Iraqi government and its U.S. backers. [B]"If it explodes, it will crush their rotten heads."
    [/B]
    Leaders of the Sadrist movement are [B]calling on supporters to protest the arrests by closing their shops and businesses.[/B]
    [B]
    The call was heeded Monday in at least two predominantly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad.[/B] Video by Associated Press Television News showed a deserted bus stop, shuttered shops and empty streets in normally bustling Amil and Baiyaa.

    Police said Mahdi Army militiamen have also issued general strike orders in three other areas of southwestern Baghdad and in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of the capital.

    "This civil disobedience may be called for in the rest of Baghdad and maybe in southern provinces if the government does not free our detainees," lawmaker Ali al-Mayali said after attending a meeting of Sadrist leaders Monday in the holy city of Najaf.

    Liwa Smeism, a senior political adviser at al-Sadr's office in Najaf, said the shop closures in west Baghdad would continue for up to 48 hours, depending on the response of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's mainly Shiite government.

    He ruled out the use of violence, but said there would be "other means" to pressure the government. He did not elaborate.

    "There is ongoing negotiations with the government and we hope to end it peacefully," he told the AP.

    In a statement aired on government television Monday night, the Iraqi military warned followers of al-Sadr against using threats and intimidation to enforce the general strike. The statement made no reference specifically to the Sadrists, but said any use of armed threats to keep people from going about their business violates the anti-terrorism act and would be dealt with.

    The Mahdi Army, believed to number up to 60,000 fighters, was battered by U.S. troops in a series of battles in 2004. But the militia appears to have regrouped and, according to commanders, is ready to respond to "provocations."

    According to the three commanders, the militia has received fresh supplies of weapons from Iran contradicting repeated Iranian denials that it is supporting Iraqi militias.

    The weapons, the commanders said, included rockets, armor-piercing roadside bombs and anti-aircraft guns that could be effective against low-flying helicopters.

    Additionally, they said an infusion of cash from Iran has been spent on new communication centers equipped with computers with Internet connections, fax machines and mobile satellite telephones.

    Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking during a visit to Iraq this month, reiterated Washington's claim that Iran seeks to destabilize Iraq through support of armed Shiite factions.

    Saleh al-Auqaeili, a senior lawmaker loyal to al-Sadr, says between 2,000 and 2,500 Mahdi Army militiamen have been detained since the cease-fire came into force. Other al-Sadr loyalists complain that only a small percentage of the detainees being released under a new amnesty law have been from al-Sadr's movement.

    "The Mahdi Army, strong and organized, is necessary now to protect the movement," said Hassan al-Rubaie, leader of the 30-seat parliamentary bloc loyal to al-Sadr.
    [B]
    The Sadrists blame the moves against them on their main Shiite rival the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. The council's armed wing, the Badr militia, dominates Iraq's security forces.[/B]

    Their rivalry is intensifying in the run-up to provincial elections expected before Oct. 1. Both sides consider the elections crucial to their future sway over the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq.

    Both the Sadrists and the Supreme Council hold 30 of parliament's 275 seats.

    But the Supreme Council dominates local governments in southern Iraq because al-Sadr did not campaign vigorously in the last provincial elections in 2005.

    A new law gives provincial councils considerable powers, including selection of governors who will in turn control local security forces.

    On Monday, Iraqi authorities clamped an indefinite nighttime curfew on the main southern city, Basra, and the prime minister dismissed the city's top two security officials. Two weeks ago, thousands demonstrated near the Basra police headquarters with demands both security officers resign.

    The moves were another sign of growing concern about security in the nation's oil capital since British forces handed over control of the city last year.
    [B]
    Al-Sadr's backers, however, threatened a backlash in Basra if Mahdi Army members face increasing pressure from al-Maliki's government.[/B]

    "We will respond strongly and violently if they plan to target us," said Sheik Ali al-Saiedi, director of al-Sadr's offices in Basra.[/QUOTE]

    So first the Sunni fighters who we provided with guns and supplies show their disenchantment with us and now we have a major Shia militia, the Madhi Army, accusing us of helping the SCIRI with wronful imprisonment of their militiamen during a ceasefire.

    This is turning real bad ,real fast.

    And tell me why is the USA blaming Iran for this when just 2 weeks ago the ruling Iraqi govt rolled out the red carpet and gave Ahmedinejad a heros welcome????

