Looking back at Iraq

he wanted us to show respect for arafat
like pissing on his grave wasnt enough respect to show the muderer

or banned members here

any accusation you have leveled against me?
Why do you continue to avoid real debate with me?
Answer? Because you can't and you know it. You have nothing to say here except empty rhetoric and accusations. You don't seem to get it do you?
Ad-hominems prove nothing except that you are unable to respond effectively or at all to anything I say.

You (and others)have yet to prove that I am anti-Israel btw.

will that comfort you good mean while reality will set in and show u wrong you can comiserate with the others who fell for that story mean while were in a war get over it and support your troops

what you're saying.

Whatever your point is do you have any proof, any sources to back it up?

another word for blind obedience. It's a bully-like way of shutting down debate or opposition to your agenda. It's like C.S. Lewis' Trilemma. It's a false dichotomy. There are infinitely more choices than shutting up and support your troops.
For one, let's actually support the troops. Let's send at least another another 150,000. The troops in Iraq are badly undermanned. Undermanned means needless, excessive casualties. If enough troops were in Iraq, it wouldn't be the chaotic bloodbath that it is today. More troops would mean more boots on the ground where it counts i.e. Anbar province, Baghdad and the area around it, the northern area around Tikirt and Sammara and Basra which is in a really bad way right now. More troops on the ground means fewer places for the insurgents to operate. A decrease in the area the insurgents have to manoeuvre means a smaller less effective insurgency.

Let's give the troops- all the troops- proper body armor and properly armoured Humvees. I mean more than armour that can stop bullets. I mean armour that can stop shrapnel and resist concussion and shock waves from explosive blasts generated by IEDs, RPGs and mortars.

Let's give the troops a real Iraq reconstruction program so the Iraqi people will start to see some good things come from the US invasion and think less about aiding and abetting the insurgeny which they are doing now in huge numbers every single day. The present reconstruction program is a monument to graft corruption and incompetence.

These would be a good place to start to support the troops.

Please note, it has degenerated to the point where someone is supposedly insulted by a term which means they favor peaceful solutions over violent responses to issues and problems.
It is supposed to be an insult to those who oppose unprovoked wars of aggression against innocent countries and their peoples.


So I suppose that means you are a "warnik" Mark. What does that say about you? Great. You love war and you would rather respond to a problem with human suffering immediately rather than working to avoid it in the first place. Nice morals ya got there partner.
It obviously mans you support unprovoked wars of aggression against innocent countries and their citizens.
Are you sure you thought that one through Mark?

Second, since when has it been dovish to say supporting the troops means properly equipping them and reinforcing them so they have more control over events on the ground- events which re out of their control and are the reason they are taking casualties - some 21,000 so far and that's the Pentagon's own numbers.

are you quoting numbers of military dead or total including injured?

Four years of fighting with that number total, including injured, is astoundingly low for a war.

As for equipment, they already have everything they need. Heavier body armor would weigh them down to the point of not being able to move and react to save their own lives. Heavier armor on their vehicles would mean being lumbering dinosaurs and easier targets. Our military today is far more sophisticated and trained than any military in USA history, and you are implying otherwise.

Your solution of pulling out and leaving those Iraqi people to now fend for themselves when they aren't prepared to do so yet, is even less compassionate than you claim Mark to be.

Tell me your suggestion for a peaceful solution. We've asked for that for years now and not one of you Iraq-invasion complainers have EVER come up with one. Don't let me down, now......

TONI

I don't propose leaving Iraq TONI. You can't.
If you read my post you will see that I propose doubling, if not tripling, the present U.S. troop numbers.
IMO it will take far more than that. You can quell an insurgency but it takes a lot of time and resources.

Briefly, the US must:

1) Secure Iraq's borders. If the US can do just this it will have cut the insurgency potential by at least one third.

2) Secure Baghdad. There is no point in talking about security elsewhere and the wonders of a new government if the U.S. can't secure Iraq's capital city. Just securing Baghdad alone will be a blow for peace in the country.

3) Secure Basra. The city is falling apart. The Brits have lost any control they ever had there. Basra is the second biggest city in Iraq.
Stabilize just these two cities, the country's two biggest cities, and you will have a solid basis to move into other areas and do the same.

Once Baghdad and Basra are secure you can begin to rebuild those cities and:

4) Restore quality of life to Saddam era levels by the end of this year for all Iraqis at the latest.
- Establish a quality of life better than Saddam levels by mid 2007.
Right now the Iraqis have have little sanitation, and only limited amounts of power and electricity.
- Rebuild the Iraqi health care and education system.

It will take billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers but it's a much better plan the present Bush approach which seems to be to wander around aimlessly and let the bloodshed and chaos continue.

You are supporting tripling our military there in order to secure and lock down the place...to which I agree....however, you also insist on the numbers of casualties, both coalition and Iraqis, as being 'horrendous'. You can't have troops in a war without deaths and injuries, and tripling the military personnel will not lower those numbers. At least we are in agreement on what needs to be done first.

This part is a joke, though:

>>>>4) Restore quality of life to Saddam era levels by the end of this year for all Iraqis at the latest.>>>>

There WAS no quality of life for the normal Iraqi citizen. Those who weren't being tortured and killed and jailed were made to live without clean water, food, or adequate housing because Saddam took all of those goodies for himself and his army in key locations. If you recall the first thing we had to do was clear the harbor of mines so the food ship could pull in and then start getting water lines to those people who were near that harbor and far from Baghdad.

MOST of Iraq already has a quality of life far better than they have had for many, many years.

Where have you had your head located for the last four years?

TONI

Perhaps you should read my post again.

As for the quality of life issue TONI you better check your facts. Things are no better in Iraq now Women are no better off.

I would argue TONI that in the long term tripling the number of U.S. troops will bring the civilian casualties down. More troops equals more security. More security equals less violence which equals fewer civilian deaths.
That is, of course, provided that the troops are properly deployed.

to the same information coming out of Iraq regarding the quality of life and women. I'm not going to continue to debate that issue.

Proper deployment means being sent there via orders from the top....and all of our troops there have been properly deployed so I have no idea what you're talking about.

As for further discussion, I'm bowing out because I am getting the distinct impression that you are subtley insulting me by using my name in all CAPS each time you say it, and for the life of me I can't figure out why, but I won't talk anymore with somebody who is, in my opinion, going out of their way to be antagonistic.

TONI

in your reply. I won't attempt to address them all now, but,

- There is no proof that Saddam Hussein ever attempted or planned an attack on the U.S. using WMDs.
- A common mistake in assessing his Pre-war threat status is that his possession of WMDs meant he was going to attack the U.S.. Wrong. Possession of a weapon does not mean intent to use it. Ask an American gun owner.

The claim was NOT that he threatened to attack the US with WMDs, but that he threatened his neighbors or could supply them to terrorists. And if he had them (we don't know he didn't) he might well have.

Tyler Drumheller the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago has said that Bush ignored intelligence that contradicted his desire that Saddam have WMDs and that many CIA analysts were skeptical of the Iraq/WMD business.
Drumheller also states that a trusted high-level source inside Saddam's regime said that there was no WMD program.
Drumheller said the ''Policy was set''.
The policy was indeed set as the Downing street memos show

Drumheller's account has been disputed by many.

-Rolf Ekeus head of the U.N. inspection team that left Iraq in 2000 said ''There are no large quantities of weapons [in Iraq]''

That's funny, since large stockpiles of ''conventional weapons'' have been found in Iraq.


I'll let others continue. Much to be disputed in your claims and a lot of it is only your opinion