Bush Starts "Second Surge" to Double Number of Troops in Iraq - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-14-2007, 09:39 PM   #166
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Bush is serving. The way he did in Vietnam.
The way most of the hawks in the administration did.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-14-2007, 10:10 PM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 11:43 PM
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 06-14-2007, 10:27 PM   #168
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


The best way is the way that won't get your ass shot off. That way you can still talk about how great the war is.
That's incorrect.

Ma'am, I have never and will never refer to any war as "great." I don't think this war is "great." I realize that this war is important, and the consequences of us leaving vastly outnumber and are far worse than the consequences of us staying and fighting. Please do not say that I call the war "great" because that is simply false and that implies that I take pleasure in hearing about soldiers dying and families grieving, which I most certainly do not.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 06-14-2007, 10:37 PM   #169
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


That's incorrect.

Ma'am, I have never and will never refer to any war as "great." I don't think this war is "great." I realize that this war is important, and the consequences of us leaving vastly outnumber and are far worse than the consequences of us staying and fighting. Please do not say that I call the war "great" because that is simply false and that implies that I take pleasure in hearing about soldiers dying and families grieving, which I most certainly do not.
Ok. I can respect this answer.




But it's difficult to fathom your support for a war you refuse to fight.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-17-2007, 01:42 AM   #170
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

the consequences of us leaving vastly outnumber and are far worse than the consequences of us staying and fighting.
So, we can give these people something they don't want, as long as we stay and convince them? Tragically absurd.

The fallacy is that we will need to provide a security up until a certain point and this security WILL NEVER FUCKING ARRIVE.
It's just not going to happen.

We stay there because there are 'folks's who don't want to appear to lose another war. They'd never be re-elected. They can't admit a mistake, these stooges stood by the policy because they were fearful of being called unapatriotic, worst of the worst.

It's all about power, and the struggle for it, blah blah.
The 2004 elections sealed it. We endorsed this goddamned policy because of fear mongering assholes and the stooges who followed. Yes, if you voted for GWB outside of social issues, I'm talking about you. Be offended.

We had a fucking MILLION soldiers occupying in post WW2 Germany, well over that overall, I think a million in Japan, these numbers are ballpark, closeto 2 milliion overalland it took EIGHT YEARS.

Less than 150K in Iraq postwar.
Yeah, you can blame Rumsfeld, of course, but who signed off on it? Who never second guessed a god damned thing that his daddy's friends said? The worst President in the history of this country.


Who can we turn to? The fucking morons on the left?
Fucking pussies, for lack of a better term, they stand for nothing.
we all know Gore and Kerry were smarter than Bush by the size of the galaxy but when we look at our congress, what are these fucks doing?

They didn't end the war.
They don't support the war.
They have no ideas.
They are waiting for the next poll to come out.
Fucking useless. No wonder America is stuck with it's worst President, there is really nobody else to believe in.

I like Joe Biden. He has zero chance.
What can we do? Cut our losses, hope for outside help. repair bridges burned and hope for HIllary. She's inevitable anyway.
Haha. really. I couldn't tell you how many Republicans I knew in 99 who thought Bush was a joke. In largest part, people vote on what they feel, not what they think.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 06-17-2007, 10:06 AM   #171
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 07:13 PM
When this whole war thing started, there were people (like me) who pointed out that we didn't win Vietnam, and it took 15 years and an entire generation shot to hell to finally conclude that mess. But the idiots in Washington, who never fought in Vietnam (or any other war for that matter) and those idiots' supporters, who also never fought, or were too young to remember, said it would be fine, we'll win, just you watch. This is different, they said. Some still say that and cite statistics to prove their point. They're here, intact, still mostly too young to remember. And too whatever to go fight the war they support.

It makes me fucking sick.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-21-2007, 09:44 AM   #172
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 10:13 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military on Thursday reported the deaths of 14 U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq over the past 48 hours.

The deadliest attack happened Thursday when a roadside bomb struck a military vehicle in northeastern Baghdad, killing five U.S. soldiers, three Iraqi civilians and an Iraqi interpreter. A U.S. soldier and two civilians were also wounded in the bombing.

A rocket-propelled grenade struck a U.S. military vehicle on Thursday, killing one soldier and wounding three others in northern Baghdad

On Wednesday, a roadside bomb killed two U.S. Task Force Marne troops and wounded four others southwest of Baghdad.

A similar attack in western Baghdad on Wednesday killed four U.S. soldiers and wounding a fifth.

In addition, two Marines were killed in combat operations in Iraq's Anbar province on Wednesday.

With the deaths, 3,545 U.S. military personnel, including seven civilian employees of the Defense Department, have died in the Iraq war -- 68 of them in the month of June.


