Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Iraq Insurgency: People Rise Against Al Qaeda


hokie4redskins

Recommended Posts

Another blow to Al Qaeda..........and the treasonous Democrats.

Iraq insurgency: People rise against al-Qa'eda

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/08/wanbar308.xml

By Damien McElroy in Husaybah

Last Updated: 6:09pm BST 08/10/2007

Page 1 of 2

Damien McElroy spent a week in the heart of the insurgency in Anbar province in Iraq. In the second of seven exclusive reports he describes how peace and prosperity have returned to a town formerly riven by sectarian killings.

wanbar4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you sure read that article FAST!!

:doh:

I read it when AFC posted it two months ago. And posted it again a couple of days after that. And again...you get the picture.

I'm happy you found something to post that gives you a chance to call democrats traitors again. I know how big of a hard on people like you and AFC get from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this even a blow to the Democrats. If anything it proves they were right from the beginning. it is the conservatives who keep saying "if we leave, Al Qaeda will take over Iraq" while the liberals have said, "umm, no Iraqis don't like Al Qaeda anymore than we do, if we just give them a chance to stand on their own two feet and leave Iraq, they will turn their guns away from each other and shoot at Al Qaeda"

So yeah, nice try but if anything this supports the democrats theory from 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is GREAT NEWS! So does this mean we can push the Al Qaeda front line back to Afghanistan so we can hunt down the people that actually attacked us on 9/11? I'm a big fan of finishing the fight we started there.

... lol I'm just kidding. I'm not that crazy guys! No chance of that happening under the current administration. I think Iran is next on the "didn't attack us, but we need to fight them while Al Qaeda is still generating political will" list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this even a blow to the Democrats. If anything it proves they were right from the beginning. it is the conservatives who keep saying "if we leave, Al Qaeda will take over Iraq" while the liberals have said, "umm, no Iraqis don't like Al Qaeda anymore than we do, if we just give them a chance to stand on their own two feet and leave Iraq, they will turn their guns away from each other and shoot at Al Qaeda"

So yeah, nice try but if anything this supports the democrats theory from 2004.

Liberals have said for a long time that the US being in Iraq has kept the Iraqi insurgency focused on the US. If we leave they'll turn on Al Qaeda that has been killing Iraqi's to provoke civil war. Pointing out that Iraqi's will indeed turn on Al Qaeda isn't a blow to the democrats in REALITY - but you are forgetting hokie4skin doesn't operate in reality... he's thinking of the democratic boogymen he's imagined. The ones that think Al Qaeda can't be defeated.... when in fact they've said otherwise all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... lol I'm just kidding. I'm not that crazy guys! No chance of that happening under the current administration. I think Iran is next on the "didn't attack us, but we need to fight them while Al Qaeda is still generating political will" list.

Not that I disagree totally with you but Germany never attacked us - they posed a major threat to the US and after the Allies beat them the US was and still is in Germany - 60+ years.

I am not sold on the whole attack Iran thing but our hand may be forced at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I disagree totally with you but Germany never attacked us - they posed a major threat to the US and after the Allies beat them the US was and still is in Germany - 60+ years.

What the?

Germany declared war on us the day after Pearl Harbor in support of their allies the Japanese. They immediately started sinking our ships in the Atlantic with their U-Boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we hold the line, the Iraqi security forces and police will gain more confidence from the Iraqi people to rid their streets fro Al-Qaeda AS WELL AS give the Iraqi citizens the confidence to turn on the insurgency and rat out the perpetrators of violence. The Dems don't want that... they want the chaos and killings on the news everyday until election day in 08. Secure defeat... blame on Bush... that IS their political strategy.... the hell with the US troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this even a blow to the Democrats. If anything it proves they were right from the beginning. it is the conservatives who keep saying "if we leave, Al Qaeda will take over Iraq" while the liberals have said, "umm, no Iraqis don't like Al Qaeda anymore than we do, if we just give them a chance to stand on their own two feet and leave Iraq, they will turn their guns away from each other and shoot at Al Qaeda"

So yeah, nice try but if anything this supports the democrats theory from 2004.

You mean the Democrats that supported the invasion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I disagree totally with you but Germany never attacked us - they posed a major threat to the US and after the Allies beat them the US was and still is in Germany - 60+ years.

I am not sold on the whole attack Iran thing but our hand may be forced at some point.

It's true that Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor no matter what Bluto said in Animal house. But Germany did conspire with Japan. Germany was for warned the bombing would take place. and most importantly Germany did subsequently declair war on the United States even before America could respond with it's own declaration of war against the Japanese agressors.

Thus, there is not comparison between FDR's / Churchill's decision to fight the European war first and hold in the Pacific against the Japanese and Bush's decision to invade Iraq in the face of the Al Quada/Taliban/Afghanistan attack on 911. Fact is Iraq has never attacked the United States. Iraq was not involved in Terrorism against the United States. Iraq was not involved in terrorism at all for more than a decade before our attack on them. Iraq under Saddam was in no way allies with Al Quada or Afghanistan.

