Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating - Page 5 - 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 11-07-2006, 01:21 AM   #61
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




good point.

after all, one of Iraq's biggest selling points was that it was supposed to be easy.

how else can you explain the total lack of any post-war plans? now they compare it to Germany/Japan in 1945 when there wasn't any WW2 to preceed this particular occupation.

it'd be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
You're an intelligent and well informed guy, obviously. So you know that what you have just said is a total and complete lie. Disagree with the decisions beind the action that you dislike. But don't lie to try and win an argument about Iraq. You come off disengenous; you sound like you couldn't give a shit either way about Iraq itself, you just want to beat Bush over the head with it because he opposes your ideology.

By lying, it sounds more like glee than anger or sadness. And given the amount of people who died, glee doesn't have a place here.
__________________

__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 01:35 AM   #62
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

please, let us know your wonderful plan for fixing the country you've smashed into a million sectarian pieces. i want to know, step by step, how you're going to fix this.
Yeah, what a milk and honey paradise that was. Maybe to fix all of these smashed pieces we could ask a Kurd. If you can find one. Or how about some of the shiites that Saddam's gonna get his neck stretched for gassing?

Maybe a couple olympic players that were tortured by Saddam's sons for loosing in the olympics.

How about a husband who watched his wife raped because he politically opposed Saddam. Maybe he's got some reconstruction ideas.

Maybe some who died when Kuwait was invaded. You could ask them.

Or some Iranians.

Or some of the people in Israel who were killed or whose homes and businesses were smashed by Scuds for no reason other than Saddam's desire to start a general war in the middle east when he was getting his ass kicked the first time.

Yeah, that poor smashed country.

Like I've said before.. If you're so concerned about it over there; if the people of Germany, and Russia, and France, and Canada and the cowardly lion Spain are so concerned. Load up the ships, folks and help out and save these innocent Iraqis from the insurgents and the stupid Americans. Huh? Wha? Where are you?
__________________

__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 02:11 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




all of these questions have been answered, repeatedly.

1. yes.
2. are such things necessary requirements to make the point that Resolution 1441 did not give the US permission to unilaterally invade? no.
3. are you comparing the invasion of Kuwait to the US invasion of Iraq? are you holding the two countries to similar standards? are you you drawing a bullshit equivocation? are all UN actions to be measured against all other UN actions? does the UN respond in precisely the same manner to each and every single action it disagrees with as a body? or might the UN reacte in different ways to different situations?
4. again (!!!) (oh, your silly exclamation points!!) what else was the UN to do with an invasion that had taken place by the most powerful nation in the world? it makes the point -- the invasion was illegal because the UN had to retroactively make it legal, not because it was legal in the first place, but because it was illegal! (!!!) it was determined that working with the US to help it manage a successful occupation was the best thing for the Iraqi people. terrible that you twist it into justification for an occupation that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.

i wonder if you've had an original post in here in 3 years.

please, let us know your wonderful plan for fixing the country you've smashed into a million sectarian pieces. i want to know, step by step, how you're going to fix this.

3. I'm demonstrating in the easiest way one can, to show how the UN reacts to something that is illegal. If the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal, where is the resolution condemning the invasion or at least the attempt at one?

4. Resolution 1483 authorized the occupation. The UN body would NEVER authorize an occupation it thought was illegal. Do you really think the United Nations would authorize the US occupation of Canada if tomorrow the United States invaded and overran Canada? The fact that the United States is the most powerful nation in the world has nothing to do with it. The United Nations passes resolution after resolution against Israel despite the fact its the most powerful nation in the Middle East. Really, this theory of yours is absurd.

I'm not sure you know what an original post or thought is.

Please let us know just how wonderful the world would be right now with Saddam in power. I'm soo sorry the Iraq you prefer is gone forever. Yes, Saddam was great for the Persian Gulf. Hell, 8 years of war with Iran, millions dead and wounded, then an invasion of Kuwait causing the largest deployment of US troops since World War II, yep, keep in power, brilliant idea.

The plan is already in place and there have been signifcant accomplishments for which you will never aknowledge for some bizarre reason. But, because accomplishing such a task is not the same as ordering fast food or calling someone on your cell phone you think its a failure. Well, do some research in to how long nation building and counter insurgency takes and then you might have a better perspective on the progress and time it will take to succeed in Iraq.

