Things going well in Iraq?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So what you are saying is that there are fantastic improvements in Iraq (compared to what, BTW) but George is still sending more troops to make it safer?

That seems a little odd to me.

Here's a fantastic improvement:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...162249,00.html

Seems a little decadent considering the situation for the average Iraqi right now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

They needed those troops when they first invaded. I wish them luck but it's kind of hard to put all of the feathers back in a pillow after they've been scattered.

Indeed.

I really don't know how things will go, especially with the new President.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

I could have posted a couple links....

... but you couldn't find any that didn't come from a blog, the White House, or Fox News (really the same thing as the White House).

But why would I after that mindless rant?

Mindless rant? If it was so mindless you should have been able to crush it with a single post. Come on, you're the military genius. Certainly you can find some moment in history that would show what a positive it is to pull troops from all over the country to defend a city already secured? Here, I'll spot you one.




Oh wait, that isn't a positive.

The rest of the country is in chaos, and all the dittoheads have been saying how secure and how great the situation is in Baghdad, but it turns out that was a load of crap too. The defense of Baghdad will be the last stand in King George's private war.

Originally Posted by Azure

Indeed.

I really don't know how things will go, especially with the new President.

Yes, it's going to be the NEW president's fault! What a joke.

[Azure]

... but you couldn't find any that didn't come from a blog, the White House, or Fox News (really the same thing as the White House).

Fine, act like the idiot you really are.

I guess anyone that finds something positive from Iraq, is either the Whitehouse, and Bushie, or a neo-con.

And no, none of my links would have come from those sources, but since you can't be civil about anything, why should I post them?

Mindless rant? If it was so mindless you should have been able to crush it with a single post. Come on, you're the military genius. Certainly you can find some moment in history that would show what a positive it is to pull troops from all over the country to defend a city already secured? Here, I'll spot you one.

When have I ever said I'm a military genius? I could start labelling you too, eh, but I thought you didn't like it when people gave you labels.

The rest of the country is in chaos, and all the dittoheads have been saying how secure and how great the situation is in Baghdad, but it turns out that was a load of crap too. The defense of Baghdad will be the last stand in King George's private war.

Whine, whine, whine.

Bush, bush, bush. I suggest you find a new line.

Yes, it's going to be the NEW president's fault! What a joke.

Wow, where'd you pull that from? Or should I even ask?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess anyone that finds something positive from Iraq, is either the Whitehouse, and Bushie, or a neo-con.

Nope. It just seems that the only ones that see ANYTHING positive in Iraq are the ones with a vested interest. The good news is coming from those that are making money hand over fist. Not much "news", because the fact of the matter is that quality of life is substantially worse than it was before the American invasion.

And no, none of my links would have come from those sources, but since you can't be civil about anything, why should I post them?

Awwww, you going to take your ball and go home? Poor little baby. :baby:

You said you could do something, so do it! Or are you waiting for your balls to drop?

When have I ever said I'm a military genius? I could start labelling you too, eh, but I thought you didn't like it when people gave you labels.

Yes, because YOU never label anyone.

Whine, whine, whine.

Bush, bush, bush. I suggest you find a new line.

Why? It's right on the money. Who made the decision to go into Iraq? Bush. Who ignored the warnings of the military? Bush. Who is to blame for sticking it out and bleeding money by the billions? Bush. The buck stops in the Oval Office.

Wow, where'd you pull that from? Or should I even ask?

It's a direct quote from you. Can't read?

Vulcan said, "I wish them luck but it's kind of hard to put all of the feathers back in a pillow after they've been scattered."

You responded with, "Indeed. I really don't know how things will go, especially with the new President."

Seems you're saying that the reason things suck is because of the new president. If he would let America do what ever it wants things would be A-OK, right?

BTW... care to comment on how the only projects that are on, or ahead of schedule, are the new embassay and the 14 American super-bases being built around Iraq? No consistent water or electrical service for Iraqis, but the political and military installations for Americans (not Iraqis) are moving ahead full steam. Care to spin those away?

[Azure]

Nope. It just seems that the only ones that see ANYTHING positive in Iraq are the ones with a vested interest. The good news is coming from those that are making money hand over fist. Not much "news", because the fact of the matter is that quality of life is substantially worse than it was before the American invasion.

