Major U.S.-Iraqi operation begins

Major U.S.-Iraqi operation begins

www.usatoday.com

Violence across Iraq has fallen dramatically in recent months, an improvement attributed to a combination of 30,000 extra troops sent into the Baghdad area; the work of U.S.-backed predominantly Sunni tribal groups who turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq; and a cease-fire declared by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr for his Mahdi Army militia.

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq is attempting to regain strength and establish new support areas in northern Iraq," said Lt. Col. James Hutton,

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
origin.mercurynews.com

If you want to believe any of this it is marginally good news. In the end I fear this will not make much of a difference. I am not saying I know the answer, but it just would be nice if the violence would stop.

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by RedGolem


The way to make the violence stop is to remove those folks from the gene pool that are causing the violence.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Too late I'm afraid...

Bush has already spawned two offspring...



Edit to remove one "already" too many.



[edit on 8-1-2008 by goosdawg]

reply to post by goosdawg


Just so I understand are you saying that you expect another bush to be in office after the next election?

Originally posted by goosdawg
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

Too late I'm afraid...

Bush already has already spawned two offspring...

Yep- Bush's daughters have been known to commit all sorts of crimes against humanity.
Now back to reality- you're confusing causing violence with responding with violence.

reply to post by RedGolem



as far as the Lt Colonels statement of A-Q reestablishing itself in
nrthern Iraq.

isn't that where the Kurds kept the insurgents/A-Q at bay?
isn't northern Iraq where the Turks are pounding the seperatist Kurds?

hmmm... it's falling into a 'scripted' scenarioto my thinking.

reply to post by RedGolem

Originally posted by RedGolem
reply to post by goosdawg

 

Just so I understand are you saying that you expect another bush to be in office after the next election?

Hah! If he doesn't get smoked in the ME in the coming week, we'll probably have the same Bush in office without elections.

But that's not what I meant...

I was responding to the following statement, tongue firmly in-cheek.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The way to make the violence stop is to remove those folks from the gene pool that are causing the violence.

My statement;

Too late I'm afraid...

Bush has already spawned two offspring...

Was a reference to the fact that it was too late to remove the war-mongering "decider" from the gene pool to stop the appalling violence his crony enriching policies have foisted upon the people of Iraq.

Jeez, I know my attempts at humor can skew to the painfully dry at times...but that's okay.

Sorry for the confusion...


Edit to remove another "already" too many...

Damn, I need to have my coffee before I start posting in the morning...




[edit on 8-1-2008 by goosdawg]

Originally posted by goosdawg
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

Too late I'm afraid...

Bush has already spawned two offspring...

[edit on 8-1-2008 by goosdawg]

You owe me a new keyboard thanks to the coffee that splurted out of my mouth when i read that....

reply to post by BlueRaja

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Now back to reality- you're confusing causing violence with responding with violence.

I'm not confused at all, thanks.

The violence occurring in Iraq is, at the core, due to the short sighted, criminal policies of the current imperialist executive branch, who lied to the good people of America, and the world, to advance their elite master's agenda.

Nope, no confusion here...



reply to post by mr-lizard


Send me the bill!

reply to post by BlueRaja


And just whom is to be the judge of who's causing the violence, you? GWB and his puppetmaster papa? Give me a BREAK!

Here I go getting Biblical on ya.

Luke 18

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Seems your buddies disqualified themselves to judge, along with everybody else, a long time ago. For all have sinned and fallen short. You need to get that through your head.

26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?

27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

And so it shall be.

You do realize that when translated - thou shalt not kill, means thou shalt not commit murder. There's a difference between homocide and murder.

Homocide-
n.
The killing of one person by another.
A person who kills another person.


Murder-
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.


Here's question for you. Do you think that the US is the reason Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other? Do you think that they'd get along if only we'd leave?

reply to post by goosdawg


I invite you to read my response to Icarus Rising, with regards to the cause of violence in Iraq. Shiites and Sunnis have been killing each other, along with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Budhists, etc... for longer than the USA has been in existence. The cause of violence is hatred, envy, greed, and power struggles between these factions.

The reason Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other because they can't tell who's American.

Its a great excuse.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
You do realize that when translated - thou shalt not kill, means thou shalt not commit murder. There's a difference between homocide and murder.

Actually, homicide is simply the generic term for one human being killing another, murder is a subset of the term homicide.