The two most important pieces of the process are putting a government in place and building the security forces. But these things take time to achieve. It means having to start over from scratch in some area's of the country, while other area's are more successful. Continuing to win over Sunni support and participation in the government is key. Disbanding Iraqi military units that fail to leave their home area's and weeding out other dysfunctional elements of the Iraqi military is important and will be a process that will take many years. Its going to require at least 4 and a half more years before the Iraqi military will be capable of fighting on its own without the aid of the coalition. But the combination of strengthing the Iraqi security forces, the government and getting Sunni insurgents to stop fighting through negotiations will eventually reduce violence, and allow for economic growth to happen will which will further dappen support for terrorism/insurgency.


Over 90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq takes place within Baghdad or 30 miles from it. The vast majority of the country is free of any form of sectarian violence. Once, again, this is not Bosnia or Rawanda by any stretch of the imagination.


Whats your plan for Iraq? Well, you've actually admitted that you don't have one, not unlike the Democrats running for election tomorrow, except they don't admit it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 02:28 AM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




how you twist words! that's absurd.

the US is losing the occupation because it is unable to provide stability (and, you know, electricity) to Iraq. without safety and a basic level of civil society, an occupation is a failure. your Iraqi government cannot govern, your Iraqi army (and police force) have been overrun by Shiite militias who carry out reprisal killings and mass executions of Sunnis. there is no stability, there is no civil society, Iraq is a FAILED STATE. you've lost the occupation.

if the insurgency has not grown since April 2004, why are over three thousand Iraqis dying a MONTH over the summer of 2006? why was October 2006 the fourth (or was it third?) highest month for US casualties since the occupation began?

we are not at war. we are Israel in Lebanon, circa 1982.
It takes TIME, to provide all the things that you say the occupation should somehow be able to provide faster than you can get served at BK.

The Iraqi military and police force have not been overrun. That would mean that over 300,000 trained personal have been killed or captured by insurgents. What has happened is that certain area's of Iraq have briefly been overrun by insurgents only to be retaken by US forces or Iraqi forces.

If there is no stability in Iraq, why is over 90% of the fighting in only 5 of the countries 18 provinces? If Iraq is in a "Civil War", why is 90% of the sectarian violence happening within 30 miles of Baghdad?

The insurgents have been unable to equal the damage they did in April 2004. If the insurgency was larger now, why are US casaulties not any higher than in April 2004? Why have US casualty levels dropped to as low as 30 killed per month in early 2006? A successful and growing insurgency would not have such a wide disparity in its ability to inflict losses on foreign occupation forces and would not have its highest level of casualties inflicted on foreign forces be a month that is now almost 3 years in the past.

Civilian death information whether its for 2004 or 2006 is hard to come by. What is known is the deaths of US and coalition troops which is the primary target of the Sunni insurgency. In terms of wounded, your prefered statistic, 2004 is well ahead of any of the years since then. This would not be the case with a rising insurgency.

I know it would please many if Iraq became a failed state, and the nation building and counter insurgency efforts failed, but that won't happen as long as the coalition does not withdraw prematurely.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 02:39 AM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



and over the past 30 years only ONE american president thought that Saddam was so exceptional and dangerous that it was worth a wholesale invasion and occupation. Bush 1 refused to go to Baghdad when he had a perfect opportunity to oust Hussein when he was far more of thread in 1991 but didn't for precisely the reasons that are apparent today: long standing sectarian tensions that could only be contained by a brutal strongman.

the occupation and radicalization of a generation of Muslim youth (as evidenced by this year's NIE) has not been worth the unilateral enforcement by the united states of UN resolutions that it has no business enforcing all by its self.
The UN Security Council authorized the war in Iraq. The coalition invasion of Iraq was not a unilateral invasion by the United States, which should be obvious to anyone who understands the words unilateral and coalition.

When Bush Sr. removed Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991 despite the mass opposition of DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS in the USA, it was felt that the US security needs could be accomplished without removing Saddam provided that he agreed and complied with a number of demands in the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. In the long run, no one in 1991 believed that Saddam would still be in power by 1996 after the blow he received in the 1991 Gulf War. In addition, despite the thawing of the Cold War, Soviet troop withdrawals from Europe had not been completed, it was consider to be very risky to maintain such a large deployment in the Persian Gulf given the risk of a reversal of the situation in the Soviet Union, which nearly happened in August 1991 with the coup attempt against Gorbachev.