None of that was true of Germany and Japan after Pearl Harbor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we hold the line, the Iraqi security forces and police will gain more confidence from the Iraqi people to rid their streets fro Al-Qaeda AS WELL AS give the Iraqi citizens the confidence to turn on the insurgency and rat out the perpetrators of violence. The Dems don't want that... they want the chaos and killings on the news everyday until election day in 08. Secure defeat... blame on Bush... that IS their political strategy.... the hell with the US troops.

The hole in your logic is deep and wide. How is being reality based damming US troops to hell?

How exactly in your mind is this administration on the side of US troops and Democrates not?

(1) What 6 or 7 out of the last 9 chairman of the Joint Chiefs have come out critisizing the Iraqi war and Bush's tactics... Only the two Chiefs Bush appointed have not signed petitions against Bush.

(2) The democrates who now control congress and the senate have not been able to muster the 60% votes in either house to overturn a Presidential Veto. Nor have they been able to affect war funding up to this point at all.

(3) Fact is this is a top to bottom Republican created war. They had all three branches of the government when this war was crafted. They repressed and condemned anybody who was reality based about the war including generals and their own political appointees, not to mention outside experts. They sucessfully harnised the nationalism inspired by the 911 attacks and took us to war with a country not related in any way with those attacks. They did this by lieing to the american people and obfuscating the truth from us. Such that 70% of the country believed on the eve of war that Iraq was involved with the 911 attacks and Al Quada. The Republicans ( BUSH) have controlled the tactics and strategies which have lead to our current purdicaments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you think Iraq should have required a longer war than WWII and WWI combined. If you think the crisis in American generalship has not been directly caused by Bush's insistance that all General officers be appointed by his political appointees rather than the promotions board. If you think the occupation which has misplaced 200,000 weapons, 300 tons of explosives, and 12 billion in cash since this war started; is doing a competent job. Then you are a faith based reasoner who has no grounding in reality and your ownly ties to this plain of existance is the administrations rendition of bagdhad charlies rosey war briefings. If however you do have a shred of grounding in reality and you are critical of how this war was sold, conducted, and sustained. Then my friend, you have nobody to blame but Bush and his stuffed shirt republican yes men allies.

The most you can say about Liberals is if given the chance; they may have screwed the pooch as bad as Bush. But we will never know. We do know however that some of the greatest Presidents in history have been self described Liberals who have sucessfully and with integrety lead our country through wars much more significant than this Iraqi debacle, while being true to this countries core beliefs... ( The United States constitution )... which is not something anyone will ever say about George Bush.

Thomas Jefferson ( Tripolitan war )

Wodrow Wilson ( WWI )

Teddy Rosevelt

Franklin Rosevelt (WWII)

Harry Truman (WWII, Korea )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) What 6 or 7 out of the last 9 chairman of the Joint Chiefs have come out critisizing the Iraqi war and Bush's tactics... Only the two Chiefs Bush appointed have not signed petitions against Bush.

Evidence that the Joint Chiefs are being manipulated by Politics as usual. Also, many of these Joint Chiefs are pissed about Rumsfeld coming in and trying to change the culture of the Pentagon.... where plenty of Joint Chiefs have gotten fat and sassy with "business as usual". Lean and Mean, Rumsfeld's mission, took flight over the Pentagon like a lead balloon in the opinion of these career men. Many, I must add, are also Bleeding Heart / Blame America / Democrats.

(2) The democrates who now control congress and the senate have not been able to muster the 60% votes in either house to overturn a Presidential Veto. Nor have they been able to affect war funding up to this point at all.

So they've turned to undermining the administration and the troops to, in effect, lose the war by providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Hell, the Jihadists literally read the democratic talking points in front of the cameras and just this week have suggested the hope that Billary and the Democrats regain their perceived birthright....control of congress AND the Oval Office. It's easier to surrender when there are no pesky roadblocks in the way.

(3) Fact is this is a top to bottom Republican created war. They had all three branches of the government when this war was crafted.

Uh.....Um....:doh:..... :paranoid:..... then why did they vote for it? Also, go back and review their quotes leading up to the Iraq war.....you'll quickly see how their support for the need to remove Hussein changed about the same time the poll numbers for support of the war began declining. You see... we've got to remember that Democrats think party first... regain or retain power first.... to hell with what is in America's best interest. Nice Try though!