In northern Iraq on Thursday, a suicide bomber rammed his explosives-laden truck into a government building, killing at least 16 people, police said.

At least 75 people were wounded by the blast at the building, which houses the police headquarters and mayor's office for the city of Sulieman Pek, 50 miles (80 kilometers) south of Kirkuk.

In Baquba, north of Baghdad, a U.S. airstrike intended to blow up a house where insurgents had placed a bomb instead accidentally hit another building and wounded 11 Iraqi civilians, according to a U.S. military statement.

Soldiers from the U.S. Army's 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division discovered a suspected al Qaeda explosive device at a house in the town, the military said.

A bomb that the soldiers requested be air-dropped onto the booby-trapped house "missed its intended target and struck another structure, away from the targeted house," the military said.

After emergency medical services were given to the civilians wounded by the errant bomb, a Hellfire missile was successfully launched into the targeted house "producing a large secondary explosion confirming the house as containing a large amount of explosives," the military said. The military said the accident was being investigated.

Also Thursday, at least four mortar rounds landed inside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone which houses the U.S. Embassy, an Iraqi interior Ministry official said. A column of black smoke was seen rising from the Green Zone.

On Wednesday, three Iraqi police officers were killed and 10 people wounded when a suicide car bomb exploded at an Iraqi police checkpoint in Ramadi about 65 miles west of Baghdad Wednesday afternoon, an Iraqi interior Ministry official said.

The incident came as several Sunni mosques were attacked in what police believe are reprisals for a massive truck bombing that damaged a Shiite mosque and killed 87 people a day earlier, authorities said.

The mosques, all located in Babil province -- parts of which comprise the violence-wracked Triangle of Death -- were attacked Tuesday night, hours after the bombing outside Khalani Mosque, police in Hilla said.

Militia members attacked two mosques in Iskandariya and another near Mahawil, police said.

Authorities said they believe the attacks were perpetrated by Shiites angered by the bombing at Khalani Square, which damaged the nearby mosque of the same name Tuesday afternoon. At least 214 people were injured in the blast, according to the Interior Ministry.

The apparent reprisal attacks, all of which came within about 75 minutes of each other, began when gunmen stormed Osama bin Zaid, a mosque in Iskandariya, and set off bombs about 9:45 p.m.

Fifteen minutes later, a bomb exploded inside Abdulla al-Jabouri, another Iskandariya mosque that was attacked as recently as last week. The bomb caused minor damage, police said.

About an hour later, in Ajbala, near Mahawil, militia members bombed the Asfouk Mosque and the house next door, which belonged to a local imam, police said.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-21-2007, 06:09 PM   #173
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:13 PM
This could be a positive development.



Quote:
Iraqi politicians agree deal on sharing oil, says Kurd minister

Michael Howard in Sulaymaniya
Thursday June 21, 2007

Guardian
Iraq's Kurdish leaders said last night they had struck an important deal with the central government in Baghdad over a law to divide up Iraq's oil revenues, which is seen by the Bush administration as one of the benchmarks in attempts to foster national reconciliation.

Ashti Hawrami, the minister for natural resources in the Kurdistan regional government, told the Guardian the text had been finalised late last night after 48 hours of "tough bargaining" with Baghdad. The deal represented "a genuine revenue sharing agreement" that was transparent and would benefit all the people of Iraq and help pull the country together, he said.

Iraq's oil revenue accounted for 93% of the federal budget last year. Iraq sells about 1.6m barrels a day.

Mr Hawrami said the law provided for the setting up of two "regulated and monitored" accounts into which external and internal revenues would be deposited. The external account would include items such as oil export earnings and foreign donor money, while the internal fund would consist largely of customs and taxes. The federal government in Baghdad would take what it needed, and the rest would be automatically distributed to the Kurdistan regional government, which would get 17%, and to Iraq's governorates "according to their entitlement". Revenues would be distributed monthly, he said.

Mr Hawrami said the system would better enable Iraqis to track how and where the oil funds were being spent. The Kurds, for example, have complained that remittances to their self-rule region have been being held back by up to six months in Baghdad. Iraq's Sunni Arabs had also expressed concerns that they might miss out on their share.

Iraq's finance minister, Bayan Jabr, and the oil minister, Hussein Sharistani, were accompanying the president, Jalal Talabani, on a state a visit to China and could not be contacted for comment.

The new deal came days after a visit to Iraq by the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, during which he rebuked politicians for failing to reach consensus on sharing oil revenues. The US sees the deal as a benchmark of progress toward reconciliation.

A western diplomat in Baghdad said last night: "Fair-sharing of Iraq's oil revenue is important to finding a sustainable political solution in Iraq. But on its own it will not halt the sectarianism."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-21-2007, 06:21 PM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:13 PM
You know what I hope? I actually hope that all of us anti-Iraq War folks are wrong. I really do.

