Life just gets worse in Iraq - Page 26 - 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 12-20-2006, 09:51 AM   #376
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Actually it was the fourth deadliest month, and still not at the level of April 2004. The only mis-information going on about statistics are those that don't aknowledge the statistics from other time periods, like 2004, when the US death rate was higher and the number of wounded significantly higher.


putting aside the whole fact that AMERICAN CASUALTIES ARE A POOR INDICATOR OF VIOLENCE IN IRAQ, why was April 2004 so deadly?

the siege of Fallujah.

nothing comparable happened in November of 2006.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-20-2006, 09:58 AM   #377
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Yep, which shows that the vast majority of people in Iraq don't experience what goes on in Baghdad.


are you kidding me? this must explain the 1.6 million Iraqi refugees who clearly don't experience what goes on in Baghdad.

you are every bit as disingenuous as Michael Moore. he was criticized, rightly, for presenting Iraq as a peaceful place where children flew kites prior to the invasion of 2003. McCain called him out on this at the Republican National convention. YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING. presenting non-Baghdad Iraq (which we still know is a lie, since over 50% of the nation deals with horrifying violence on a day-to-day level, and we haven't even touched on the growing Shiite theocracy in the south were women are put under veils and not allowed to drive and homosexuals are being murdered in the streets) as the peaceful Michael Moore fantasy underscores the fundamental circularity of the political spectrum, how you will distort and manipulate to make a desperate point, thus revealing the lack of argument being put forth.

just imagine if California, or the entire east coast from Boston to Washington DC were dealing with the level of violence we see in Baghdad. the country would be in chaos, we'd be seeing millions and millions of refugees and a country on the verge of total collapse.

it's also amazing how you're managing to disagree with both Bush -- that we're winning, when not even Bush says that -- as well as the Generals -- who say they don't want more boots on the ground, when you say that we do.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-20-2006, 10:01 AM   #378
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The only 100% accurate figure in regards to casualties in Iraq are the coalition casualties. This makes it far and away the best metric for gauging the level of violence in the country. The reports on civilian casualties do not have anywhere near the same level of accuracy, although its probably better now than it was in the first couple of years of the war.


this is such crap.

this might have some basis in reality if THE MAJORITY OF THE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ WAS AIMED AT AMERICAN TROOPS, but it isn't. it's like your insistence on "the insurgency" as the problem. it isn't.

the biggest source of violence in Iraq is Shiite vs. Sunni violence, which is sectarian strife, also known as a Civl War, and the inability of the Maliki government to deal with this problem (as well as pretty much anything else).

it is the Iraqi people who are bearing the brunt of the violence NOT American troops.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-20-2006, 10:50 AM   #379
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




putting aside the whole fact that AMERICAN CASUALTIES ARE A POOR INDICATOR OF VIOLENCE IN IRAQ, why was April 2004 so deadly?

the siege of Fallujah.

nothing comparable happened in November of 2006.
WRONG! Only a fraction of the casualties in April 2004 occured because of operations in Fallujah. The "siege" of Fallujah took place after April 2004 as US forces deployed to contain insurgent activity from spreading out from the city instead of going in to remove them. Then in November 2004, the US military forces moved into Fallujah to remove insurgents from the city. The operations inside Fallujah during that month cost the US military 50 dead, less than half of the total dead in Iraq for that month. The operation re-wrote the book on urban warfare according to Marines involved in the operation.

In any event, US forces were not conducting any less patrols or operations throughout Iraq in November 2006 than they were in April 2004. No matter how you want to compare the two things, US forces are suffering less casualties in 2006 than they did in 2004, the peak of the insurgency. The only accurate gauge for casualties in Iraq are US casualties making it the best indicator of the level of violence.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 10:59 AM   #380
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




are you kidding me? this must explain the 1.6 million Iraqi refugees who clearly don't experience what goes on in Baghdad.

you are every bit as disingenuous as Michael Moore. he was criticized, rightly, for presenting Iraq as a peaceful place where children flew kites prior to the invasion of 2003. McCain called him out on this at the Republican National convention. YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING. presenting non-Baghdad Iraq (which we still know is a lie, since over 50% of the nation deals with horrifying violence on a day-to-day level, and we haven't even touched on the growing Shiite theocracy in the south were women are put under veils and not allowed to drive and homosexuals are being murdered in the streets) as the peaceful Michael Moore fantasy underscores the fundamental circularity of the political spectrum, how you will distort and manipulate to make a desperate point, thus revealing the lack of argument being put forth.

just imagine if California, or the entire east coast from Boston to Washington DC were dealing with the level of violence we see in Baghdad. the country would be in chaos, we'd be seeing millions and millions of refugees and a country on the verge of total collapse.

it's also amazing how you're managing to disagree with both Bush -- that we're winning, when not even Bush says that -- as well as the Generals -- who say they don't want more boots on the ground, when you say that we do.

