Can it get any worse?


#juan
No Party Affiliation
#1
More deaths as Iraq war enters fourth year
BAGHDAD (AP) At least 39 people were killed by insurgents and shadowy sectarian gangs, police reported Monday continuing the wave of violence that has left nearly 1,000 Iraqis dead since the bombing last month of a Shiite Muslim shrine.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-20-iraq_x.htm

Fixed the link -- C

You're just a nice person....W.
 
Jay
#2
"As the Iraq war entered its fourth year, police found the bodies of at least 15 more people"

These people need to learn to settle down.
 
aeon
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

"As the Iraq war entered its fourth year, police found the bodies of at least 15 more people"

These people need to learn to settle down.


I like the way you say "" these people"" , me i say, we need to have media that are honest, and same for politicien, otherwise situation like in iraq will repeat and repeat and repeat.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#4
A thousand Iraqis dead in about a month?

That sounds almost like "civil war"but Bush has already told us that was not the case and there wouldn't be any"civil war".
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#5
It will get worse, as a matter of fact it's already worse, we just don't hear or see the truth.
 
mabudon
#6
brings to mind a quote from Newt Gingrich (I know, I know, of all people) something to the effect that the US democrats should run with a simple slogan "Had Enough??"

And yes, I'm glad all of these deaths are nothing unusual for the lawless, godforsaken, primitive desert of death that Iraq has been and always will be until "those people" finish killing each other off like they've always wanted (and that WAS sarcasm, just in case)
 
Jay
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

"As the Iraq war entered its fourth year, police found the bodies of at least 15 more people"

These people need to learn to settle down.


I like the way you say "" these people"" ,

And I would like to know why you like that.
 
aeon
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon

brings to mind a quote from Newt Gingrich (I know, I know, of all people) something to the effect that the US democrats should run with a simple slogan "Had Enough??"

And yes, I'm glad all of these deaths are nothing unusual for the lawless, godforsaken, primitive desert of death that Iraq has been and always will be until "those people" finish killing each other off like they've always wanted (and that WAS sarcasm, just in case)


But what is the difference beetween democrates and republicans??

They both has the same agenda, with a different name, except the republican are more arrogant and retards, but the demo are hypocryte and synicals. Same crap.
 
mabudon
#9
I like it, too, can't exactly explain why, hopefully aeon can articulate it better, but to use a euphemism, it's quaint at best

EDIT and yes, aeon, I know it's really a choice of crapsicle or crap-on-a-stick, and I do think that this strategy the current US admin is using is dovetailed with Dem strategy, whether or not they would admit it... still, the Dems could do something drastic (if things are indeed as bad as they seem) something like apologize to a few countries and honestly try to make some kind of positive difference- who knows, and I do realize how saying "anything would be better than this" is lame, but it's all I can think at this juncture- even if just some of the checks and balances could be restored, it would be something...
 
aeon
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon

I like it, too, can't exactly explain why, hopefully aeon can articulate it better, but to use a euphemism, it's quaint at best


I wish too, don t worry. too bad i didnt learned english when i was younger.
 
aeon
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

"As the Iraq war entered its fourth year, police found the bodies of at least 15 more people"

These people need to learn to settle down.


I like the way you say "" these people"" ,

And I would like to know why you like that.


When you refer at "" these people"" it means, you regards them from a very high point of view, like they are barbarians, like you think you are better, but you are not, and i am not better than them too. remember who is in afganisthan and iraq, for something that no majority of canadian and american really know what we are doing there.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#12
Jay was just putting a twist on the numbers.

In context: wave of violence that has left nearly 1,000 Iraqis dead since the bombing last month of a Shiite Muslim shrine. As the Iraq war entered its fourth year, police found the bodies of at least 15 more people
 
Jay
#13
That's really funny because just this morning I was in a meeting and I said "well these people are just going to have to understand that, that isn't covered under warranty". I said it because there is more than one of them and they are people. I hope my colleagues didn't take that the wrong and now think were better than my customers.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#14
He must be talking to voices.................
 
zoofer
#15
Some 12 million Iraqis turned out to vote for a democratic government despite death threats that were real.

That government has not got going yet but it will. To try to stop it terrorists try to incite a civil war by killing Shiites and Kurds. Some have retaliated against the Sunnis who comprised the ruling Baath party under Saddam Hussein.

As fourteen of the eighteen Provinces have no violence it appears to be working. All the Iraqis have to do is quit violence, get the government going and then request the USA to leave. The jihadist terrorists do not want that. Neither does the ultra left. Success in Iraq is secondary to trying to diss Bush.
 
zoofer
#16
Charles (No not the Nutter Charlie Sheen) on civil war

Quote:

Civil war is nothing new
By Charles Krauthammer
Mar 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Today's big debate over Iraq seems to be: Is there or is there not a civil war? Yes, say the defeatists, citing former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a man with an ax to grind against the current (elected) government that excluded him.