As for the missing weapons and etc.... happens in every war. How about picking up a history book and reading about the disasters self-inflicted during virtually every other conflict participated in by the United States. War is hell..... mistakes are made.... people die. Of course, that's just fine for the Dems when it suits their needs, it's great political theater and an awesome vote getter, deafening silence occurs when it does not. What's that saying...."what's good for the goose should be good for the gander".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence that the Joint Chiefs are being manipulated by Politics as usual. Also, many of these Joint Chiefs are pissed about Rumsfeld coming in and trying to change the culture of the Pentagon.... where plenty of Joint Chiefs have gotten fat and sassy with "business as usual". Lean and Mean, Rumsfeld's mission, took flight over the Pentagon like a lead balloon in the opinion of these career men. Many, I must add, are also Bleeding Heart / Blame America / Democrats.

Evidence that George Bush only gets the endorsement from military guys who are indepted personally to him for their promotions. It is true that some of the past chairman who have expressed critism of Bush were appointed by Carter and Clinton.

Gen David C Jones ( Carter )

Gen John M. Shalikishvili (Clinton)

Gen Henry Shelton ( Clinton)

Just as many were appointed by Republicans

Gen John W. Vessey ( Reagan )

Gen William Crow ( Reagan )

Gen Colin Powel ( Bush )

It's also true that all six were career military men and most career military men at the general level don't vote for President, much less entertain politics when commenting on issues of national security.

So they've turned to undermining the administration and the troops to, in effect, lose the war by providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Hell, the Jihadists literally read the democratic talking points in front of the cameras and just this week have suggested the hope that Billary and the Democrats regain their perceived birthright....control of congress AND the Oval Office. It's easier to surrender when there are no pesky roadblocks in the way.

Fact is Bush has been in Afghanistan/Iraq longer than America was involved in WWII and WWI combined.

  • Afghanistan-- October, 2001 to Present (as of Oct, 2007)= 72 months
  • Iraq War--March, 2003 to Present (as of Oct, 2007)= 54 months
  • U.S. Civil War--April, 1861 to April, 1865= 48 months
  • World War II--December, 1941 to September, 1945= 45 months
  • World War I--April, 1917 to November, 1918= 19 months
  • Korean War-- June, 1950 to July, 1953= 37 months
  • War of 1812--June, 1812 to February, 1815= 32 months
  • U.S.-Mexican War-- May, 1846 to February, 1848= 21 months
  • Spanish-American War--April, 1898 to August, 1898= 5 months
  • Gulf War--January, 1991 to March, 1991= 3 months

We are spending more daily than the insurgency spends anually. And the insurgency is accellerating, security is worse off, and the Iraqi people are worse off. The only rational for staying in Iraq is to keep Iran from benifiting from the instability which the invasion created. Of the seven reasons Bush has given the American people to justify the war, non were reasonable justification for what is likely to be America's first two trillion dollar war. ( 500 billion currently out of pocket with another 1.4 trillion coming in back end costs as we retrain, reequip, and pay for the lifetime medical expenses of our 70,000 casualties. )

Uh.....Um....:doh:..... :paranoid:..... then why did they vote for it? Also, go back and review their quotes leading up to the Iraq war.....you'll quickly see how their support for the need to remove Hussein changed about the same time the poll numbers for support of the war began declining. You see... we've got to remember that Democrats think party first... regain or retain power first.... to hell with what is in America's best interest. Nice Try though!

Because they are morons, and believed the President when he and his administration:

  • drew ties between Al Quada and Iraq which never existed
  • drew ties between terrorists and Iraq which never existed
  • stated falsely Iraq was weeks or months away from membership in the nuclear club
  • stated falsely Iraq had WMD
  • stated falsely that Iraq was not coperating with the weapons inspectors.
  • stated falsely that Iraq was in violation of the first gulf peace agreement
  • stated falsely the war would cost roughly 4 billion dollars
  • continously painted Iraq as a gathering threat instead of the diminishing threat there were

As for the missing weapons and etc.... happens in every war.

Really? Please show me where in a previous war 12 billion dollars, literally tons of 100$ bills were transfered from the federal reserve and distributed in duffle bags without any records. Literally tons of cash distributed with no records by a handfull of Bush political appointees!!..... Yeah that happens all the time...

Please show me where in any previous war the US military lost or could not account for 200,000 weapons which were suposedly purchased by the US from American companies which also failed to keep serial number records of the arms in question.

Oh and as for the 320 tons of explosives which we can't account for in Iraq. If you think that is common, or represents core competency of the US military then it's no wonder you are a Bush apploligist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but when you declare defeat for your own selfish political gain at the expense of the national interest, our Founding Fathers would've lined you up in front of a firing squad.

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck..........it's a traitor.

Which is exactly why Bush and Cheney are traitors. They are declaring defeat for Al Qaeda which is their Frankenstein monster. Wow...you guys are so hypocritically warped it is insane. I guess you can't remember when Daddy Bush, Cheney, and Rummy helped put Saddam in power. I guess you can't remember the ties between Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Your comments are simply disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...