As General John Abazaid said in AUGUST, 90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq occurs within 90 miles of Baghdad. Thats a fact! In addition, the only 5 of Iraq's provinces have significant levels of violence, the other 13 do not. Another fact reported by the US military on the ground in Iraq. Polls in those 13 provinces show that the majority of people do not consider "security" to be their most important problem.

Those are facts, and there is NOTHING disingenuous or distorted about stating them. What is disingenuous, distorted and completely inaccurate, is to extrapolate what is going on in Baghdad and the 5 Sunni majority provinces as being the condition that all of Iraq is in. To hell with the facts and attempting to understand that there a huge differences in conditions between various provinces in Iraq. It is a fantasy to assume that conditions in the Kurdish north and the Shia south are as bad as they are in Baghdad.

The Generals disagree with the TYPE of troop increase Bush is contemplating and I also disagree with it as well. It is in fact not really a true troop increase because it only achieves a temporary increase in troop levels by manupulating the troop rotations. The Generals are saying that the United States needs to use the National Guard and Reserves more in order to help out the active duty compenents and I agree.

Whats amazing is how you continue to ignore basic facts about the differences in conditions on the ground in Iraq, as well as failing to understand my position on the issues.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 11:06 AM   #381
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




this is such crap.

this might have some basis in reality if THE MAJORITY OF THE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ WAS AIMED AT AMERICAN TROOPS, but it isn't. it's like your insistence on "the insurgency" as the problem. it isn't.

the biggest source of violence in Iraq is Shiite vs. Sunni violence, which is sectarian strife, also known as a Civl War, and the inability of the Maliki government to deal with this problem (as well as pretty much anything else).

it is the Iraqi people who are bearing the brunt of the violence NOT American troops.
This is not crap, its a fact. The only truely accurate gauge of casualties in Iraq are those for the coalition. There for, to get the best idea of the level of violence in the country, you have to refer to those numbers. It does not matter where one sees the majority of violence going, because the only accurate recording of casualties is for coalition troops. With civilian casualties, the numbers are all over the place, because there is no process to record and verify civilian deaths in the way it is done for the coalition military.

Recording of civilian casualties has improved this year, but that alone could explain the rise in civilian casualties from the year before. Again, the bombings and executions did not start in 2006, they have been happening since 2003.

Since day one, the only accurate figure for casualties in Iraq has been coalition casualties. Because of this, accurate comparisons can be made between any month or year. The same can not be done with civilian casualties.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 11:07 AM   #382
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98




Nobody is going to mention that, at least none of us anti-war people. We might mention that soldiers are continuing to die in November, be won't mention that there is a 40% decline.

You are saying as if there is a positive side to this. But there is NO positive side. Even if only 10 U.S. Soldiers die per month, it still doesn't make it worth it!

So therfore, regardless of the 40% decline, soldiers and civilians continue to DIE!

When will the radicals get that through their heads????
The only thing that is radical is suggesting that a falling death rate is not a good thing in any way.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 11:10 AM   #383
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
As General John Abazaid said in AUGUST, 90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq occurs within 90 miles of Baghdad. Thats a fact! In addition, the only 5 of Iraq's provinces have significant levels of violence, the other 13 do not. Another fact reported by the US military on the ground in Iraq. Polls in those 13 provinces show that the majority of people do not consider "security" to be their most important problem.



did you just ignore this:

[q]The Pentagon report, released on the same day Robert M. Gates was sworn-in to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, paints a bleak picture of a nation on the edge of chaos with 959 attacks a week attributed to militias, death squads and insurgents. According to the report, attacks increased 22 percent between August and November with more than half taking place in the major population centers of Baghdad and Anbar provinces. The high attack rate resulted in an average of 93 civilian deaths a day.[/q]

slightly more than half is taking place in Baghdad an Anbar provinces (and please note how big Anbar is). Abizaid is not correct, and we've pointed out repeatedly how the US military is not the best source of information on their own progress.

it's like asking Enron to report on how well their stock is doing.