    Also why do a$$clowns like GWB and Cheney continue to call this mission a success and why would a Presidential Candidate (McCain) follow in step with them toward the cliff , leading our men to disaster. This was an impossible mission to start and continuing down this path is a lost cause that will only lead to disaster. Time to put an end to this stupidity.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2449262]Time to put an end to this stupidity.[/QUOTE]

    You'll have your opportunity in November. Just like every other Voter.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2449298]You'll have your opportunity in November. Just like every other Voter.[/QUOTE]

    Not if McCain is president.
    And maybe not if Hillary wins.

    BTW, isnt funny how we focus more on what Obamas preacher says in his church than the disaster that is unraveling as we speak in Iraq. Shouldnt we be talking about how the "surge" is not working and what the next step should be?? Shouldnt we be challenging McCain's assessment of Iraq and his assertion that the surge is working when in reality Iraq is coming appart.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2449351]Not if McCain is president.
    And maybe not if Hillary wins.[/QUOTE]

    Such is Democracy.

    The Will of the People, ignorant or not, right or not, be done.

    We have a Democrat Controlled Congress today who was voted in on the War issue, and who could, if they wished it, end (defund) the War.

    They have chosen not to, even though they disagree with it and object to it as you do. Bush at least believes in what he is doing (again, right or wrong), one would not expect him or his side to end a War they believe in. What is the Democrats excuse, outside political expediency?

    No, you can joust all the windmills you like Ken, you make no difference and you effect no change. You are a just another quiet voice, screaming into the wind. Perhaps you may wish to reserve some of that for the party you agree with, and has yet refused to do what you wish.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2449367] [B]What is the Democrats excuse, outside political expediency?[/B][/QUOTE]

    When you are a politician and your livelihood depends on getting re-elected , political expediency is a big deal.

    While i can blame the Dems for not doing enough to getting us out of Iraq ASAP, at least they are not talking about "how well the surge is working" and keeping us in Iraq for another 100 years.

    Part of the problem is the sloppy media who blindly buys into the notion that the surge is working and fails to ask "WTF is going on here?" with the stories i have posted above. How can it be working when the Sunnis we have backed and provided weopans to are turning against us and are being antaagonized by the Iraq govt? How can it be working if the Shias in the South are now rallying with the Madhi Army against the democratically elected govt. Maybe if the media brought this up instead of staying silent everytime someone says "the surge is working" America will wake up and a real debate will start.

    But i guess people are more interested in what church Obama goes to and what his f'n preacher has to say:(

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2449522]When you are a politician and your livelihood depends on getting re-elected , political expediency is a big deal.[/quote]

    One of our primary problems. Being a Representative should not be a "Livelihood". It should be a responsabillity, to do what is right.

    I.e. Term Limits.

    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2449522]While i can blame the Dems for not doing enough to getting us out of Iraq ASAP, at least they are not talking about "how well the surge is working" and keeping us in Iraq for another 100 years.[/quote]

    You may not like it, but regardless of your own opinion, there are many who believe the conflict is winable (to varying degrees) and the surge has helped and can continue to help. You will not convince them with your articles. They've seen them all already as it is. Just like you will not convince Bush he is wrong.

    Just like no one could convince you the War could be won.

    The Dems were your chance, and they chose their "livlihood" over what you think they believe is right vs. wrong. And I have to ask.....if ending the War is so obvious and so right, why would doing so be considered Political Suicide?

    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2449522]Maybe if the media brought this up instead of staying silent everytime someone says "the surge is working" America will wake up and a real debate will start.

    But i guess people are more interested in what church Obama goes to and what his f'n preacher has to say:([/QUOTE]

    Thats part of it. But again, you may not agree, but part of it is that 4000 deaths over 5 years is not considered to be alot by Joe Q. Average. When put into any perspective with other deaths, one sees 4K as tragic, but notbad for a War. For example, how many people were murdered in the State of California the past 5 years? Should we stop our fruitless "War on Murder" because of it?

    And lets be honest Ken, you don't want a real debate, because you have no abillity to see any side but your own. No news from Iraq is viewed by your to be good, and no outcome other than defeat possible. You've said as much dozens of times. You, like George Bush, are absolutely convinced of the rightiousness and valdity of your opinion.

