We are Retaliating For Fallujah!!!
Find a Conversation
We are Retaliating For Fallujah!!!
| Mon, 04-05-2004 - 1:42pm |
I am happy to see that we are doing something!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4667031/
FALLUJAH, Iraq - Hundreds of U.S. and Iraqi troops in tanks, trucks and other vehicles surrounded the turbulent city of Fallujah on Monday ahead of a major operation against insurgents blamed for the grisly slayings of four American security contractors last week.
U.S. commanders have been vowing a massive response to pacify Fallujah, one of the most violent cities in the Sunni Triangle, the heartland of the anti-U.S. insurgency north and west of Baghdad.
(For the rest of the story, click the link above)

Pages
These aren't the only articles I've read about this. There have been lots of stories. Also, do you believe that Al Quaeda ran over to Iraq only after WE got there? REALLY? That is a difficult one for me to swallow.
I really believe that by only visiting extreme left wing web sites that you are getting a skewed view of what is actually going on over there. We are very successful. Just to put it into perspective I've copied something I read on another board:
FDR led us into WWII, Germany never attacked us, Japan did. From 1941 to 1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 a year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
JFK started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. (Eisenhower may have committed the troops, but JFK honored it)
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered OBL 3 times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama Bin Laden has attacked us on multiple occassions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked the U.S., President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, severely crippled al Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We have lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 300 per year. Bush did this abroad while preventing further attacks on American soil.
***It has taken less time to take the country of Iraq than it did for Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound (that was a 51 day operation)
***It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his car sank at Chappaquiddick.
***It took less time to take Iraq than it took to recount the votes in Florida.
Gassed once, Kurds fear reprise
By Cameron W. Barr | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
HALABJA, IRAQ – When Roukhosh Arif climbed out of her basement, past the metal door draped with a wet towel that had kept out the gases, the light of a chilly, cloudless dusk was tinted yellow.
Covering the mouth of her 1-year-old daughter, Ms. Arif and her husband rushed through the streets of this small city in northeastern Iraq. The poisoned air, smelling of onions and apples, crept into their eyes and nostrils.
They saw its effects everywhere. Bodies lay on the street. People sat down, unable to run. A neighbor shouted prayers mixed with nonsense.
These are Arif's memories of March 16, 1988. The Iraqi military, waging a genocidal campaign against this country's ethnic Kurds, killed 5,000 people in Halabja that day, according to human rights organizations.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p06s01-woiq.html
We haven't found any of these weapons, yet you aren't concerned in the least where they might be, because your leadership told you they never existed, or that Saddam dismantled and secretly destroyed them because he was such a good guy.
You say "many" Iraqis may have been appreciative in the beginning but...
Many is not *all*. That is what you need to understand. There are 5 million Iraqi's in that country. If the majority of them felt this way we would be outnumbered and overtaken within hours. The majority is supportive of us. The left wing is painting a different picture for one reason and one reason only - to regain power.
And when I said this, "The left is trying everything in its power to turn this into another Viet-nam but it WILL NOT WORK. I would advise to switch strategies because the times they are a -changing. The pendulum has swung back to love of country and the left has not noticed. 9-11 changed everything." I didn't mean you as an individual. I meant your party leadership.
Also, about the president's advisors. When someone becomes president they have hundreds of the most competent foreign relations experts in the world at their disposal. Not just president Bush - any president. President Bush does not have to rely on Rumsfeld to teach him about Muslim culture, or any culture.
Tell me why, in your opinion that the International Community voted for these resolutions against Saddam threatening to use force if he didn't comply. Why do *you* think that happened?
I would like to understand better the interesting world *you* live in.
My point was in answer to this statement by you:
It would be foolish to think that he was willing to risk so much if he were really innocent all he had to do was prove he had complied. This thinking defies all common sense or rules of logic.
Your logic is what is false, you assume he is guilty because he doesn't want to be treated like he was guilty when he felt he was innocent.
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
And you are wrong that Saddam was forced to produce weapons or go to war. He didn't have to produce any weapons, but if he didn't he had to PRODUCE PROOF that he had destroyed them or proof of where they were. HE DID NEITHER.
And the "idiots" in France and Germany (a quote from YOU, not me, because I do not consider them to be idiots AT ALL) have been proven to have had their hands dirty in their relationship with Iraq.
minnie
I see the circularity you are trying to present. I have two other ideas on this topic: 1)
how can you prove you don't have something? Logic says you can't prove a negative. 2) Saddam enjoyed almost a hero status for defying the US(UN); why would he voluntarily surrender this status?
I think it is a typically western mind-set to believe he would "fez up". Saddam himself was not suffering from the pressure, he was benefiting.
You don't remember Hans Blitzer saying that they had found no evidence of WMD? That he felt that the weapons programs had already been dismantled?
Nobody asked him to "prove a negative". The resolutions required him to show the weapons or PROVE what he did with them.
Saddam did not enjoy a hero status for defying the UN. His people feared and hated him. Also, terrible sanctions were placed against his country because he defied the UN. Saddam lived in fabulous palaces while his people starved. Nobody thought him to be a hero (except maybe the American far left?)
minnie
And, I'm not judging them! I've been there! I didn't say I hate them I said they hate us! That is an observation, not a judgement. ;)
A very 'blanket observation' which means that you are judging them.
Pages