[q]Those are facts, and there is NOTHING disingenuous or distorted about stating them. What is disingenuous, distorted and completely inaccurate, is to extrapolate what is going on in Baghdad and the 5 Sunni majority provinces as being the condition that all of Iraq is in. To hell with the facts and attempting to understand that there a huge differences in conditions between various provinces in Iraq. It is a fantasy to assume that conditions in the Kurdish north and the Shia south are as bad as they are in Baghdad.[/q]

it is TOTALLY disingenuous to pretend that 90% of Iraq -- which we've already debunked -- is a democratic fantasy land. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to say that a 40% decrease in American casulaties between October and November is somehow progress when October was the 4th highest month ever and November was a fairly typical month. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to continue to talk about "the insurgency" when the issue is the sectarian violence. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to only point to American casualties when the real issue are Iraqi victims of sectarian violence. it is TOTALLY disingenous to give the same weight to a small Shiite province as to Baghdad. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to equate Kurdistan and Baghdad. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to point to the Shia south as a model of democracy when it's slowly being turned into a theocracy where women can't drive, go to school, vote, or have their faces uncovered in public. it is TOTALLY disingenous to dismiss any Iraqi civilian casualties because you don't have an "accurate" number -- does it matter if it is 50,000 or 500,000? it's all grotesque. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to ignore the deliberate underreporting of the nearly 100 casualties a day. it is TOTALLY disingenuous not to understand the 1.6 MILLION iraqi refugees as a commentary that speaks louder than any poll about the lawlessness and violence in Iraqi society.



[q]The Generals are saying that the United States needs to use the National Guard and Reserves more in order to help out the active duty compenents and I agree.[/q]

and does this not totally change the mission of the national guard?

god forbid another hurrican hit New Orleans.



Quote:
Whats amazing is how you continue to ignore basic facts about the differences in conditions on the ground in Iraq, as well as failing to understand my position on the issues.
almost as amazing as your unwillingness to call a spade a spade and acknowledge that your occupation is a disaster, no matter how you try to obfuscate.

and your dismissal of the dead, Iraqi and American.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-20-2006, 11:13 AM   #384
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The only accurate gauge for casualties in Iraq are US casualties making it the best indicator of the level of violence.


this is positively delusional.

the sectarian violence is not aimed at US troops, it is aimed at ordinary iraqis.

the Shiite death squads who have infilatrated the Iraqi police aren't targeting US troops, they are targeting Sunnis.

i am baffled as to why this is impossible for you to grasp.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-20-2006, 11:15 AM   #385
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The only thing that is radical is suggesting that a falling death rate is not a good thing in any way.


not a "falling death rate," but a return to the normal death rate after a horrible spike in deaths in October.

again, your distortion and rosey presentation of "facts."
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-20-2006, 11:57 AM   #386
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



did you just ignore this:

[q]The Pentagon report, released on the same day Robert M. Gates was sworn-in to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, paints a bleak picture of a nation on the edge of chaos with 959 attacks a week attributed to militias, death squads and insurgents. According to the report, attacks increased 22 percent between August and November with more than half taking place in the major population centers of Baghdad and Anbar provinces. The high attack rate resulted in an average of 93 civilian deaths a day.[/q]

slightly more than half is taking place in Baghdad an Anbar provinces (and please note how big Anbar is). Abizaid is not correct, and we've pointed out repeatedly how the US military is not the best source of information on their own progress.

it's like asking Enron to report on how well their stock is doing.