Really? I guess all those mass graves found by US troops was part of conspiracy to make Saddam look bad. Riiiight.

Awwww, you going to take your ball and go home? Poor little baby. :baby:

You said you could do something, so do it! Or are you waiting for your balls to drop?

Out of interest to be civil in this thread, I'm going to ignore that comment.

You can continue acting like an idiot if you want too.

Yes, because YOU never label anyone.

Yes, and I apologized after doing do, remember?

Why? It's right on the money. Who made the decision to go into Iraq? Bush. Who ignored the warnings of the military? Bush. Who is to blame for sticking it out and bleeding money by the billions? Bush. The buck stops in the Oval Office.

Bush? You think Bush makes the soldiers go on kiling sprees?

It's a direct quote from you. Can't read?

Vulcan said, "I wish them luck but it's kind of hard to put all of the feathers back in a pillow after they've been scattered."

You responded with, "Indeed. I really don't know how things will go, especially with the new President."

Seems you're saying that the reason things suck is because of the new president. If he would let America do what ever it wants things would be A-OK, right?

Sure I can read, and the comment had nothing to do with the new President screwing up the whole situation even more. But rather, how he will deal with it.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

... but you couldn't find any that didn't come from a blog, the White House, or Fox News (really the same thing as the White House).

Thats the problem. They're the only ones reporting it.

But having said that...

Iraq And Afghanistan Striving To Improve

In a kind of nether world are Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States has ousted repressive governments and is now providing military security. The report said both are striving to establish democratic institutions.

But the document said Iraq is hampered by an insurgency, and Afghanistan's central government is having trouble establishing its authority in largely lawless areas of the country.

Members of the International Security & Assitance Force (ISAF) secure the site of a suicide blast in Kandahar (epa)Lowenkron was asked if the State Department was somehow excusing of the weakness of the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We do not hold [Iraq and Afghanistan] to lower standards," he answered. "What we do, and what you find in the reports on Afghanistan and on Iraq, is an assessment of the impact of the deadly insurgency on the ability of the Iraqi government and the ability of the Afghan government in order to build and sustain and nurture democratic institutions and practices."

The report claimed what it called "major progress" for democracy in Iraq, and pointed to three nationwide elections in a country that previously had been a brutal dictatorship for more than three decades. But it conceded that the continuing insurgency has made daily life difficult in much of Iraq.

Afghanistan, too, is just emerging from nearly a generation in which its people lacked basic human rights. But in September 2005, the country held parliamentary elections in which many women voted -- and were elected to public office. But, as with Iraq, this effort was offset somewhat by Kabul's inability to ensure democratic rule throughout the country.

The State Department has been issuing its annual human rights retports since 1977, under orders from the U.S. Congress.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...9237bcda5.html

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/27247.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663982/posts

A Better Life
Poll: Most Iraqis Ambivalent About the War, But Not Its Results

March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.

(ABC NEWS)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ll_040314.html

Iraq: From mass graves to a better life:
http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/30518.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/110904.shtml

Some are dated, i know. But its shows that its not all doom and gloom.

[Azure]

No man, those are all the neo-con and Bushie articles, and are all part of the huge 9/11 conspiracy and King George's war in Iraq. They are part of the huge right-wing conspiracy that strives to cover up Bush's every action, and make him look good despite his "incompetence."

Surely there can't be no truth in that, eh?

Thats what Lanny would say.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Name a couple.

It looks to me like the USA has jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. They need Dr. Who to get them out of this one.

I''ll even spot you:
1. They got rid of Saddam
2. Arms dealers everywhere are getting rich
3. Oil companies are getting rich
4.Halliburton and everyone associated with them are getting rich.
5. Terrorists have new breeding grounds
6.Democrats look good to win

Care to explain how Iraq and Afganistan are "new" breeding grounds and how they are worse than before the presence of a coalition force?

1-4 though, pretty bang on.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Thats the problem. They're the only ones reporting it.

And what does that tell you? Let me guess? You buy into the Azure ideal that the REST OF THE WORLD is against America and that they are conspiring to make America look bad! News flash: The rest of the world is not out to get America, America is doing a good enough job at getting itself.

But having said that...

