Dozens of bodies discovered in two Iraq locations

issues before you start telling us what we think.
By the way those prisoners in Abu Ghraib were suspects mark. No one had proven thier guilt of anything.
You mistakenly think these insurgents are all a bunch of civilian killers. An insurgency is a natural part of an occupation. You would resist if someone occupied your country. You had to know a resistance movement would start against the U.S. esp. since the U.S. was so disliked over there bfore the invasion. They are even more disliked since the invasion.
Calling them all terrorists is simply inaccurate.
Why don't you run a google on the Iraq resistance and find out more about them?

... not long before the bluff is called.

I think the problem in Iraq is now you have an anti-American occcupation insurgency, a terrorist element that explodes car bombs in the middle of civilian areas, plus an elemant that goes after the U.S. installed Iraqi government, probably part of the first. There is also the problem of gangs in Iraq. Baghdad in particular has this problem. There is footage of these heavily armed gangs walking freely around Baghdad.Running through all this is the civil war that is threatening to break out.

Best,

... people weren't so quick to label the new Iraqi government (ELECTED!!!) "installed", the so-called insurgents would not have as much ammunition in the court of anti-American sympathy for the misguided charge of occupation

but that is how the Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world see it. This present Iraqi government is a government put in place by the U.S.. That is the simple truth.That will, of course, change once the elected Iraqi government takes charge.
What would you call the American presence in Iraq? The U.S. is in a hostile country in a region hostile to the U.S.
Insurgency is a suitable term. Resistance to the U.S. is a product of Iraqi nationalism. All peoples feel loyalty to thier country.Iraqis are entitled to it no less than nayone else.Labeling them terroists does no one any good. If we are to properly understand the situation on the ground we have to properly identify those who resist us.Remeber the old saying "know your enemy"I think it's very instructive here.

... the IRAQIS see it -- if they did would MILLIONS have risked life and limb to go vote and then sport their purple fingers despite threats that they would be killed??? For a US installed government??? Give me a break!

Occupation may be a proper technical term, but it is implying a desire to control and take over. We are still occupying Kosovo, Haiti, and, heck, Germany and Japan!

own government an endorsement of the U.S. presence there.This risking life and limb story is a little overblown.Every one of the polls was in under a Fort Knox styke lock down.At least one of the major insurgency groups stated that they were not going to disrupt the election.
Make no mistake, the vast majority of Iraqis feel some degree of hostility to the American presence there. The U.S. was unpopular there and in the whole region before the invasion,. It's just gotten worse since.
Kosoveo and Haiti are peacekeeping and rescue missions I heartily endorse the U.S. prsence in both those countries.The U.S. is not an occupation force in Germany. Its presence there is in no way similar to the US. presence in Iraq. The same goes for Japan.

You don't believe what you post do you?

you wont beleave it cause your just a naysayer your in good company here in se.
alot of the naysayers think same, and there all eating crow so i hope you enjoy your crow alacarte.

as were not going let you stop us now

But what has that changed? Iraq is still a violent chaotic place. Bandits and gangs are running amok. More and more Iraqis are turning to the insurgency helping them out now.

you say the iraqis are turning to the insurgants, you ment there turning them in and shooting them, so confued you are.
but thats ok we will set you on the right path to seeing your blind ways.
and under your saddam he only killed how many
you constantly ignor the truth guess its hard to swallow crow.

But there are many Iraqis helping the insurgency.
For example:
"We're facing a well-developed, mature insurgency with the support of the local population" of about 100,000 townspeople, Reed says. "There is no Iraqi security force here. They are not effective. There are no police. They are dead or doing something else." USA Today 4/18/2005
You see Mark, the U.S. soldiers say the are facing an insurgency, and one with popular support.I took this story from a "mainstreram" media source as I think you believe any other source is bogus.

You seem to be unable to acknowledge that the government in place is not imposed by the US. You could have all the poll security in the world. People went ON CAMERA with their fingers in the air to DEFY the COWARD "insurgents".

The vast majority are happy we are there, unfortunately that doesn't get reported.

So remind me, why did we invade Kosovo? How is Haiti doing these days?

Evie. They are the ones that don't like the American presence there. So a few peole were on TV with purple inkj n thire fingers. That doesn't represent much. Look at the opinion polls.Dependin on where you look, %60-70
of Iraqis want the U.S. out.
Why did the U.S. go to kososvo? Because there was a large outcry from the Albanian government and the Albanian Kosovars, not to mention world outrage.

