Al Qaida Leader Caught in Iraq

[Gunny]

I am smart enough to know that a shiite persian country with close ties to shiites in Iraq would NOT support an organization of sunni arabs that are killing those shiites in Iraq.

Why would you think such a silly thing? Why would you think for a moment that persian shiites whould give aid to arab sunnis who are killing their allies?

An interesting comment. So you contend that the Islamofascist sects won't play by "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" rule of thumb?

 

[maineman]

An interesting comment. So you contend that the Islamofascist sects won't play by "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" rule of thumb?

I am contending that shiites in Iraq today are being killed by AQ in Iraq. Given that, it makes ZERO sense to imagine that Iran would support AQ in Iraq.....

In FACT, Iran is supporting the shiite militias in Iraq and NOT AQ.

 

[Gunny]

I am contending that shiites in Iraq today are being killed by AQ in Iraq. Given that, it makes ZERO sense to imagine that Iran would support AQ in Iraq.....

In FACT, Iran is supporting the shiite militias in Iraq and NOT AQ.

Iran is backing the Shia, and Saudi Arabia is backing the Sunni. The kurds are just sitting back with beer and popcorn.

Where is it exactly that you see AQ coming into play?

 

[red states rule]

I am smart enough to know that a shiite persian country with close ties to shiites in Iraq would NOT support an organization of sunni arabs that are killing those shiites in Iraq.

Why would you think such a silly thing? Why would you think for a moment that persian shiites whould give aid to arab sunnis who are killing their allies?

I see the terrorists wanting the Dems surrender bill to pass

Dems are giving aid and comfrort to the enemy in time of war

 

[maineman]

I see the terrorists wanting the Dems surrender bill to pass

Dems are giving aid and comfrort to the enemy in time of war

when will you ever stand up and defend your own words? when will you ever explain why a shiite persian nation would support an arab sunni organization that is killing brethren shiites in Iraq?

 

[Gunny]

when will you ever stand up and defend your own words? when will you ever explain why a shiite persian nation would support an arab sunni organization that is killing brethren shiites in Iraq?

Looks to me like the al Qaeda that is in Iraq is playing for their own piece of the pie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda_in_Iraq

 

[maineman]

Looks to me like the al Qaeda that is in Iraq is playing for their own piece of the pie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda_in_Iraq

I would agree.... and Iran is clearly backing Sadr.

 

[Annie]

I would agree.... and Iran is clearly backing Sadr.

I agree with that, but there is an argument, made by the US leadership in Iraq, that they are also arming Sunni insurgent groups. Altogether it seems the argument is lacking the discussion of foreign players in the insurgency:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...nni&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 

[Gunny]

I would agree.... and Iran is clearly backing Sadr.

If I recall my hisotry correctly, Wahabbism was a direct Sunni response after WWII to meet the threat of expanding Shi'ism from the East. I wouldn't expect a Shia Islamic government to support a wahabbi sect against other shia. Would be illogical.

 

[Rosotar]

If I recall my hisotry correctly, Wahabbism was a direct Sunni response after WWII to meet the threat of expanding Shi'ism from the East. I wouldn't expect a Shia Islamic government to support a wahabbi sect against other shia. Would be illogical.

Perhaps these are issues that a competent leader would have sat down and kicked around the table with people more informed than him before launching an invasion destabilizing the country.

As a result of Bush's lack of inquisitiveness our soldiers are dying everyday in a "mistake" that we cannot extricate ourselves from.

Do you see the need for impeachment here?

 

[Annie]

Perhaps these are issues that a competent leader would have sat down and kicked around the table with people more informed than him before launching an invasion destabilizing the country.

As a result of Bush's lack of inquisitiveness our soldiers are dying everyday in a "mistake" that we cannot extricate ourselves from.

Do you see the need for impeachment here?

no to impeachment.

Cannot extricate ourselves from? Seems the dems and yourself have already made it clear that is possible.

 

[Gunny]

Perhaps these are issues that a competent leader would have sat down and kicked around the table with people more informed than him before launching an invasion destabilizing the country.

As a result of Bush's lack of inquisitiveness our soldiers are dying everyday in a "mistake" that we cannot extricate ourselves from.

Do you see the need for impeachment here?

There was plenty of justification to remove Saddam from power, so you'd be wasting your time trying to impeach him.

If you extremists would spend less time living in the past and put some effort into dealing with the situation as it is NOW, something might get accomplished.

And I agree with Kathianne .... I thought y'all lefties figure extricating ourselves from Iraq is as simple as tacking a rider onto a funding bill.

 

[maineman]

And I agree with Kathianne .... I thought y'all lefties figure extricating ourselves from Iraq is as simple as tacking a rider onto a funding bill.

if we had a veto proof majority, it WOULD be.