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/27247.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663982/posts

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/30518.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/110904.shtml
[/quote]

Wow. Those actually show how desperate you are to find ANYTHING that will point to anything going well in Iraq. When you have to resort to sites like The Free Republic (run with the same money provided to The Heritage Foundation and The Hoover Institute) and NewsMax, you've really hit rock bottom. Both were part of the White House propaganda program and ran stories feed to them directly by the White House (relating to healthcare and education programs). Kind of makes their credibility a little lacking, don't you think?

I don't suppose you could find a credible media source that would echo those links' sentiment by chance? You know, that is the real test of media validity. If you can find multiple credible media sources you have a story. And by credible sources I mean enterprises that are legally correct in what they publish and have done the fact checking required to prevent being sued. But when you resort to sources that have no legal requirement to publish truth and don't bother to do any sort of fact checking, the stories are nothing more than spin and propaganda. Sadly, you picked two of the worst sites for promotion of propaganda for the White House and the Bush administration. Hey, I will give you credit, you stayed away from The Weekly Standard and FauxNews!

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Care to explain how Iraq and Afganistan are "new" breeding grounds and how they are worse than before the presence of a coalition force?

1-4 though, pretty bang on.

Just Iraq obviously. Now Saddam may have been doing some financing of terrorism but there was no terrorism going on in Iraq. Saddam would have shot them if they were lucky. Now it's wide open with death squads and suicide bombers seemingly everywhere. You don't need a link, just watch the 6 o'clock news. If they bother to report it anymore.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Care to explain how Iraq and Afganistan are "new" breeding grounds and how they are worse than before the presence of a coalition force?

1-4 though, pretty bang on.

Are you kidding me? Gee, there are going to be no hard feelings generated toward America when the people are without water and electricity for 22 hours a day. There's going to be no hard feelings when America's soldiers do all the same things Hussein's thugs did. There's going to be no hard feelings when the country is in worse shape than before Hussein was removed, and that people are killing each other for not saying prayer the same way. And there will be no hard feelings of the families and friends of the 40,000+ Iraqis that have been killed since the Americans invaded. Nope, no hard feelings there, no reason to hate America, and no reason to turn to radical actions when you have the GREAT Americans in your country and not following through on what they promised.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Care to explain how Iraq and Afganistan are "new" breeding grounds and how they are worse than before the presence of a coalition force?

I'll try Iraq.

I know it's kind of complicated (and therefore not true, I'm sure) but the fundamentalists loons didn't like Saddam and he didn't like them. They were both on each others "to kill" list every morning. So it probably wasn't a breeding ground for terrorism in the popular way it's defined today.

It's hard to say if things are better or worse than before the invasion. Before the presence of coalition forces Iraqis had electricity and did not have thousands of fundamentalist crazies running around having a war with 150 thousand soldiers from a far off land. After the presence of the coalition forces, they have little electricity and they do have thousands of fundamentalist crazies running around having a war with 150 thousand soldiers from a far off land.

But while they don't have electricity and they do have a war, they don't have Saddam anymore. I guess you'd have to ask someone in Iraq if things are better or worse. You'd probably get lots of answers.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Just Iraq obviously. Now Saddam may have been doing some financing of terrorism but there was no terrorism going on in Iraq. Saddam would have shot them if they were lucky. Now it's wide open with death squads and suicide bombers seemingly everywhere. You don't need a link, just watch the 6 o'clock news. If they bother to report it anymore.

Just to add to that a little...

Saddam Hussein tried to supress religous fanaticism (the foundation of some terrorism). Part of Al Qaeda's goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and allow religous factions to engage in a civil war for contol of the country.

If anything, the U.S. invasion has helped that process. Iraq is less secular in some areas now, and Al Qaeda has a clear presence there now when before it didn't.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And what does that tell you? Let me guess? You buy into the Azure ideal that the REST OF THE WORLD is against America and that they are conspiring to make America look bad! News flash: The rest of the world is not out to get America, America is doing a good enough job at getting itself.



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/110904.shtml

Wow. Those actually show how desperate you are to find ANYTHING that will point to anything going well in Iraq. When you have to resort to sites like The Free Republic (run with the same money provided to The Heritage Foundation and The Hoover Institute) and NewsMax, you've really hit rock bottom. Both were part of the White House propaganda program and ran stories feed to them directly by the White House (relating to healthcare and education programs). Kind of makes their credibility a little lacking, don't you think?