Please , details. Peacekeeping by having troops keep peace by threat of force is every bit as much "occupation" if what we are doing in Iraq is ... only we shouldn't have to do that anymore ... it was fixed with the great military/foreign policy tactics of the previous administration

No UN that's for sure.

You apparently missed the video of all the voters even the most liberal of media outlets couldn't help but report on.

Polls? Like ours in Novemeber '04, Iraq had the poll that counted and will have a more final one in several more months.

The Albanians and the Kosovar Albanians pleaded with us to intervene. That's much different than the U.S. invasion if Iraq.Evie, I know people came out and voted. That was not an endorsement of the U.S. presence in Iraq.
Iraqis want the U.S. out and there is no way to sugar coat that.

Of course not they were the ones who were perpetraring the crimes against the Kosovars just the same way they had perpetrated crimes against Bosnian muslims and the Croats. That by the way is another intervention by the U.S.(and nato) that I think was appropriate. We hAd already warned the Sebs that if they tried the Same thing in Kosovo that they tries in Bosnia, we would intervene. It took us a while(again) but we did.

... don't want us in Iraq. But the Kurds and the Shi-ites are largely quite happy we are there. It is mostly a minority of the minority Sunnis that are "insurging".

BTW, where are all those mass graves in the Balkans? And what is NATO/UN/global community doing to protect the Serb people now? Why does the US have troops there still? At least for this reason, one would think that Europe could police their own back yard.

there. Who in power wants to lose thier power. My point is that public outrage and the pleas of the Kosovars and the Albanians drove NATO to act, just as it had been driven to act in Bosnia. Don't forget this was a crisis that people feared could spill over into other countries and turn into a regional conflict. NATO mebers were potentially involved as well.
Remember the thousands of Kosovars who were driven by the Serbs over the border into Macedonia.? The Serbs tried to argue that those refugees were being paid minimum wage to walk around and around in front of the media to make it look as though there was a Kosovar refugee crisis.
The U.S. and others still have troops there because that situation will explode again just like in Bosnia if the peacekeepers leave.
As for mass graves, I ll have to look around.But the consensus is the Serbs were not the victims in all of this, they were the perpetrators. Russia of course felt differently. They stuck up for their fellow Slavs.

The Ba'athists are Iraq's Serbs (actually far worse, but ...) The Kurds (among other Iraqi ex-pats) had been BEGGING the US to do something all along -- they are your Kosovar Albanians although without the strong ties to terrorism we had with the KLA.

But the consensus is the Serbs were not the victims in all of this, they were the perpetrators.

The utter lack of mass graves (as compared with all that is being found in Iraq -- not to mention children liberated from prisons!) that were claimed to get the world to act is far worse than the WMD issue with Iraq. The "pleading" was bought hook, line and sinker, but hasn't born out. A "Jenin massacre" on a broader scale. In his defense, I don't fault Clinton for his actions at the time, but the aftermath in that area needs reconsideration. No way, however, NATO is going to own up to its part in the destruction of so much and killing of so many over a "mistake". Meanwhile you lament and blame the US for innocents killed by "insurgents" in Iraq. How many of those refugees were fleeing NATO bombs? I would run too!

We are occupying there to maintain the peace. Meanwhile an impotent military force does not have the appropriate mandate to protect innocent Serbian civilians from reprisal. How is that different than occupying Iraq until the new government is stabilized ... because the Ba'athists don't want us there? Not so sure the Serbs ever wanted us there either!

This was a crisis people feared could spill over into other countries? Gee, and here I thought you were against any sort of pre-emptive action. Milosevic had not shown any interest in expanding past his borders. The same could not be said for Saddam, who had already tried it once. There IS clear evidence that as soon as he could have fooled the world's bleeding hearts long enough to get sanctions lifted he would have done it again and was just playing a waiting game to reconstitute WMD programs. It will probably never be fully known to what extent Saddam's own experts deceived him as he was deceiving the world. Milosevic barely posed a threat to his neighbors. He posed NO threat to the US, but of course our military power is a good thing when Europe needs our help.

