Even the French admit that security is improving in Iraq

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Kappo
I am pretty sure that GWB was pretty clear that this would take quite some time from the get-go.

actually, he wasn't; so I'm sure these people are about to nail you on that... Bush's Admin never planned for several years of fighting. He even stated that major hostilities would be over in a few weeks. (WOOPS!)

That said, once we all realized just how screwed up everything was, some of us HAVE known and admitted that it would take a long time to properly transfer power to the new Iraqi government. The problem is that most Americans can't stand any commitment that lasts longer than a single season of LOST or American Idol; while our enemies are willing to fight against us for generations to come.

That said, once again, Bush WAS wrong about many things, including how long the hostilities would last.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Far more than that. George's excellent adventure in Iraq led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so far, though the exact count isn't known.

Nope, you're wrong.

Because you said so? If it's all the same to you, I'll trust the data of people who actually know what they're talking about. Thanks.

You're trusting the data of fools and wackos. Read the lamentable tale of the Lancet estimate sometime. Crap data is worse than no data-- just keep it out of the discussion and we'll be fine.

ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Robor
It's unknown whether Saddam would have killed hundreds of thousands. What is definitely known is we've killed near 100,000.

Far more than that. George's excellent adventure in Iraq led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so far, though the exact count isn't known.

Really? So you dont see terrorism and Al-Queda as a global threat?

Kindly re-insert that total non sequitur back into the orifice from which you pulled it. It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with anything I suggested. Idiot.


(Pssst. Here's another hint. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and al Qaida ... before King George rushed in. Stop listening to Fox/talk radio and educate yourself. At least get some fresh propaganda points.)

OOOO personal attacks, now. The SURE sign of complete failure. 😉

So you are saying that you cannot ever use any previous occupations as a basis for how long something should take? Using the gnat-like attention span of the general public is not how we should dictate how long something should take.

I am pretty sure that GWB was pretty clear that this would take quite some time from the get-go.

I'd strongly encourage you to learn to read. You're inventing all sorts of things I didn't say while ignoring the things I actually said. You also continue to make these disjointed leaps of illogic. How did you get from ">100K killed" to "you dont see terrorism and Al-Queda as a global threat", ignored the fact Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq and AQ, and then launched off onto yet another tangent about previous occupations and the attention span of the public?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Far more than that. George's excellent adventure in Iraq led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so far, though the exact count isn't known.

Nope, you're wrong.

Because you said so? If it's all the same to you, I'll trust the data of people who actually know what they're talking about. Thanks.

You're trusting the data of fools and wackos. Read the lamentable tale of the Lancet estimate sometime. Crap data is worse than no data-- just keep it out of the discussion and we'll be fine.

ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.

Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?

EDIT: Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Here's a better question:

When will Republicans agree it has improved enough to STOP spending $150 billion a year in Iraq?

2108?

Yep, we really need that money to support all the illegals, welfare babies and people who thinking working is just SO hard, so we should pull out now.

You think Osama Bin Obama is really going to make life better? Get him to re-allocate my tax dollars back to ME, and you might be onto something 😉

FWIW, most of us would rather see our dollars go overseas in an effort to protect us than to some scrub who has 6 kids by 4 different men or some piece of crap spitting out kids while here illegally so that they can bring the whole family over.

Um, how about no? I don't think either answer is the right one. Wasting money here / wasting money there. Bad / bad.

And for the record, at least domestic spending waste (ie; welfare), though I devoutly object to it, DOES at least recirculate in the general economy to some degree. As in, you give the guy $xxx/month, and that guy goes and buys hamburgers and t-shirts or whatever, which means more sales tax revenue, more $$ going into primarily service-oriented industries, etc. $$ going to Iraq/etc does fuck-all for the general US economy.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Topic Title: The majority of Amercans, including Republicans, now admit that the Bushwhackos' war in Iraq is a failure.
Topic Summary: Why can't the neocon sycophants like PJ do the same?

Fixed it for ya.

Time to give the troops an extra helping of security fries and bring 'em home.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Far more than that. George's excellent adventure in Iraq led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so far, though the exact count isn't known.

Nope, you're wrong.

Because you said so? If it's all the same to you, I'll trust the data of people who actually know what they're talking about. Thanks.

You're trusting the data of fools and wackos. Read the lamentable tale of the Lancet estimate sometime. Crap data is worse than no data-- just keep it out of the discussion and we'll be fine.

ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.

Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?