 

[Annie]

if we had a veto proof majority, it WOULD be.

It's right or not. Veto has zip to do with right. Right?

 

[maineman]

It's right or not. Veto has zip to do with right. Right?

right? of course it is the right thing to do.... achievable with a president who disagrees and no veto-proof majority? no...not achievable.

But then, just wait until 2008.... we will have a veto proof majority and won't even NEED it because we'll have the presidency as well!

 

[Annie]

right? of course it is the right thing to do.... achievable with a president who disagrees and no veto-proof majority? no...not achievable.

But then, just wait until 2008.... we will have a veto proof majority and won't even NEED it because we'll have the presidency as well!

Well if it's best for the US, more power to you.

 

[maineman]

Well if it's best for the US, more power to you.

Getting out of Iraq is undoubted the best for the US..... I only wish we HAD more power now so we could make that happen.

 

[Rosotar]

There was plenty of justification to remove Saddam from power, so you'd be wasting your time trying to impeach him.

If it were as simple as just "removing Saddam from power" then you might have a valid point even though that is expressly forbidden in the international laws that we helped write and which we hold every other nation in the world to.

Unfortunately it didn't turn out to be that simple. We know now that Iraq, the middle east, and the rest of the world was much better off with Saddam in power. Because of this, and the mess that Bush is directly responsible for, he has to be held accountable for his bumbling about on the world's stage.

We wouldn't allow any other ruler from any other country on earth to simply say "oops" and get away with what Bush has done.

If you extremists would spend less time living in the past and put some effort into dealing with the situation as it is NOW, something might get accomplished.

If you extremists would stop confusing your short memories and your denial with clean consciences we might begin to start moving ahead by first cleaning up the unresolved garbage from the past. The first step, and the biggest blow to terrorism we could land would be to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we hold our leaders accountable for their crimes against humanity. Otherwise our hypocrisy is not lost on our enemies.

And I agree with Kathianne .... I thought y'all lefties figure extricating ourselves from Iraq is as simple as tacking a rider onto a funding bill.

Nice job of using FOX and GOP talking points to try to reduce a complicated issue to something simple. Partisan statements like this are part of the problem not part of any solution.

With "supporters" like you our nation and our troops don't even need enemies!

 

[Gunny]

If it were as simple as just "removing Saddam from power" then you might have a valid point even though that is expressly forbidden in the international laws that we helped write and which we hold every other nation in the world to.

The US was STILL in a state of war with Iraq, the violence on kept to a minimum by a ceasefire agreement. An agreement Saddam violated at every opportunity for 12 years. So there was nothing illegal about continuing an operation begun 12 years earlier.

Unfortunately it didn't turn out to be that simple. We know now that Iraq, the middle east, and the rest of the world was much better off with Saddam in power. Because of this, and the mess that Bush is directly responsible for, he has to be held accountable for his bumbling about on the world's stage.

He's not going to be held accountable for doing nothing illegal no matter how much you wish otherwise. He was within his rights as President, and within the terms of several UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement to resume hostilities against Saddam Hussein.

That Saddam was the lesser of two evils on the world stage is subjective, even though I am of the same opinion, but not a concrete fact admissible in any court.

We wouldn't allow any other ruler from any other country on earth to simply say "oops" and get away with what Bush has done.

We have and will again so long as that leader/ruler is within his legal rights to do so.



If you extremists would stop confusing your short memories and your denial with clean consciences we might begin to start moving ahead by first cleaning up the unresolved garbage from the past. The first step, and the biggest blow to terrorism we could land would be to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we hold our leaders accountable for their crimes against humanity. Otherwise our hypocrisy is not lost on our enemies.

Now I'm an extremist. Please tell just how that fits in with RSR calling me a liberal.

You can't hold someone accountable who has acted within the limits of the law. Your opinion that he is guilty of committing crimes against humanity is just that, your opinion, not substantiated by any real fact.


Nice job of using FOX and GOP talking points to try to reduce a complicated issue to something simple. Partisan statements like this are part of the problem not part of any solution.

With "supporters" like you our nation and our troops don't even need enemies!

Maybe if you get past your extremist rhetoric to some glimpse of objectivity, it's quite obvious that YOU and your liberal cohorts are the ones that think leaving Iraq is so simple. It isn't Republicans trying to tie a fix-all, band-aid rider onto a funding bill.

Your last comment is just pure bullshit, plain and simple. You don't want to get into a name-calling contest with me, so ratchet yourself down a few notches. I can hang with far better than I've seen from you.

 

[red states rule]

Getting out of Iraq is undoubted the best for the US..... I only wish we HAD more power now so we could make that happen.

and the terrorists would be very grateful MM

so grateful they would wait and kill you and your family last to show how thankful they are for your appeasement