Regime change became a necessity when Saddam gave up complying with the demands of the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire, and sanctions and the weapons embargo, both necessary components of containment, completey fell apart, with NO sanctions or embargo along the entire Iraq/Syrian border by the summer of 2000.

No one wants to invade and occupy a country if they don't have to, and in March 1991 given the circumstances at the time, it was felt that this was the best option. Unfortunately, events over the next 12 years showed that regime change was the only option that would work.

Regime change is the only action that effectively brought about the enforcement of multiple UN resolutions necessary for the security of the region and the world.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 02:43 AM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Funny how we get this "nation building takes time, stupid" argument when absolutely no one in the pre-invasion Bush Administration thought (or at least publically admitted) it was going to take more than a few months to complete. Oh sure, after they realized they based their entire operation on completely unrealistic and dangerously foolish expectations, they have no problem falling back on the "well, nation building takes a lot of time" argument. How convenient.
They were constantly asked this during the first week of the invasion and they never gave a time table, because such a task is too difficult to precisely predict. President Bush is not on record anywhere saying that all US troops could be withdrawn by a certain date or that it would only take a few months.

However, Bill Clinton is on record saying that US troops would only need to be in Bosnia for one year. As of November 2006, the United States still has troops in Bosnia.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 02:47 AM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




good point.

after all, one of Iraq's biggest selling points was that it was supposed to be easy.

how else can you explain the total lack of any post-war plans? now they compare it to Germany/Japan in 1945 when there wasn't any WW2 to preceed this particular occupation.

it'd be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
The Pentagon and State Department had multiple plans for the invasion and occupation of Iraq years before Bush even decided he would run for President. The idea that there were no plans is absurd. The administration made several bad choices in 2003, but the idea that there was no plan is simply in correct. The military and State Department had been planning for the whole thing for over a decade. The problem is, many of their ideas and planning were shelved.

Find us all the qoute where Bush said war in Iraq would be "easy".
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 06:03 AM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:46 AM
[Q]When Bush Sr. removed Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991 despite the mass opposition of DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS in the USA, it was felt that the US security needs could be accomplished without removing Saddam provided that he agreed and complied with a number of demands in the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. [/Q]

Shall I post the quote by GHW Bush in which he says it would have been wrong to send the troops into Bagdhad because American soldiers would have died in an illegal war.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 06:08 AM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Of the original grand coalition who is left helping us in Iraq, and at what troop levels.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 07:46 AM   #70
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


You're an intelligent and well informed guy, obviously. So you know that what you have just said is a total and complete lie. Disagree with the decisions beind the action that you dislike. But don't lie to try and win an argument about Iraq. You come off disengenous; you sound like you couldn't give a shit either way about Iraq itself, you just want to beat Bush over the head with it because he opposes your ideology.

By lying, it sounds more like glee than anger or sadness. And given the amount of people who died, glee doesn't have a place here.

no. you go back and listen to every single Cheney appearance on Meet the Press in 2002/3. go look at some of Richard Pearl's interviews. Wolfowitz too. it was all made very clear: we'd be greeted like liberators and the oil would pay for all of it. the rationale for the war has shifted dramatically. it was first that Saddam would put WMDs in the hands of terrorists. then it was that we had to bring democracy to the Arab world. then it was a big battle against evil. now, it's that Iraq's oil could fall into the hands of terrorists.

if they were prepared and expecting an occupation that was going to last as long as WW2 and were fully prepared for difficulty, then why only 140,000+ troops? why the disbanding of the Iraqi army? why the lack of electricity? where is the oil to pay for it all?

i haven't lied a single bit whereas you've offered nothing than an "you're lying" argument.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 07:50 AM   #71
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


Yeah, what a milk and honey paradise that was. Maybe to fix all of these smashed pieces we could ask a Kurd. If you can find one. Or how about some of the shiites that Saddam's gonna get his neck stretched for gassing?

Maybe a couple olympic players that were tortured by Saddam's sons for loosing in the olympics.

How about a husband who watched his wife raped because he politically opposed Saddam. Maybe he's got some reconstruction ideas.

Maybe some who died when Kuwait was invaded. You could ask them.

Or some Iranians.

Or some of the people in Israel who were killed or whose homes and businesses were smashed by Scuds for no reason other than Saddam's desire to start a general war in the middle east when he was getting his ass kicked the first time.