EDIT: Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?

you cannot just claim that this information has been 'debunked' without providing proof.
where is your proof? or are you just talking out of your anus?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Topic Title: The majority of Amercans, including Republicans, now admit that the Bushwhackos' war in Iraq is a failure.
Topic Summary: Why can't the neocon sycophants like PJ do the same?

Fixed it for ya.

Time to give the troops an extra helping of security fries and bring 'em home.

thanks for the morning laugh!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Stuff it. I'm shitting all over the vile administration that sent them to die for an imperialistic and corrupt agenda. You're the one shitting on their deaths by refusing to place fault where it belongs, instead attacking those who dare to exercise their First Amendment rights. You fail as a defender of the Constitution you allegedly swore to protect.

So it's not possible to condemn the Admin AND respect the soldiers enough to acknowledge their accomplishments without disrespecting their sacrifices?!

My point of contention is with those who think that we're sacrificing money and lives "for nothing." When, in fact, if you go out and ask the soldiers, they'll explain to you very adamantly what/who it is theyre fighting for, and the good things they've accomplished thus far.

Our troops have every right and reason to be proud of what they're accomplishing every day -- especially the progress during the last 12 months -- so saying things like "thrown away their lives" or "dying for nothing" is insulting beyond measure.

So you can take your own advice and "stuff it."

Sorry, I reject your premise that criticizing the mission and noting that deaths are wasted is in any way insulting the troops. I also find the fact that some number of soldiers have rationalized noble motives for their fight in any way obligates me to agree with them. Everybody wants to feel what they do has meaning. That doesn't make it so. Finally, as I already said, the fact that individual events may be successes when looked at narrowly doesn't change the fact that overall, the invasion of Iraq has been a resounding failure, doing the world far more harm than good. It's great that we are slowing cleaning up the mess we made in Iraq. That doesn't change the fact we made the mess in the first place.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

I would encourage everyone to check out Dahr Jamail, both his website and his book "Beyond the Green Zone." Dahr Jamail is an American hero who risked his life to bring us all the story of the American occupation through Iraqi eyes.

Maybe the security situation "has" improved somewhat...How many reports on the MSM about the Iraqi refugees, the Iraqi dead

But we have in no way even begun to fix the damage we've done and the vast majority of Iraqis are in much, much worse shape than during the genocidal sanctions. Look up the report issued in 2007 by the well-respected NGO OxFam. It reported that 43% of Iraqis are in absolute poverty, which means they're lacking one or more of the essentials for human existance - such as food, water, shelter, and sanitation. 70% don't have access to safe drinking water, 80% do not have effective santitation. The fact of the matter is that the whole reconstruction was nothing more than a huge transfer of wealth from American taxpayers directly into the pockets of political donors.

For the people in Iraq who face a literally life & death scenario each day, struggle to feed their family, and watch their children's future wither away, it is indeed a HUGE improvement.

After all they should be happy that their doors are not kicked in at nights, their families and wives being dragged out by soldiers at random, and living entirely in fear of when their lives would be forfeit.

-In 2007, the [bipartisan] Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as ?grave and deteriorating?.

- About four million Iraqis are internally displaced or have fled the country.

- Nearly four years after the fall of the Baathist regime, most Iraqis have limited access to food, health services, education and employment. Many also lack water and electricity.

- Iraq?s health system has collapsed. Medical services, once among the best in the Middle East, have declined to such an extent they can no longer meet the needs of the population.

- Nearly half the Iraqi population is dependent on food rations, according to World Food Programme. Food shortages have been particularly acute where military operations are under way.

-Iraq is considered the deadliest place in the world for journalists. According to the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, a record 93 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. Another 37 media support workers have been killed during the same period.

As 4 million Iraqi refugees wonder about their futures as they looks for homes. As millions of Iraqi people mourn the over the thousands of Iraqi people who have been killed as a direct result of the ill-advised invasion of Iraq by the Bush cartel. As the world looks on knowing that human suffering is taken place.

The Bush/Cheney cabal, the GOP, the MSM poodles and Corporate poodles have been spinning their elusive success in Iraq from March 19 2003 to the present. They invaded Iraq with no real plan and came up with the adhoc Plan A that never changed until the summer of 2006 when sub-plan (a) was introduced - the surge. The temporary increase of the troops was to solve the problem and give the Iraqi government time to come together -there has been no other plan. We are spending $343,000,000 per day in Iraq and have spent $20,000,000,000 for training the Iraqi forces. The USA cannot make the three basic groups in Iraq love each other. This war may be a gravy train for a few but the country and it's image in the world is continually declining. Spin all they want but that does not change the facts in Iraq. A mature adult human being faces up to the facts and accepts them, makes changes and moves on.