Unfortunately, I fear we are not.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-21-2007, 06:41 PM   #175
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
You know what I hope? I actually hope that all of us anti-Iraq War folks are wrong.


being anti Iraq War will never be wrong

even if in 15 - 25 years Iraq is a country in reasonable shape and not split up.

Would one say that WWII was not wrong from a Jewish perspective

because the country of Israel would not have come into being without the European and American guilt for tolerating the Holocaust


I hope for the best outcome in Iraq

I have never supported that preemptive war

I never believed the threat was real or proved


and there is not a good enough result

that justifies a series of several wrong actions that have had terrible consequences for millions of people.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-21-2007, 06:52 PM   #176
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep




being anti Iraq War will never be wrong

even if in 15 - 25 years Iraq is a country in reasonable shape and not split up.

To say WWII was not wrong from a Jewish perspective

because the country of Israel would not have come into being without the European and American guilt for tolerating the Holocaust


I hope for the best outcome in Iraq

I have never supported that preemptive war

I never believed the threat was real or proved


and there is not a good enough result

that justifies a series of several wrong actions that have had terrible consequences for millions of people.
When I say wrong, what I mean is if everything the pro-war crowd predicts happens in the next say 2-5 years, I think we'd all agree that was a good thing. 15-25 years. . .that's too distant to argue that the actions taken by this administration were "worth it" especially since it could be argued that a similar outcome could have been achieved (and perhaps in shorter time) without the preemptive, sorely mishandled war. And besides no pro-war person that I've heard has had the guts to admitt to 15-25 years needed to fix what's wrong in Iraq. Certainly none of the politicians.

It wouldn't have to change our views about whether we should have gotten in the war to begin with. Like you I never supprted the war or believed the threat.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-21-2007, 07:13 PM   #177
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Look at all the Eastern European Communist countries that freed themselves in the late 80s and early 90s.

For the most part, people free themselves

Self -government,
has an illegitimate birth if the mid-wife is a global power with a lot of it's own self interest and is viewed as an occupier, think Soviets going into Europe after WWII and setting up governments to their liking.


Whatever happens in Iraq has been way too costly.

Saddam was pretty far down the list as worst dictators out there.

And N K, Pakistan and Iran were and are much more serious Nuke threats than Saddam ever was.


Muslim / Arab countries are not Petri dishes for the Bush Administration Neocons to experiment with.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-21-2007, 08:24 PM   #178
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Would one say that WWII was not wrong from a Jewish perspective

because the country of Israel would not have come into being without the European and American guilt for tolerating the Holocaust
Am I just not reading you correctly today, or what?

You do realize that the majority of world Jewry didn't give a damn about Zionism prior to the Holocaust, right? And that those 'guilt-ridden' Allies were willing to try just about anything to avoid having to take in a flood of Jewish refugees themselves, e.g. the total farce that was the Bermuda Conference?

There aren't too many Jews who would expect that to seem like a 'justification' of anything from an Arab perspective...why would it; the Holocaust was certainly not their fault. But for the more than a quarter of a million Jews who remained stranded in the Displaced Persons camps for years after the War's end (whose descendants, together with those of the the 850,000 Sephardim and Mizrahim who fled to Israel from Arab countries during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, constitute the majority of Israel's Jewish population today), it's hardly as if the Allies were rolling out the red carpet to take them in themselves. My parents were lucky--they were finally able to emigrate here in 1950 under the Displaced Persons Act, which to Truman's disgust Congress made sure to pad with qualifications that ensured that well less than a fifth of the resulting immigrants would be Jews. But nonetheless, that was still far, far more than any other Allied country did to cope with the Jewish refugee crisis themselves.

Again, no one in their right mind expects it to justify much of anything from an Arab perspective, but the bullshit narrative--and it certainly exists, I hear it from some of my colleagues all the time--of greedy Jewish strongmen capitalizing on genocide by bullying those poor, philosemitic, guilt-ridden Allies (they meant well, but geez, what a historic blunder!) into carrying out promises long since made by imperial Britain--themselves motivated by a combined desire to keep Russian Jews fleeing pogroms out of London, while meanwhile getting a party beholden to them in place in the 'strategically important' Middle East--is really grotesque. Fuck that. The Allies had other alternatives if they really felt 'guilty' enough to pursue them, and the Jews were certainly not in a position to call those shots for them.