Yeah, that poor smashed country.

Like I've said before.. If you're so concerned about it over there; if the people of Germany, and Russia, and France, and Canada and the cowardly lion Spain are so concerned. Load up the ships, folks and help out and save these innocent Iraqis from the insurgents and the stupid Americans. Huh? Wha? Where are you?


perhaps we can ask the two dozen or so bodies that are found tortured with drills and shot in the back of the heads how much they like their brand new country. maybe we can ask the head and torso of a grandmother who's been split apart by a carbomb if the shopping is much better these days now that Saddam's gone.

one violent situation has been replaced by another, and the result is that more civilians die at levels that are certainly now greater than the worst days of the Hussein regime. 3,000 a month over the summer.

the fact remains: YOU got us into this, YOU get us out. it's Colin Powell's pottery barn rule: YOU broke it YOU buy it. you can level anger and invective at the rest of the world, and i'd welcome their help, but how realistic is this considering the extreme lengths the bush administration went to flout world opinion and make the point that we-are-an-empire-and-we-create-our-own-reality-thank-you-very-much? when you've effectively said "fuck off" to the rest of the world, how realistically can you expect them to come in and help you the bull in the china shop to swee up afterwards.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 07:59 AM   #72
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



3. I'm demonstrating in the easiest way one can, to show how the UN reacts to something that is illegal. If the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal, where is the resolution condemning the invasion or at least the attempt at one?

4. Resolution 1483 authorized the occupation. The UN body would NEVER authorize an occupation it thought was illegal. Do you really think the United Nations would authorize the US occupation of Canada if tomorrow the United States invaded and overran Canada? The fact that the United States is the most powerful nation in the world has nothing to do with it. The United Nations passes resolution after resolution against Israel despite the fact its the most powerful nation in the Middle East. Really, this theory of yours is absurd.

I'm not sure you know what an original post or thought is.

Please let us know just how wonderful the world would be right now with Saddam in power. I'm soo sorry the Iraq you prefer is gone forever. Yes, Saddam was great for the Persian Gulf. Hell, 8 years of war with Iran, millions dead and wounded, then an invasion of Kuwait causing the largest deployment of US troops since World War II, yep, keep in power, brilliant idea.

The plan is already in place and there have been signifcant accomplishments for which you will never aknowledge for some bizarre reason. But, because accomplishing such a task is not the same as ordering fast food or calling someone on your cell phone you think its a failure. Well, do some research in to how long nation building and counter insurgency takes and then you might have a better perspective on the progress and time it will take to succeed in Iraq.

The two most important pieces of the process are putting a government in place and building the security forces. But these things take time to achieve. It means having to start over from scratch in some area's of the country, while other area's are more successful. Continuing to win over Sunni support and participation in the government is key. Disbanding Iraqi military units that fail to leave their home area's and weeding out other dysfunctional elements of the Iraqi military is important and will be a process that will take many years. Its going to require at least 4 and a half more years before the Iraqi military will be capable of fighting on its own without the aid of the coalition. But the combination of strengthing the Iraqi security forces, the government and getting Sunni insurgents to stop fighting through negotiations will eventually reduce violence, and allow for economic growth to happen will which will further dappen support for terrorism/insurgency.


Over 90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq takes place within Baghdad or 30 miles from it. The vast majority of the country is free of any form of sectarian violence. Once, again, this is not Bosnia or Rawanda by any stretch of the imagination.


Whats your plan for Iraq? Well, you've actually admitted that you don't have one, not unlike the Democrats running for election tomorrow, except they don't admit it.



you're so transparant. you've offered nothing again. and you've offered nothing to make up for the lies and deception that have gotten us into this situation into the first place, and you're offering up the classic republican strategy of "either you're with us or you love brutal dictators." talk about lacking an original thought. STING, all, yes ALL, your posts on this subject are interchangeable. they all contain the same language and have been posted with little modification over the past 3 years.

simply pointing out that Iraq is indeed in a Civil War, as pro-war conservatives like Colin Powell and Fareed Zakaria admit, and that the occupation has failed at many of the most basic goals (stability, electricity) and that the Iraqi army and government are deeply distrusted by the Iraqi people, that the army and police have been deeply infiltrated by Shiite death squads who kill Sunnis by the dozens every night in Baghdad, none of this is a wish for Saddam to come back into power.