The Bush Cabel generally believe less government is better. They believe in personal responsibility, and avoiding dependence on the government. They go so far as to say an activist government fosters dependency by creating the expectation on the part of citizens that they will be taken care of.

That is what has happened in Iraq, in spades, and it is remarkable that the Bush leadership never saw it coming. What would make anyone think we could replace one government with another without creating a huge amount of dependency? What would make the White House think that our freshly installed Iraqi government would, out of a sense of moral responsibility, take on the massive financial burden of recovery when it is perfectly clear that the more inept they appear, the more the U.S. is going to take up the slack?

The Bushies have always preached tough love. Tough love would be getting the hell out of there, and making the Iraqi government do for itself.

The only moral choice is the complete agenda of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW): Immediate withdrawal without conditions, reparations for Iraq, care for our troops.

Spinning success leads to failure...

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Kappo
I am pretty sure that GWB was pretty clear that this would take quite some time from the get-go.

actually, he wasn't; so I'm sure these people are about to nail you on that... Bush's Admin never planned for several years of fighting. He even stated that major hostilities would be over in a few weeks. (WOOPS!)

That said, once we all realized just how screwed up everything was, some of us HAVE known and admitted that it would take a long time to properly transfer power to the new Iraqi government. The problem is that most Americans can't stand any commitment that lasts longer than a single season of LOST or American Idol; while our enemies are willing to fight against us for generations to come.

That said, once again, Bush WAS wrong about many things, including how long the hostilities would last.

Please be careful not to pigeon hole those of us against a long term occupation as those Americans that don't give a sh!t.

I think the majority of those here do give a sh!t and are not willing to allow the same people that put us into this mess to be the ones that continue to call the shots. I don't trust Bush or his team to make the right decisions to end our Iraq occupation. Do you? I do trust those that say we cannot proceed without a plan to withdrawal. A plan to withdrawal puts everyone ESPECIALLY Iraq on notice that the US will not hold the Iraqi's hands for much longer.

The type of occupation we are engaging in seems short sighted. Especially in light of the fact that republicans are willing to see improving security conditions in Iraq as some sort of overall success. Improving security conditions should facilitate our withdrawal, it should allow Iraq to get into the business of establishing its own government and services. But in and of itself, improving security conditions should not be viewed as some overall success, in light of all the work that needs to be done in order to get Iraq up on its feet.

If we are able to witness Iraq doing these things (i.e. standing up for itself as a legitimate government), then I would consider labeling improving security conditions as a 'success.' For now I think the best reaction we, as the American public, should embrace is being thankful that are troops are working hard and protecting each other and Iraqi citizens. And optimism that the next administration will win on the Iraq mandate, and the US approach to Iraq will change once we are out from under the Bush blunder. The US must adopt a policy that outlines a phased withdrawal, only then will Iraq be motivated to get its act together or suffer.

I think by not adopting any sort of long term plan that involves withdrawal, the Bush team is willing to just wait it out until his term is over...this benefits the Bush team and the Iraqi quasi-government. but this does not benefit our troops, our military, our threat response (in case of future dangers both home and abroad), our future economy, and not american tax payers. This whole Bush blunder has put us at risk in many ways.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.

Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?

Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties.

EDIT: Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?

Don't know. Did you get banned from Free Republic?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

That is what has happened in Iraq, in spades, and it is remarkable that the Bush leadership never saw it coming. What would make anyone think we could replace one government with another without creating a huge amount of dependency? What would make the White House think that our freshly installed Iraqi government would, out of a sense of moral responsibility, take on the massive financial burden of recovery when it is perfectly clear that the more inept they appear, the more the U.S. is going to take up the slack?

I think you are alluding to this but I am going to go ahead and state it:

The Bush team did see it coming. I think even Bush's daddy told GWB not to march to Baghdad.

Ultimately the "gravy train" that you commented on earlier was too tempting an opportunity to miss for the neocons. And who DOESN'T want to dispose of a ruthless dictator when given the chance?? 🙂
so what if a country gets shredded in the process...

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.

Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?

Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties.

EDIT: Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?

Don't know. Did you get banned from Free Republic?

You seem to do really nothing but try to insult others with a different opinion than you.

Little on the insecure side, are we?

At least we can say you are a typical lib with nothing more to do than go out of your way to be insulting and degrading to others. Yeah, let me vote for THAT!

 

[Stoneburner]

I'm rather confused at this point what the mission in Iraq was. Helping school childrens? Is the Iraqi Childrens learning?