    You're jousting windmills Ken. You always have been. But if that brings you pleasure or some sense of "I was right", then good for you.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2449537]

    Thats part of it. But again, you may not agree, but part of it is that 4000 deaths over 5 years is not considered to be alot by Joe Q. Average. When put into any perspective with other deaths, one sees 4K as tragic, but notbad for a War. For example, how many people were murdered in the State of California the past 5 years? Should we stop our fruitless "War on Murder" because of it?

    And lets be honest Ken, you don't want a real debate, because you have no abillity to see any side but your own. No news from Iraq is viewed by your to be good, and no outcome other than defeat possible. You've said as much dozens of times. You, like George Bush, are absolutely convinced of the rightiousness and valdity of your opinion.

    You're jousting windmills Ken. You always have been. But if that brings you pleasure or some sense of "I was right", then good for you.[/QUOTE]

    If Joe Q. Average doesnt think that 4000 dead US soldiers is a big deal over 5 years is a big deal then maybe he will think spending $500 billion dollars over 5 years on a government that rolls the red carpet for Iran but our own president still has to visit secretly with lights out landings is a big deal.

    And your wrong i do want a real debate. I acknowledge the surge provided for a period of decrease in violence and fewer US casualties. And thats a good thing. But thats not the objective of the surge. The objective was to provide peace for the political process to achieve something. It has not. The political process is going backwards. If you disagree, please show me the political progress being made. I welcome that debate. While i am convinced that i was and continue to be right about Iraq, unlike Bush, i welcome you to show me otherwise. I would like nothing more to be proven wrong. My only concern is the wellbeing of our troops. I believe the longer we are there, the more harm is done to them. But please, show me im wrong. Show me where the light at the end of this tunnel is that you see.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2449573]If Joe Q. Average doesnt think that 4000 dead US soldiers is a big deal over 5 years is a big deal then maybe he will think spending $500 billion dollars over 5 years on a government that rolls the red carpet for Iran but our own president still has to visit secretly with lights out landings is a big deal.

    And your wrong i do want a real debate. I acknowledge the surge provided for a period of decrease in violence and fewer US casualties. And thats a good thing. But thats not the objective of the surge. The objective was to provide peace for the political process to achieve something. It has not. The political process is going backwards. If you disagree, please show me the political progress being made. I welcome that debate. While i am convinced that i was and continue to be right about Iraq, unlike Bush, i welcome you to show me otherwise. I would like nothing more to be proven wrong. My only concern is the wellbeing of our troops. I believe the longer we are there, the more harm is done to them. But please, show me im wrong. Show me where the light at the end of this tunnel is that you see.[/QUOTE]

    You can say you want "real debate", but simply saying something does not make it so. On the topic of the War, I have found you one of the very most close-minded individuals on this forum. The comment "While i am convinced that i was and continue to be right about Iraq" fits you to a tee.

    You say "My only concern is the wellbeing of our troops. I believe the longer we are there, the more harm is done to them.". Such a phrase is absolutely true....no matter HOW needed, valid or important the War in question is. It doesn't MEAN anything in and of itself.

    And frankly Ken, I am not the one to play "Defend the War" guy anyway, even if you WERE open to other viewpoints. I am no supporter of the War. I was as against entry into Iraq as you were at the time, although I'm sure you've forgotton. I am a supporter only of not making things worse than they are "today", whatever day "today" happens to be.

    We have a fundamental disagreement on what outcome is worse. You say we can leave now, and it is best. I disagree, I believe our leaving will result in a worse situation, in Iraq, in the Middle East and in future American Deaths, than we have now. Not because I support Bush (I do not) or enjoy dead American Soldiers (I do not) or how poorly this War has been run (I most certainly do not). It's because when you have a chance, you take it and make it work. Giving up is never an answer.

    In the end, it's meaningless babble here. We cannot end the War. The Republicans won't. And I'd bet the Democrats won't either. It's be great if you could see that too, but I'm not holding my breath. I get it, as a Socialist, you love your Dems and they have your loaylty. Such is life.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2449605] [B]It's because when you have a chance, you take it and make it work. Giving up is never an answer.[/B]

    I get it, as a Socialist, you love your Dems and they have your loaylty. Such is life.[/QUOTE]

    First off, what makes you think we have a chance?? Saying we have a chance doesnt make it true or even remotely realistic. Saying "you take athe chance and make it work" is all nice and cute in a rah! rah! sense but again, doesnt mean its realistic. If the effort and expenditure greatly outweighs the probability of an event from happening you dont waste your resources trying.