it's a wish for events to have unfolded in a far, far different fashion in 2002/3. it was a wish to have effectively dealt with Afghanistan, first, and then dealt with Iraq. don't stand there and tell me that there was only one option in 2002/3, that it was either act then in March 2003 or else the world would have fallen apart and the Upper East Side would have been light up by Iraqi WMDs used by Al-Qaeda. that's complete and total garbage. the containment policy, combined with inspections, were effective as a matter of course, but not a means to an end, but a unilateral invasion has certainly proved to be exaclty the wrong answer to the Saddam situation.

given the current situation across the Middle East and given the fact that Iraq has proved a convenient point of radicalization for Muslim youth across the Middle East and Europe, and according to the NIE, the world would have been a safer place without this tragicomedic invasion and occupation. that's not a wish for Saddam to stay in power -- though i imagine you'll construct a false choice in response, as you do -- but a wish for something different to have happened over the past 3 and a half years.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 08:05 AM   #73
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


It takes TIME, to provide all the things that you say the occupation should somehow be able to provide faster than you can get served at BK.

The Iraqi military and police force have not been overrun. That would mean that over 300,000 trained personal have been killed or captured by insurgents. What has happened is that certain area's of Iraq have briefly been overrun by insurgents only to be retaken by US forces or Iraqi forces.

If there is no stability in Iraq, why is over 90% of the fighting in only 5 of the countries 18 provinces? If Iraq is in a "Civil War", why is 90% of the sectarian violence happening within 30 miles of Baghdad?

The insurgents have been unable to equal the damage they did in April 2004. If the insurgency was larger now, why are US casaulties not any higher than in April 2004? Why have US casualty levels dropped to as low as 30 killed per month in early 2006? A successful and growing insurgency would not have such a wide disparity in its ability to inflict losses on foreign occupation forces and would not have its highest level of casualties inflicted on foreign forces be a month that is now almost 3 years in the past.

Civilian death information whether its for 2004 or 2006 is hard to come by. What is known is the deaths of US and coalition troops which is the primary target of the Sunni insurgency. In terms of wounded, your prefered statistic, 2004 is well ahead of any of the years since then. This would not be the case with a rising insurgency.

I know it would please many if Iraq became a failed state, and the nation building and counter insurgency efforts failed, but that won't happen as long as the coalition does not withdraw prematurely.


i don't know of anyone who takes words so literally, and with any lack of nuance. i find your logical deductions in regards to vocabular hilarious, where you

the iraqi army has been fully infiltrated by Shiite militias. the problem really isn't the vaguely defined "insurgency" anymore, which is a problem for the US and for Pentagon PR since we're losing a clearly defined enemy. the big problem is the infiltration of the Iraqi army and police forces with Shiite militias and the total inability of the ineffectual Iraqi government to deal with them.

but continue to talk about the insurgency and ignore the real problem which are these sectarian militias who are killing over 3,000 Iraqis a month.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 09:26 AM   #74
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 04:46 AM
We Can discuss all day long, "Shoulda/Coulda", but I believe the original concept of this thread was about pulling out of the country NOW. I do feel that the democrats arent really offering solutions. There are plenty of reasons to criticize the current administrations handling of this war, But I think a solution is more important right now, than all this BS political posturing. I'm tired of it. Lets see some plans to get Iraq on its feet and get us out ASAP. I think one proble there is people don't consider themselves Iraqies. There is no sense of national pride and unity there. This is gonna be hard when people consider Iraq a place and not a Country to have pride about. Just my 2 cents...
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 10:40 AM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]When Bush Sr. removed Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991 despite the mass opposition of DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS in the USA, it was felt that the US security needs could be accomplished without removing Saddam provided that he agreed and complied with a number of demands in the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. [/Q]

Shall I post the quote by GHW Bush in which he says it would have been wrong to send the troops into Bagdhad because American soldiers would have died in an illegal war.
Post all you want, but if Saddam had not agreed to the CEACEFIRE terms in 1991, that is precisely what the coalition would have done, they would have continued into Iraq. Some US troops were already within a 100 miles of Baghdad at the time of the ceacefire. If Saddam had not agreed to the ceacefire terms and continued to fight, US troops would have gone deeper into Iraq and removed him if necessary.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 06:46 AM.


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