[q]Those are facts, and there is NOTHING disingenuous or distorted about stating them. What is disingenuous, distorted and completely inaccurate, is to extrapolate what is going on in Baghdad and the 5 Sunni majority provinces as being the condition that all of Iraq is in. To hell with the facts and attempting to understand that there a huge differences in conditions between various provinces in Iraq. It is a fantasy to assume that conditions in the Kurdish north and the Shia south are as bad as they are in Baghdad.[/q]

it is TOTALLY disingenuous to pretend that 90% of Iraq -- which we've already debunked -- is a democratic fantasy land. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to say that a 40% decrease in American casulaties between October and November is somehow progress when October was the 4th highest month ever and November was a fairly typical month. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to continue to talk about "the insurgency" when the issue is the sectarian violence. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to only point to American casualties when the real issue are Iraqi victims of sectarian violence. it is TOTALLY disingenous to give the same weight to a small Shiite province as to Baghdad. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to equate Kurdistan and Baghdad. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to point to the Shia south as a model of democracy when it's slowly being turned into a theocracy where women can't drive, go to school, vote, or have their faces uncovered in public. it is TOTALLY disingenous to dismiss any Iraqi civilian casualties because you don't have an "accurate" number -- does it matter if it is 50,000 or 500,000? it's all grotesque. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to ignore the deliberate underreporting of the nearly 100 casualties a day. it is TOTALLY disingenuous not to understand the 1.6 MILLION iraqi refugees as a commentary that speaks louder than any poll about the lawlessness and violence in Iraqi society.



[q]The Generals are saying that the United States needs to use the National Guard and Reserves more in order to help out the active duty compenents and I agree.[/q]

and does this not totally change the mission of the national guard?

god forbid another hurrican hit New Orleans.





almost as amazing as your unwillingness to call a spade a spade and acknowledge that your occupation is a disaster, no matter how you try to obfuscate.

and your dismissal of the dead, Iraqi and American.
I did not ignore the report and it does not contradict ANYTHING that I said. The vast majority of violence in Iraq happens in the 5 Sunni majority provinces. The report goes into more detail saying that MORE THAN HALF THE VIOLENCE occurs in just two provinces. The report you site makes my point even more clear.

The US military is by far the best source of information, because they have access the largest amount of accurate information of any other group in the world. They are also deployed on the ground in Iraq in numbers and in area's that vastly exceed any other organization. Their job is one of service and has nothing to do with making a profit. You will get a far more intelligent and honest perspective from those serving than those attempting to report on things they often don't understand or have made little attempt to understand. Conflict after conflict, civilian journalist repeatedly make factual errors in their reporting on the military and the conflict.


I have never once said that 90% of Iraq is a democratic fantasy land. Now your distorting what I have said. The 90% figure refers to the sectarian violence in the country, which you say is the majority of the violence. 90% of it occurs within 30 miles of Baghdad.

You went to great lengths to use the month of October and its higher casualty total as an example of how the insurgency was rising and the US was losing. November's figure proves that was simply false.

The insurgency and the sectarian violence overlap each other. American casualties continue to be the best gauge of violence in the country because there are not yet any comparably accurate figures for civilians. Its TOTALLY disingenuous to be equating Baghdad with the rest of Iraq. Kurdistan is the same size as Baghdad. I've never said the Shia south was a model for democracy, but it is a much more stable area' relative to Baghdad where most people site lack of services as the most important problem, rather than security. Its disiingenous not to realize the inability to accurately compare various months on civilian casualties in Iraq, when the data is so inaccurate. More disingenous is to make grand statements based on such inaccurate data. Its also disingenous to ignore the fact that despite all this violence, Iraq still has annual population growth rate of nearly 3%. Historically, rising populations are not seen in war zones.

The National Guard combat Brigades are equipped the same way that Active Army Brigades are. They have M1 Tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Palliden Artillery systems, MLRS systems, light anti-tank weapons, small arms, scout and attack Helicopters etc. They train and are designed to perform the same missions that the Active Army Brigades engage in.


This is why the occupation is NOT a disaster as you claim:

1. two successful democratic elections in which the majority of the population participated.
2. the passing of a constitution
3. Iraq's first elected government coming into office.
4. Over 300,000 military and police forces in training.
5. compromises between the various ethnic groups of Iraq including Sunni acceptence of Maliki as the new leader of the government when Jafferi was seen as unacceptable.
6. Iraqi military units that have performed very well in combat in various operations in Anbar province with little or no support from the US military.
7. The continued professionalism of the Iraqi military and non-sectarianism compared with police forces which have sometimes been caught in engaging in sectarian violence. The problems in the police forces are not seen anywhere near to that degree in the military.
8. Substantial GDP growth across the country.
9. Relative calm and peace in 13 of the 18 provinces of Iraq.
10. Polls in those provinces showing that "security" is not a top concern for the people that live there.
11. The distribution of humanitarian aid, electricity, and other services to many parts of Iraq that had often been denied such items for decades.
12. The standard of living of the average Iraqi in Shia and Kurdish area's of Iraq has improved since the removal of Saddam. Iraq, despite all the violence, still has a standard of living much higher than countries without any such violence, which is unusual historically.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 12:01 PM   #387
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




this is positively delusional.