    Giving up is an answer when the end result of your efforts leaves you in a worse situation. Yes there will be a peak in violence after we leave, but ultimately we can not dictate to the Iraqi people how they should run their country. We cant tell them how to live their lives. This has to be done from within. Only they can dictate their future. Look at Vietnam today. We ultimately gave up, and today Vietnam and the Vietnamese people are far better off than they were in 1970.

    And no i dont love the Dems. Hardly. But as a party, their views are more in line with mine than the Republican party. So yes i support them.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2449656]First off, what makes you think we have a chance?? Saying we have a chance doesnt make it true or even remotely realistic. Saying "you take athe chance and make it work" is all nice and cute in a rah! rah! sense but again, doesnt mean its realistic. If the effort and expenditure greatly outweighs the probability of an event from happening you dont waste your resources trying.[/quote]

    And this is exactly my point. Claiming there "is no chance" is so closed-minded and pre-judged, it's not even worth discussing further.

    You made your mid up long before the first boot ever hit the ground, and you couldn't be budged from that stance by God himself, if he actually existed.

    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2449656]Giving up is an answer when the end result of your efforts leaves you in a worse situation. Yes there will be a peak in violence after we leave[/quote]

    No, what there would be is genocide and true Civil War, on a bigger scale than what we have today, which you will conveniently turn around and claim is all the Repubs and Bush's fault, a sign you were right, etc, etc, etc. I.e. Deaths used as Politics. And it wouldn't bother you for a second to do so.

    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2449656]And no i dont love the Dems. Hardly. But as a party, their views are more in line with mine than the Republican party. So yes i support them.[/QUOTE]

    Of course you do, you're a Socialist. You want to recreate the US as a Socialaist Nation. The Dems are your only chance at that, so of course you support them.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2449768]And this is exactly my point. Claiming there "is no chance" is so closed-minded and pre-judged, it's not even worth discussing further.

    You made your mid up long before the first boot ever hit the ground, and you couldn't be budged from that stance by God himself, if he actually existed.

    [B]Youre actually kind of right. It is "pre-judged". Its all about taking the time and understanding the people of Iraq and their history and realizing that what we hope to achieve is not in line with what these people want. But closed minded??? Not at all. What is closed minded is you setting goals w/o consideration of the Iraqi people and their history. You only see things through an American point of view and completely disregard the Iraqis. You think "if we try hard enough we can get them to think like us" and share the same goal. Why?? Why should they have the same vision as America? Why should they put aside their historical hatred and do as we want them to. If only people "pre judged" before going into war, we wouldnt be in this mess.[/B]

    No, what there would be is genocide and true Civil War, on a bigger scale than what we have today, which you will conveniently turn around and claim is all the Repubs and Bush's fault, a sign you were right, etc, etc, etc. I.e. Deaths used as Politics. And it wouldn't bother you for a second to do so.

    [B]True civil war?? WTF is that? Iraq has been in a civil war for much of the last 5 years. The fighting is between Iraqis. And Genocide has been going on ...on a large scale. Take a look at a map of the etnic division of Baghdad before we invaded and today. What do you think happened that suddenly led to a shift towards predominantly Shia neighborhoods. Do you think the Sunnis were asked nicely to pick up and move?? I know the media kind of glosses over it but for much of the last 3 years mass graves of either Shias or Sunnis were being discovered on a near daily bases. And it wasnt Saddam who committed this crime.

    Why shouldnt I blame the civil war on Bush. He was the decider. He chose to go into Iraq and overthrow Saddam (yes i know a few scumbag Dems gave him the authority...and they share the blame). Civil War was inevitable as soon as we toppled Saddam. Anyone with even the moost rudimentary understanding of Iraq History knew and predicted it would happened. Bush and co were warned about this , they ignored the warning. So they deserve to get part of the blame.[/B]


    Of course you do, you're a Socialist. You want to recreate the US as a Socialaist Nation. The Dems are your only chance at that, so of course you support them.
    [B]
    Yes, yes I want a socialist USA. But tell me, why werent you crying when the govt bailed out Bear Sterns earlier this month or years ago when they bailed out Chrysler. Yes yes, yell and holler about personal responsibility when the govt tries to bail out the poor but silence when they help bail out corporations.[/B]
    [/QUOTE]..

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us