OT - Bush puts terrorists in charge of US troops

Wonder why Scott hasn't posted this. Our fighting men were looking for a
lost soldier but under Iraqi orders which clearly came from anti-American
cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, US troops packed up and left Sadr City in hands of
the celebrating militia.



[url]http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4299445.html[/url]

Do a bit of research dummy. Iraq has an elected sovereign government, they
are in charge of unifying the various factions.


mike


"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8V32h.762$ig4.174@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Wonder why Scott hasn't posted this. Our fighting men were looking for a
> lost soldier but under Iraqi orders which clearly came from anti-American
> cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, US troops packed up and left Sadr City in hands of
> the celebrating militia.
>
>
>[color=green]
>>[/color][/color]

Yes Mike and we are winning the war in Iraq. Dream on...... you and your
buddy George.


"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:b4WdnZZGU7NgUNXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> Do a bit of research dummy. Iraq has an elected sovereign government,
> they are in charge of unifying the various factions.
>
>
> mike
>
>
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:8V32h.762$ig4.174@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=green]
>> Wonder why Scott hasn't posted this. Our fighting men were looking for a
>> lost soldier but under Iraqi orders which clearly came from anti-American
>> cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, US troops packed up and left Sadr City in hands
>> of the celebrating militia.
>>
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>[/color][/color]
>
>[/color]

Art, 11/1/2006,11:26:44 AM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> Wonder why Scott hasn't posted this. Our fighting men were looking
> for a lost soldier but under Iraqi orders which clearly came from
> anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, US troops packed up and left
> Sadr City in hands of the celebrating militia.
>
>
>
> [url]http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4299445.html[/url][/color]


Isn't this what you leftists have been railing for all this time?
Looks like we're going to let them slit each other's throats for a
while to see if they like it better that way.

--
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last."
~ Winston Churchill

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0et7b9j1mt6x4000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> Art, 11/1/2006,11:26:44 AM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Wonder why Scott hasn't posted this. Our fighting men were looking
>> for a lost soldier but under Iraqi orders which clearly came from
>> anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, US troops packed up and left
>> Sadr City in hands of the celebrating militia.
>>
>>
>>
>> [url]http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4299445.html[/url][/color]
>
>
> Isn't this what you leftists have been railing for all this time?
> Looks like we're going to let them slit each other's throats for a
> while to see if they like it better that way.
>[/color]
You seem deaf to the point: That is one of our soldiers they were searching
for when ordered out by al-Sadr through his puppet, al-Malaki. Rumfeld
looked pretty weak trying to handle this point at his press conference. (May
the course stay with you--NOT)

The war to free Iraq from a dictator was won a long time ago. What we are
ding now is killing off teh radical Islamic terrorists that come into Iraq
to stop the new government from taking charge. Have you ever talked to
anybody returning from Iraq? They, to the man, can not believe what some of
the American people they are fighting for are doing to undermine
those still fighting for us in Iraq. It is sad.


mike hunt


"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Qd42h.774$ig4.552@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Yes Mike and we are winning the war in Iraq. Dream on...... you and your
> buddy George.
>
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:b4WdnZZGU7NgUNXYUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=green]
>> Do a bit of research dummy. Iraq has an elected sovereign government,
>> they are in charge of unifying the various factions.
>>
>>
>> mike
>>[/color][/color]

Mike Hunter wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:Qd42h.774$ig4.552@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[/color]
[color=blue]
> Do a bit of research dummy. Iraq has an elected sovereign government,
> they are in charge of unifying the various factions.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Yes Mike and we are winning the war in Iraq. Dream on...... you and your
> > buddy George.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> The war to free Iraq from a dictator was won a long time ago.[/color]

Is that what the latest Republican talking points memo says?
[color=blue]
> What we are doing now is killing off the radical Islamic terrorists
> that come into Iraq to stop the new government from taking charge.[/color]

But the vast majority of the insurgency consists of Iraqi citizens, not
foreigners, mostly Sunnis from the old Iraqi military.

badgolferman wrote:
[color=blue]
> Art, 11/1/2006,11:26:44 AM, wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > Wonder why Scott hasn't posted this. Our fighting men were
> > looking for a lost soldier but under Iraqi orders which clearly
> > came from anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, US troops packed
> > up and left Sadr City in hands of the celebrating militia.
> >
> > [url]http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4299445.html[/url][/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> If Congress changes hands then you can bet funding to the troops will
> be cut off, they will be forced to reduce forces, more soldiers will be
> killed because of weak leadership and eventually we will leave in
> disgrace like we did in Vietnam.[/color]

We're going to cut back on troop levels, whether the Democrats win
Congress or even if the Republicans increase their majorities, because
let's face it -- nobody in Washington wants to do what's necessary to
win this war because that would require way too much political
sacrifice, and to those people, political sacrifice is more important
than the sacrifice of American soldiers.
[color=blue]
> Then the terrorists will gain a foothold there, or even worse, Iran will.[/color]

They've already gained a foothold, thanks to this administration
starting an unnecessary war against a secular dictator who had been
doing a good job of keeping out the terrorists.
[color=blue]
> Following that we will see Moslem uprisings across Europe, civil
> wars, and soon afterwards it will manifest itself in america the same
> way as Europe.[/color]

More than anything, it was the invasion of Iraq that makes that more
likely, not because it angered Islamists but because it's showed how
weak we are.

larry moe 'n curly, 11/1/2006,7:37:35 PM, wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Following that we will see Moslem uprisings across Europe, civil
> > wars, and soon afterwards it will manifest itself in america the
> > same way as Europe.[/color]
>
> More than anything, it was the invasion of Iraq that makes that more
> likely, not because it angered Islamists but because it's showed how
> weak we are.[/color]

I'll go along with the part about how weak we are. But the invasion
was a spectacular event that ended quickly. It's the aftermath that
has been fought wrongly.

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> larry moe 'n curly, 11/1/2006,7:37:35 PM, wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Following that we will see Moslem uprisings across Europe, civil
> > > wars, and soon afterwards it will manifest itself in america the
> > > same way as Europe.[/color]
> >
> > More than anything, it was the invasion of Iraq that makes that more
> > likely, not because it angered Islamists but because it's showed how
> > weak we are.[/color]
>
> I'll go along with the part about how weak we are. But the invasion
> was a spectacular event that ended quickly. It's the aftermath that
> has been fought wrongly.[/color]

W could have won the war, not just the invasion, in Iraq easily if he
had put sufficient boots on the ground. He'd have needed a military
draft but the USA would have fully supported him following 9/11.
Instead, not knowing the definition of sacrifice and telling us to go
shopping instead of fighting a war, he decided to short-change the war
effort.

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> larry moe 'n curly, 11/1/2006,7:37:35 PM, wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > More than anything, it was the invasion of Iraq that makes that more
> > likely, not because it angered Islamists but because it's showed how
> > weak we are.[/color]
>
> I'll go along with the part about how weak we are. But the invasion
> was a spectacular event that ended quickly. It's the aftermath that
> has been fought wrongly.[/color]

But the aftermath is what matters -- look at the victory of WWI (left
the defeated bitter and wanting vengeance) verses WWII (permanent peace
between the fighting sides).

Most Middle East and military experts said that the invasion of Iraq
would be the easy part but that to really win the war we'd need at
least 250,000-500,000 soldiers and ten years, and that was assuming the
Iraqi military would be co-opted rather than laid off and the
redevelopment construction would be done halfway right rather than
Halliburton-style. It seems that conventional thinking is turning out
to be right.