I still don't see why people think the security gains are permanent. It's fragile and it's largely due to excessive bribing and certain people deciding to wait out the U.S. occupation. In the end, the world is going to find a heavily islamicized decentralized state that is an ally of Iran.

Was that the mission goal?

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'm rather confused at this point what the mission in Iraq was. Helping school childrens? Is the Iraqi Childrens learning?

I still don't see why people think the security gains are permanent. It's fragile and it's largely due to excessive bribing and certain people deciding to wait out the U.S. occupation. In the end, the world is going to find a heavily islamicized decentralized state that is an ally of Iran.

Was that the mission goal?

In the end, it really was a humanitarian mission (which I incidentally do not agree with in any aspect).

We get to kill some terrorists, which is nice (although underwhelming - start lining our bullets with pig fat and we may get somewhere), and the "mission" is ultimately to protect our own interests (people, economy, etc...).

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'm rather confused at this point what the mission in Iraq was. Helping school childrens? Is the Iraqi Childrens learning?

I still don't see why people think the security gains are permanent. It's fragile and it's largely due to excessive bribing and certain people deciding to wait out the U.S. occupation. In the end, the world is going to find a heavily islamicized decentralized state that is an ally of Iran.

Was that the mission goal?

In the end, it really was a humanitarian mission (which I incidentally do not agree with in any aspect).

We get to kill some terrorists, which is nice (although underwhelming - start lining our bullets with pig fat and we may get somewhere), and the "mission" is ultimately to protect our own interests (people, economy, etc...).

There were far more dire humanitarian concerns around the world. Now, you can go on barking out of your sphincter but eventually you'll just be ignored because you're a fuckin idiot.

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'm rather confused at this point what the mission in Iraq was. Helping school childrens? Is the Iraqi Childrens learning?

I still don't see why people think the security gains are permanent. It's fragile and it's largely due to excessive bribing and certain people deciding to wait out the U.S. occupation. In the end, the world is going to find a heavily islamicized decentralized state that is an ally of Iran.

Was that the mission goal?

In the end, it really was a humanitarian mission (which I incidentally do not agree with in any aspect).

We get to kill some terrorists, which is nice (although underwhelming - start lining our bullets with pig fat and we may get somewhere), and the "mission" is ultimately to protect our own interests (people, economy, etc...).

There were far more dire humanitarian concerns around the world. Now, you can go on barking out of your sphincter but eventually you'll just be ignored because you're a fuckin idiot.

We invaded Afghanistan for terrorism.. we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam. Sure, it helps us in the long run, but I would venture to say that it helps them FAR more than it helps us. Thus, humanitarian. Thus, my reason for us not being there.

Keep using personal attacks. I promise it makes you look smart.... what? Cant come up with anything else? Then get back to work and get me some fries.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.

Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?

Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties.

EDIT: Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?

Don't know. Did you get banned from Free Republic?

No, it's been proclaimed debunked by the media (as distinct from the nutcase media). So much for you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.../uk/article3177653.ece

 

[Robor]

Where is PJ? I'm guessing this didn't turn out as he planned.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'm rather confused at this point what the mission in Iraq was. Helping school childrens? Is the Iraqi Childrens learning?

I still don't see why people think the security gains are permanent. It's fragile and it's largely due to excessive bribing and certain people deciding to wait out the U.S. occupation. In the end, the world is going to find a heavily islamicized decentralized state that is an ally of Iran.

Was that the mission goal?

In the end, it really was a humanitarian mission (which I incidentally do not agree with in any aspect).

We get to kill some terrorists, which is nice (although underwhelming - start lining our bullets with pig fat and we may get somewhere), and the "mission" is ultimately to protect our own interests (people, economy, etc...).

There were far more dire humanitarian concerns around the world.

Empowering Iran is a humanitarian concern - and the invasion of Iraq is directly responsible. We have done ourselves a great disservice.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Kappo
We invaded Afghanistan for terrorism.. we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam. Sure, it helps us in the long run, but I would venture to say that it helps them FAR more than it helps us. Thus, humanitarian. Thus, my reason for us not being there.

Keep using personal attacks. I promise it makes you look smart.... what? Cant come up with anything else? Then get back to work and get me some fries.

Did you forget about the alleged WMD's and ties to 9/11?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Thread title says it all.

The French Foreign Minister takes a trip to Iraq and admits that security in Iraq is improving. AND he says that the Iraqis are making 'progress' at taking charge of their country.