I don't suppose you could find a credible media source that would echo those links' sentiment by chance? You know, that is the real test of media validity. If you can find multiple credible media sources you have a story. And by credible sources I mean enterprises that are legally correct in what they publish and have done the fact checking required to prevent being sued. But when you resort to sources that have no legal requirement to publish truth and don't bother to do any sort of fact checking, the stories are nothing more than spin and propaganda. Sadly, you picked two of the worst sites for promotion of propaganda for the White House and the Bush administration. Hey, I will give you credit, you stayed away from The Weekly Standard and FauxNews!

[/quote]

So that must mean you buy into all the doom and gloon CNN propaganda that will have you believe that NOTHING is going well in Iraq.

As i stated above, that the so called "credible" sources don't publish anything of this nature because it doesn't sell. It doesn't strike fear into the hearts of americans.

My search was vague. No doubt. All i'm trying to debate is that there are good things going on in iraq. Unfortunately, its difficutly to find stories from people that "you" want to hear from.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'll try Iraq.

I know it's kind of complicated (and therefore not true, I'm sure) but the fundamentalists loons didn't like Saddam and he didn't like them. They were both on each others "to kill" list every morning. So it probably wasn't a breeding ground for terrorism in the popular way it's defined today.

It's hard to say if things are better or worse than before the invasion. Before the presence of coalition forces Iraqis had electricity and did not have thousands of fundamentalist crazies running around having a war with 150 thousand soldiers from a far off land. After the presence of the coalition forces, they have little electricity and they do have thousands of fundamentalist crazies running around having a war with 150 thousand soldiers from a far off land.

But while they don't have electricity and they do have a war, they don't have Saddam anymore. I guess you'd have to ask someone in Iraq if things are better or worse. You'd probably get lots of answers.

I'm not debating wether its a breeding ground or not, that answer is obvious. I just don't think its more of a breeding ground than before. (training wise.. see post below.)

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Are you kidding me? Gee, there are going to be no hard feelings generated toward America when the people are without water and electricity for 22 hours a day. There's going to be no hard feelings when America's soldiers do all the same things Hussein's thugs did. There's going to be no hard feelings when the country is in worse shape than before Hussein was removed, and that people are killing each other for not saying prayer the same way. And there will be no hard feelings of the families and friends of the 40,000+ Iraqis that have been killed since the Americans invaded. Nope, no hard feelings there, no reason to hate America, and no reason to turn to radical actions when you have the GREAT Americans in your country and not following through on what they promised.

You make great points, too bad you lowered yourself to such a sarcastic tone.

Either way, i guess my point should have been more of "terrorist training facility etc". I don't think anyone can debate that a US soldier killing the father of a young boy will leave a lasting hatred for the US.

I debate that its harder to train and fund terrorist camps since the invasion. Thats all.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Jayems

I'm not debating wether its a breeding ground or not, that answer is obvious. I just don't think its more of a breeding ground than before.

Based on what, a gut feeling you have? Before Saddam, there was no connection between Al-Queda and Iraq - their goals were too far apart - Al-Queda wanted Sharia law imposed on all Islamic countries and Saddam was secular. Hell, Iraq wasn't even a breeding ground for WMD's, the original reason (forgotten nowadays, I may add) in the whole mess. Saddam might have been an evil man, but he didn't create a terrorist breeding ground. Keep in mind, as well, he was an evil man the neo-cons and Bushies supported in a big way back in the 80's during the Iran-Iraq war.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Just Iraq obviously. Now Saddam may have been doing some financing of terrorism but there was no terrorism going on in Iraq. Saddam would have shot them if they were lucky. Now it's wide open with death squads and suicide bombers seemingly everywhere. You don't need a link, just watch the 6 o'clock news. If they bother to report it anymore.

Gassing kurds isn't terrorism? Your right, thats ethnic clensing. Much better.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Gassing kurds isn't terrorism? Your right, thats ethnic clensing. Much better.

Or Genocide. And it's certainly not the "terrorism" aimed at the West that the Bushies drudge up. The terrorism from Iraq is the exported kind.
We all know Saddam was a bad man (who was a friend of the US when he gassed the Kurds, BTW) but that doesn't have anything to do with the terrorism that's being bred in Iraq today.