What's your point?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Here's question for you. Do you think that the US is the reason Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other?

And here's a question for you: Do you think the illegal US presence and resulting chaos, due to poor planning by the cowboy perpe-traitors of this travesty, has anything to do with the fact that it's now easier for them to kill each other, not to mention our occupying troops, that is, American citizens?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Do you think that they'd get along if only we'd leave?

They didn't get along before the US arrived, but if the US leaves, they'll no longer have the readily accessible opportunity nor motivation to kill Americans.

Eventually a strong leader would seize control and they could go back to just killing each other.

Remember, the US, under the stewardship of Bush/Cheney, is the illegal invading and occupying force here.

We don't belong there.

It's not the American people's war.

We used to lead by example, now we impose with the barrel of a gun...

This "war" is an excuse to seize and control Iraq's oil assets, using American soldiers as cannon fodder, by soulless corporate interests' unquenchable lust for wealth and power.

Not only that, but to use the Iraqi people as guinea pigs; a proving ground for the testing and development of new weapons.

Weapons both lethal and the "non-lethal" variety that will eventually be deployed against American citizens who have the "audacity" to protest the elite's fascist plans for the trashing of our constitution.

Is it any wonder the Iraqi people don't want us there?

The hypocritical sneering jackals "bringing democracy" are the same ones who are burying it "back home."

Keep in mind, I'm speaking of the "deciders" not the rank and file pawns.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Here's a few more questions for you;

1) Do you really believe an American military presence in Iraq is going to bring an end to the internecine carnage that has been waged "for longer than the USA has been in existence?"

2) Do you really believe the Iraqi people are better off now than when Saddam Hussein was in charge?

Before you answer, consider this: roughly 600,000 were killed under his rule.

(He's only number thirteen on the list of The worst genocides of the 20th Century.)

(Of course, that list is sooo last century; Bush/Cheney's got a good start on the list for this century so far, but there's another forum for that discussion...9/11 anyone?)

Since the Bush/Cheney invasion of 2003 over 1.2 million additional Iraqis have died violently.

That figure, of course, also doesn't include the millions of refugees and displaced since 2003.

(Or the coming up on 4,000 Americans (real soon, we're at 3,911 as of today) who've died fighting this corporate farce, or the anywhere from 23,000 to 100,000 soldiers who've been injured.)

Love him or loath him, Saddam was an American creation and he was in control.

And less people were killed by him than are killing each other now.


reply to post by deltaboy

Originally posted by deltaboy
The reason Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other because they can't tell who's American.

The reason they're killing each other is because there's a power vacuum: there's no one in charge.

And they know who the Americans are: they're the illegal invading/occupying force unwittingly facilitating the theft of Iraqi resources by rapacious corporate interests.

And for allowing that to happen, there is no excuse...





[edit on 8-1-2008 by goosdawg]

The government of Iraq was voted for by a higher percentage of the population than typically vote in US elections, and has been accepted as the legitimate, sovereign government of Iraq by its neighbors, and the UN.
The US military has not been asked to leave(quite the contrary), by the Iraqi government, so how exactly is our presence there illegal? Your figure of those who have died violently is off by a decimal point by the way, by the vast majority of accounts.


(1.2 million/4 years = 300,000 KIA per year/12 months = 25,000 KIA per month/30 days =800+ Iraqis killed violently everyday for the last 4 yrs)
Why wasn't anyone noticing this level of violence until now? Do you think that the MSM was covering that up? Not even the Arab press was reporting numbers like that.

The homocide vs. murder comparison was in response to Icarus Rising.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human. Not all homocides are murders in other words.


Iraq a testing ground for new weapons that "will be" used here at home?
You seem awfully certain of that- care to back that claim up with any precedent.

Being in the military, I'm painfully aware of the almost 4,000 KIA over the last 4yrs, but to put things into historical perspective though- These figures are in no way meant to minimize/trivialize the current casualty figures(I've lost a number of friends during this war).

americancivilwar.com...

September 17, 1862 was the bloodiest day of the Civil War. Federal losses totaled 12,410 and the Confederates lost 10,700 men. Although neither side won a decisive victory, General Robert E. Lee's failure to carry the war into the north was significant to the outcome of the war. The battle also gave President Lincoln the opportunity to issue the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, which on January 1, 1863, declared free all slaves in States still in rebellion against the United States.
Estimated Casualties: 23,100 total



en.wikipedia.org...