We had Saddam contained. He only had effective contol of one third of his country.There was a no fly zone over the Kurdish region. There was a no fly zone over the Shiite region. If Saddam's forces encroached on these zones, they came under British and American attack.
The Kurds did pretty well under the no-fly zones. They had a government and an army,for example.
Yes the Kurds wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq. But that was an ongoing desire on their part. It can not be compared to the crisis that was unfolding and had already unfolded in the Balkans. World governments,except Russia, clamored for an intervention. Recall Bob Dole returned from the region on a situation assessment mission for Bill CLinton in 1998 and advised Clinton to use force.
NATO made a few mistakes I grant you. But the kosovars said they were running from the Serbs. They said "keep bombing" even when their relatives were killed by the NATO bombs. At least that is what they said on TV.
I think we have to be clear about the insurgents vs. terorists. It is not an act of terrorism to pull the trigger on an occupying force.Iraqis are entitled to nationalism just as we are.
I view the insurgents and terrorists as two separate groups in Iraq. There are also Jihadists and gangs roaming about. Saddam emptied his prisons when the invasion began.So it is hard to tell who is really doing what.
I lament and blame the U.S. for the terrrible security situation on the ground in Iraq. General Shinsecki and others warned that a force of several hundred thousand soldiers would be required to keep the peace after the war.The U.S. does not have enough troops to control any more than the ground they stand on. The "Green Zone" is not even safe.
If the Serbs aren't being protected then that is not right either.
I am for pre-emptive action provided there is sufficient evidence that a nation must act immediately
to protect its borders or national interests. Plans to reconstitute WMD programs does not constitute an immediate threat. First of all, the desire to create WMD or the possession of WMD does not mean the intent to use the WMD. Intent to use is the key criterion.
I supported the U.S. interventions in Somalia, East Timor, Haiti as well as Bosnia and Kosovo.
Milosovic did pose a threat to his neighbors and the region. The refugees were spilling into Macedonia and elsewhere. The rammifications of the crisis were far reaching. Several countries were concerned about their ethnic and religious populations being adversely affected. For example, two NATO allies, Turkey and Greece, could have gone to war over the crisis.
There was no guarantee that Milosovic would have stopped at Kosovo. There was the Hungarian enclave of Vojvedinja in northern Serbia. If he had decided to go after that area we would have had a Hungarian intervention to protect the Hungarians in that enclave.

... by that standard then either.

NFZ's were not something the US should have had to foot the bill to enforce year in and year out with no end. Those planes were also being shot at DAILY. A clear violation of the terms of the ceasefire that put GulfWarI on HOLD (never ended) and were justification in and of themselves for the US to attack.

If world governments clamored for an intervention ... WHERE WAS THE UN??? Or how about even a Congressional resolution because the "world community" was gung ho for action? Bosnia was Clinton/Blair leading the world, Iraq was Bush/Blair. Somehow I don't think it was Blair's character or strength of convictions or belief in what he thought was right that changed.

There was faulty intel there too, much of it due to believing on face value many of the charges like the supposed mass grave at Trebka.

Killing innocent civilians, threatening to kill Iraqis that support their new government or join the security force IS terrorism. Sugarcoat it with the label insurgent all you want -- many aren't even Iraqis. Zarqawi is Jordanian.

Bosnia posed NO threat to US national security, period. Neither did Haiti. Iraq did. Milosevic did not pose a threat to his neighbors -- if you were consistent you would admonish the world community to just take in the refugees and declare the situation contained. Milosevic was NOT expanding his borders, unlike Saddam who HAD invaded a neighbor before, attacked Israel unprovoked and showed every inclination to do so again.

You support interventions by Democratic Presidents. That much is obvious. The parallels may not be perfect, but any intellectually honest comparison of the threats posed (largely perceived in BOTH cases) would support action against Saddam vs. Milosevic hands down. And I repeat ... WHERE WAS THE UN IN THE BALKANS UNTIL AFTER WE DID THE DIRTY WORK???

kind of disabediance would bring death you need to move along and stop beleaveing in your same enemy progeganda
your must be so lonely being in the minority.

%60-80 of the Iraqi people oppose this occupation.

it that way but why waste my time and yours as you wont change nor will i


good thing my country dosnt share your veiws as the iraqis would never be free.

and to live oppressed or die trying to be free, ill choose freedom.

its very easy for you all to say shouldnt have invaded.

all over the world? Have you looked at any poll numbers out of Iraq?

like there reliable ask john kerry lol