the sectarian violence is not aimed at US troops, it is aimed at ordinary iraqis.

the Shiite death squads who have infilatrated the Iraqi police aren't targeting US troops, they are targeting Sunnis.

i am baffled as to why this is impossible for you to grasp.
Thats NOT the point! The casualties they inflict are not accurately recorded in the way that it is for the coalition which is 100% accurate. You can't use civilian casualties as a gauge and make month to month comparisons because its simply not accurate. You can make 100% precise comparisons with coalition casaulties. I am baffled why you can't grasp this! US forces are engaging in stopping the sectarian violence and have had increased casualties because of these operations, so the two are related.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 12:03 PM   #388
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




not a "falling death rate," but a return to the normal death rate after a horrible spike in deaths in October.

again, your distortion and rosey presentation of "facts."
Your position in October was that this was a clear sign that things were getting worse. The November figures totally rebut that contention and continue to show that the insurgency has been unable to grow in any significant way since 2004.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 12:53 PM   #389
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Thats NOT the point! The casualties they inflict are not accurately recorded in the way that it is for the coalition which is 100% accurate. You can't use civilian casualties as a gauge and make month to month comparisons because its simply not accurate. You can make 100% precise comparisons with coalition casaulties. I am baffled why you can't grasp this! US forces are engaging in stopping the sectarian violence and have had increased casualties because of these operations, so the two are related.


if you want to understand the level of violence in Iraq you need to understand what the targets of the violence are -- they are NOT americans, they are everyday iraqis. simply because one number is more verifiable than the other doesn't mean that the verifiable number is an accurate metric to use when gauging the overall level of violence in the country. tell me, what pecentage of the nearly 100 attacks a day are aimed at US troops? or do we discard the 100 attacks a day and only record and use the attacks that specifically happen against American troops? do we only count my dead friend, and not the 2 dozen iraqis who wash ashore with holes drilled in the back of their heads?

in 2004 the insurgency was targeting American troops, not so in 2006, where "the insurgency" has taken a backseat to the sectarian violence. and yet we still see figures of American deaths in 2006 that are comparable to 2004 despite the fact that American troops are no longer the primary targets of violence in Iraq!
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-20-2006, 01:04 PM   #390
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Your position in October was that this was a clear sign that things were getting worse. The November figures totally rebut that contention and continue to show that the insurgency has been unable to grow in any significant way since 2004.


continue to worry about "the insurgency."

the rest of us will deal with the sectarian violence.

my position in October was that violence against US troops was increasing. which was certainly the case. the decline in November does not "totally rebut that contention" -- it means that October was deadlier than November, and it also means that you can't hide behind your smokescreen of decontextualized percentage comparisons (something the military does very, very well, and often) that violence is decreasing overall. it is not, despite the fact that Americans are less and less and less the direct targets of the violence like they were in 2004.

look at overall instances of violence in Iraq in 2006 -- about 100 a day. over 3,000 Iraqis killed, on average, a month.

what were those numbers in 2004?

as for Baghdad, it is far more important to Iraq than any comparable city in the US. 20% of Iraqis live there. 20%!!! and the city is in total chaos. and what's worse is that the provinces of Diyala and Salahuddin and Anbar all have higher death rates.

of course the Shiite provinces see less violence -- because the violence in Iraq is SECTARIAN!!! there are no Sunnis to kill there! they've already been killed, or have fled. hence, this is a CIVIL WAR! you have an ineffectual central government and one ethnic group attempting to seize power while eliminating another rival ethnic group. the places consumed in an orgy of violence are the places where Shiites and Sunnis live together.

but, hey, if you want all of Iraq to be just like those peaceful Shia provinces, then start funding the Shia like Dick Cheney wants; then all the Sunnis will be cleansed and then the violence will stop and i'm sure you'll tout that as another accomplishement.

but that will be hard, seeing as how the Saudis are going to start funding the Sunnis, as they've publically stated.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

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 06:25 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