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
Lots of ugly very disturbing pictures.
Do you have any understanding of who is doing what and why?
Renee
And their news is filtered through their own biased media which is often not interested in presenting anything but the point of view their eletists in the government & media have decided on.
Renee
SUNDAY'S deadly riots look like the worst nightmare of Iraqis coming true: a Shiite uprising that could trigger not only a clash with the forces of occupation but also a civil war in the newly liberated country.
There is no doubt that the recently created Iraqi police force and the Coalition troops were taken by surprise, giving the armed rioters an initial advantage. For a few hours, parts of the affected cities looked like war zones. But take a deep breath: This is not the start of the much-predicted Iraqi civil war...
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04062004/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22305.htm
Pentagon advisor Austin Bay:
It's no Mogadishu, it's no Tet -- in fact, the ugly, baiting murders in Fallujah and Muqtada al-Sadr's made-for-Tv rebellion may be an extraordinary opportunity for the United States and Iraqi democrats, if the military operations and politics are handled with finesse...
http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/200446.asp
Rowan Scarborough
Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, the fiery Iraqi Shi'ite cleric who ordered his fanatical militia to attack coalition troops, is being supported by Iran and its terror surrogate Hezbollah, according to military sources with access to recent intelligence reports...
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040407-124311-9361r.htm
Renee
Second, the value of the artilce was only in that it corroborates what many others with varying opinions of the war, but all with first hand experience in Iraq, have observed.
Third, the artilce was not witten by a Republican spokesperson, but by a conservative one; it's not the same thing, and in either case, it doesn't mean that it doesn't hold any value. A critical reader can easily separate the facts from the opinions.
Fouth, there is no such thing as an unbiased source, just a source who is unwilling to admit where they are coming from.
Fifth, my view of how things are going in Iraq is based on numerous first hand accounts by GIs, politicians of both parties who voted both for and against the war, journalists, and Iraqis and the expert opinions of foreign policy experts, Middle East analysts, and military advisors whom all have a track record that is worthy of respect.
Renee
minnie?
Bush never said he *knew* where the WMD's were. This statement will be impossible for you to prove, but you are welcome to try if you wish. If you can, I will apologize.
We invaded Iraq after threatening to do so if Saddam didn't comply to UN resolutions. He didn't comply so we took him out of power. We gave him more than enough time to comply. This is the only reason given that we gave for invading Iraq. The other things mentioned are the *benefits*, the good things that have come out of this decision.
True, the resolutions were enacted due to the belief of the *INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY* that Saddam had something major to hide regarding WMD. 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.
Pages