First phase: September 26 to October 3
The American attack began at 5:30 a.m. on September 26 and progressed 11 kilometres (7 mi) in two days. Montfaucon d'Argonne was captured on the first day. On September 29, six new German divisions were deployed to oppose the American attack, and in the words of General Pershing, "We were no longer engaged in a manœuver for the pinching out of a salient, but were necessarily committed, generally speaking, to a direct frontal attack against strong, hostile positions fully manned by a determined enemy."

Second phase: October 4 to October 28

328th Infantry Regiment of 82nd Division line of advance in capture of Hill 223 on October 7, 1918.The attack was renewed on October 4 against 20 German line and reserve divisions. Casualties and exhaustion were such that General Pershing required 90,000 replacements....

www.kansaspress.ku.edu...

“Decidedly the best scholarly study of the Meuse-Argonne—the greatest battle in American military history in terms of the totals of American troops involved [1.2 million], the number of casualties they suffered [26,277 killed, 95,786 wounded], and the length of time it lasted [47 days]. Ferrell has masterfully portrayed America’s culminating campaign in World War I in all of its complexity while never forgetting that people planned and fought the battle. . . . A significant book about a very significant battle.”—Edward M. Coffman, author of The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I"

en.wikipedia.org...

The Battle of the Bulge was the bloodiest of the battles that U.S. forces experienced in World War II; the 19,000 American dead were unsurpassed by those of any other engagement

Aftermath

Battle of the Bulge memorial in BelgiumCasualty estimates from the battle vary widely. The official U.S. account lists 80,987 American casualties, while other estimates range from 70,000 to 104,000.




[edit on 9-1-2008 by BlueRaja]

reply to post by BlueRaja


Oh, so genocide is the answer? Are you following your own train of thought here? Do you even realize what you are advocating?

Can you show me exactly where I advocated genocide? We have been the only thing stopping the killing from being more rampant, since the insurgency started. If the USA wanted good body count stats, it'd be very easy to carpet bomb every city in Iraq, as they have no way to stop us(if that were indeed our goal).

reply to post by BlueRaja


Right here.

The way to make the violence stop is to remove those folks from the gene pool that are causing the violence.

The Sunnis and the Shiites are causing the violence, iiuyc. You are advocating their removal from the gene pool. That's genocide.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The government of Iraq was voted for by a higher percentage of the population than typically vote in US elections, and has been accepted as the legitimate, sovereign government of Iraq by its neighbors, and the UN.

And hows that working out for them?

I suppose there must be someone, some "officially" sanctioned governmental entity in place to sign off on the Halliburton/KBR contracts, eh?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The US military has not been asked to leave(quite the contrary), by the Iraqi government, so how exactly is our presence there illegal?

The US military was also not asked to enter Iraq, either.

It's illegal because the "reasons" given to go into Iraq by our liar-in-chief and his sneering Uncle Dick were just that; lies, half truths and misrepresentations.

And these perps aren't just ripping off the Iraqi people, they're fleecing the American people as well, with no-bid contracts and rampant graft and thievery.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Your figure of those who have died violently is off by a decimal point by the way, by the vast majority of accounts.

Not according to my sources:

1,163,944

The number is shocking and sobering.

It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003...

...The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.

This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it.

Source | Just Foreign Policy

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The homocide vs. murder comparison was in response to Icarus Rising.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human. Not all homocides are murders in other words.

Obviously...

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Iraq a testing ground for new weapons that "will be" used here at home?
You seem awfully certain of that- care to back that claim up with any precedent.

Active denial systems, for crowd control, for starters.

But there is no precedent for the assault on our constitutionally guaranteed liberties undertaken by the current administration...unless you count the tactics used during Hitler's rise to power.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Being in the military, I'm painfully aware of the almost 4,000 KIA over the last 4yrs, but to put things into historical perspective though- These figures are in no way meant to minimize/trivialize the current casualty figures(I've lost a number of friends during this war).

But the figures you go on to quote are from justified and "noble" wars.

This current fiasco is neither.

Please accept my heartfelt condolences for the losses you've experienced; I've lost family over there as well.

And please accept my sincere gratitude for stepping up to the plate and getting the job done.

If only the "deciders" had been as noble, we'd have been done with this as soon as they toppled Saddam.

Now lets finish it and bring our sons and daughters home.