I'm most definitely not 'proud' of how much of the subsequent history of Israel has unfolded, not that I have much personal stake in it to speak of. But Jews, regardless of their stance on that, wouldn't look at the creation of modern Israel and think, "Well...at least they had the survivors' best interests in mind all along!" anyhow, and so your analogy does not work. Of course having a state doesn't 'redeem' genocide (nor justify resulting oppression), I get that part, but the notion that that consequence fortuitously came about through "guilt" is disingenuous at best. That's just a nice story we tell ourselves because it sounds reassuringly well-intentioned, unfortunately the real array of motivations was a lot more selfish than that.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming, with apologies for the interruption...

I do agree with you concerning Iraq.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-26-2007, 09:38 AM   #179
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 10:13 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican and a reliable vote for President Bush on the war, said Monday that Bush's Iraq strategy was not working and that the United States should downsize the military's role.

The unusually blunt assessment deals a political blow to Bush, who has relied heavily on GOP support to stave off anti-war legislation.

It also comes as a surprise. Most Republicans have said they were willing to wait until September to see if Bush's recently ordered troop buildup in Iraq was working.

"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."

Only a few Republicans have broken ranks and called for a change in course or embraced Democratic proposals ordering troops home by a certain date. As the top Republican and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lugar's critique could provide political cover for more Republicans wanting to challenge Bush on the war.

Lugar's spokesman Andy Fisher said the senator wanted to express his concerns publicly before Bush reviews his Iraq strategy in September.

"They've known his position on this for quite a while," Fisher said of the White House.


However, Fisher said the speech does not mean Lugar would switch his vote on the war or embrace Democratic measures setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.

In January, Lugar voted against a resolution opposing the troop buildup, contending that the nonbinding measure would have no practical effect. In spring, he voted against a Democratic bill that would have triggered troop withdrawals by Oct. 1 with the goal of completing the pull out in six months.

Next month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to force votes on several anti-war proposals as amendments to a 2008 defense policy bill. Members will decide whether to cut off money for combat, demand troop withdrawals start in four months, restrict the length of combat tours and rescind Congress' 2002 authorization of Iraqi invasion.

Expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass controversial legislation, the proposals are intended to increase pressure on Bush and play up to voters frustrated with the war.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-26-2007, 03:27 PM   #180
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Surge will be judged by the number of al-Qaeda body count??

Get those nunbers up.



Quote:
Al-Qaeda gunmen' killed in Iraq
US troops operating in Baquba

Last Updated: Friday, 22 June 2007

US helicopters have killed 17 gunmen with suspected al-Qaeda links in Iraq's Diyala province north of Baghdad, the US military says.


Quote:
Village disputes story of deadly attack


Last Updated: Tuesday, 26 June 2007,

A group of villagers in Iraq is bitterly disputing the US account of a deadly air attack on 22 June, in the latest example of the confusion surrounding the reporting of combat incidents there. The BBC's Jim Muir investigates:

On 22 June the US military announced that its attack helicopters, armed with missiles, engaged and killed 17 al-Qaeda gunmen who had been trying to infiltrate the village of al-Khalis, north of Baquba, where operation "Arrowhead Ripper" had been under way for the previous three days.

The item was duly carried by international news agencies and received widespread coverage, including on the BBC News website.

But villagers in largely-Shia al-Khalis say that those who died had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. They say they were local village guards trying to protect the township from exactly the kind of attack by insurgents the US military says it foiled.


THE VICTIMS
Jassem Khalil, the Mukhtar of Hayy al-Junoud
Abbas Khalil, his brother
Ali Khalil, his other brother
Kamal Hadi, their cousin
Shaker Adnan
Abdul Wahhab Ibrahim
Mohammad al-Zubaie
Abbas Muzhir Fadhel
Jamal Hussein Alwan
Abdul Hussein Abdullah
Ali Jawad Kadhem

They were surprised when a convoy of Iraqi police suddenly turned up, headed by the commander of the Khalis emergency squad, Col Hussein Kadhim.

The police told them they were about to raid a suspect house in nearby al-Akrad Street and asked for the village mukhtar (headman) to accompany them.

The Mukhtar of Hayy al-Junoud, Jassem Khalil, and his brothers Abbas and Ali, went with the police. Some of the other guards, about half altogether, also offered to go along.

The raid turned out to be a false alarm - there was nothing suspicious at the house in question.

But as the police and guards began to return, the police received an urgent radio message from the Joint Operations Centre saying that US helicopters were about to raid the area.

The police disappeared immediately. But before the guards could even get to their own car, they were hit by a rocket strike by American helicopters which suddenly appeared overhead.

So too were the remainder of the guards, still at their base in the unfinished building nearby.

The rocket attacks were followed by a prolonged period of strafing by heavy machinegun fire from the helicopters.

"It was like a battlefront, but with the fire going only in one direction," said a local witness. "There was no return fire"
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com