Why can't the Democrats do the same?
link

BAGHDAD (AFP) ? French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday that the security situation in Iraq was improving and reaffirmed France's willingness to help rebuild the war-ravaged country.
"I have the feeling that things are better. Statistics show a drop in security incidents," Kouchner told AFP after a working lunch with his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari on the last day of his two-day visit to Iraq.
There is "an improvement in the situation in Iraq," he said.
Kouchner also voiced satisfaction at efforts by the Iraqis to take charge of their own country, saying they were making "progress."
"The Iraqis themselves, with their army, their administration, are taking charge of their own problems," Kouchner said.
He then went to Arbil, capital of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, to open a French representative office before wrapping up his visit.
Kouchner arrived from neighbouring Jordan on Saturday on an unannounced trip which he said was aimed at underlining Paris's "renewed political commitment" to Iraq.
He had separate meetings with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and also met the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and leading Christian cleric Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly.
Kouchner told a news conference his meeting with Maliki "went well" and that "some (development) projects have been proposed to France.
"We will see if our industrialists can bring answers," Kouchner said.
Zebari insisted that "it is urgent that France takes part in the reconstruction of Iraq."
Kouchner, on his second visit to Iraq since August, said that France wants "to take part in the reconstruction of the country."
He also confirmed that France, which under former president Jacques Chirac strongly opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, was examining the cases of 500 Iraqis, including Christians, who wish to move to France.
Earlier on Sunday, two people were killed and five were wounded in a car bombing in Baghdad just outside the Green Zone which houses the Iraqi government and the US embassy, as Kouchner was visiting the capital.
But even as the attack occurred the US military and the Iraqi government reported a major drop in the number of deaths for the month of May.
Nineteen US soldiers were killed in Iraq in May, the lowest monthly death toll since the invasion of 2003, the military said. The previous low was in February 2004 when 20 soldiers were killed.
The number of Iraqi civilians and security personnel killed in May also dropped dramatically to 563 compared with at least 1,073 dead in April and 1,082 in March, the Iraqi defence, interior and health ministries reported.

BTW Has Obama made any recent statements about Iraq or the surge? Would be interesting to see what he has to say.

Did Koucher walk through a Bagdad market without wearing a flack jacket and fifty armed soldiers to guard him? No! Then can we credit Bush-kissing Frenchies with telling the truth?
Propagandajohn????

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'm rather confused at this point what the mission in Iraq was. Helping school childrens? Is the Iraqi Childrens learning?

I still don't see why people think the security gains are permanent. It's fragile and it's largely due to excessive bribing and certain people deciding to wait out the U.S. occupation. In the end, the world is going to find a heavily islamicized decentralized state that is an ally of Iran.

Was that the mission goal?

In the end, it really was a humanitarian mission (which I incidentally do not agree with in any aspect).

We get to kill some terrorists, which is nice (although underwhelming - start lining our bullets with pig fat and we may get somewhere), and the "mission" is ultimately to protect our own interests (people, economy, etc...).

There were far more dire humanitarian concerns around the world. Now, you can go on barking out of your sphincter but eventually you'll just be ignored because you're a fuckin idiot.

We invaded Afghanistan for terrorism.. we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam. Sure, it helps us in the long run, but I would venture to say that it helps them FAR more than it helps us. Thus, humanitarian. Thus, my reason for us not being there.

Keep using personal attacks. I promise it makes you look smart.... what? Cant come up with anything else? Then get back to work and get me some fries.

Personal attacks? Calling you an idiot is not personal at all, you're a clown and you know why. I'm not even going to ask you why you think removing Saddam is a long term benefit. Because 1) you don't know 2) you don't know you don't know 3) despite not knowing you'll say something stupid and try to cap it off with another asinine remark about Islam and pigs.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
This is what's so mindfuckingly bizarre about the ProfJohn type neocon assholes. THey think 4000 american soldiers plus a trillion dollars is a worthwhile price to pay to get Iraq to roughly the same position it was in before the invasion.

Really?

Now they don't have that pesky little murderous dictator at the helm, the new Iraqi Administration is friendly to the U.S., they hold regular elections, and we're entrenched enough to prevent any further WMD development or the export of terrorism...

Even though I too believe that we should never have gone into Iraq to begin with, those successes are still something to be very proud of, and they're still worthy of the sacrifices we've made -- some of us more than others -- even if folks like you think all of our soldiers are criminals who "die for nothing."

Every time YOU open your mouth, YOU are shitting on the sacrifice of all of MY brothers and sisters who have died.

Know that.

Misconstrue much? Get your 'ead out of your 'ss, our soldiers are following the orders of criminals making them victims that die for nothing.