No, not really, not yet, not quite, say U.S. officials and commanders, as well as Iraq's president, also hardly the most neutral of observers.

This debate appears to be important because the perception that there has been an outbreak of civil war following the Samarra bombing pushed some waverers to jump ship on their support for the war. Most famous of these is William F. Buckley, who after Samarra declared that it is time for ``the acknowledgment of defeat.'' Defeat? Yes, because of the inability of the Iraqi people to ``suspend internal divisions'' to allow a new democratic order to emerge.

This whole debate about civil war is surreal. What is the insurgency if not a war supported by one (minority) part of Iraqi society fighting to prevent the birth of the new Iraqi state supported by another (majority) part of Iraqi society?

By definition that is civil war, and there's nothing new about it. As I noted here in November 2004: ``People keep warning about the danger of civil war. This is absurd. There already is a civil war. It is raging before our eyes. Problem is, only one side'' -- the Sunni insurgency -- ``is fighting it.''

Indeed, until very recently that has been the case: ex-Baathist insurgents (aided by the foreign jihadists) fighting on one side, with the United States fighting back in defense of a new Iraq dominated by Shiites and Kurds.

Now all of a sudden everyone is shocked, shocked to find Iraqis going after Iraqis. But is it not our entire counterinsurgency strategy to get Iraqis who believe in the new Iraq to fight Iraqis who want to restore Baathism or impose Taliban-like rule? Does not everyone who wishes us well support the strategy of standing up the Iraqis so we can stand down? And does that not mean getting the Iraqis to fight the civil war themselves?

Hence the gradual transfer of war-making responsibility. Hence the decline of American casualties. Hence the rise of Iraqi casualties.

What we don't want to see is the private militias taking the law into their own hands. The army, by all accounts, has remained cohesive with relatively good discipline. The problem is the police forces, which have been infiltrated by some of the Mahdi Army and other freelance Shiite vigilantes.

We cannot allow parts of the police apparatus to become instruments of Moqtada al-Sadr or other private interests. And not just because they act viciously and vindictively, but also because their insubordination and independence are a threat to the very stability of the new Iraqi state.

But let's put this in perspective. First, this kind of private revenge attack has been going on at a low level since the beginning of the insurgency. Second, it does have the effect of concentrating Sunni minds on the price of their continuing support for the random, large-scale and heretofore unanswered slaughter of Shiites that they either actively or passively support.

And third, if the private militias are the problem, it is a focused and relatively narrow problem. Creating discipline and central control over the security services is a more manageable issue than all-out Hobbesian conflict.

The principal issue, and measure of our success, is the shaping of disciplined and effective security forces. And that is why the political negotiations that have been dragging on are so critical. It is the political track that must secure leadership for both the defense and interior ministries that are nonsectarian and committed to a unitary force whose members do not answer to private warlords.

Civil wars are not eternal. This war will end not with an Appomattox instrument of surrender. It will end when a critical mass of Sunnis stops supporting the insurgency and throws in its lot with the new Iraq.

How does this happen? The stick is military -- the increased cost in the Sunni blood of continuing the fight. But the carrot is political -- a place at the table for those Sunnis, some of whom are represented in parliament, who are prepared to abandon the insurgency for a share of power, a share of oil income and a sense of security and dignity in the new Iraq.

This is doable. That is not to say it will be done. It is to say that those who have decided that because of ``civil war'' it cannot be done have been unreasonably panicked by something that has been with us all along.

Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...24/191137.html

[/code]
 
Sassylassie
#17
Yep I agree Zoofer, but you forgot to mention special interest groups who hire foreign mercenaries to cause mayham and blood shed. There are industries that rely on wars, cival wars and unrest to make a tidy profit.
 
Jersay
#18
Say that to the people of Iraq.

What is considered a peaceful province to the American military? Maybe one or two bandit attacks a certain number of deaths that were on average before the Iraq war or what.

Iraq is not getting peaceful it is getting worst.

And not all fighters in Iraq are terrorists, most are nationalist fighters who are trying to kick out an illegal foreign occupation. Like the American revolution.

But there is the element of Al-Qaida and a number of other groups that just want to kill for the sake of killing people.
 
zoofer
#19
Quote:

What is considered a peaceful province to the American military? Maybe one or two bandit attacks a certain number of deaths that were on average before the Iraq war or what.

No car or suicide bombings I would expect. Maybe deaths below the annual murders in Ontario?

Quote:

Iraq is not getting peaceful it is getting worst.

Thats what the Treason Times and other left media keep saying.
Quote:

And not all fighters in Iraq are terrorists, most are nationalist fighters who are trying to kick out an illegal foreign occupation.

You mean Sunni Baathists. Kurds and Shiites are not the major terrorists. Nationalist fighters? Maybe a few brainwashed idiots.
Quit fighting and the "occupation" force will leave. Strange that the "occupation" coalition has turned over a large portion of the country to the Iraqi army.
 
Jo Canadian
#20
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#21
hahahahahahahahahahahahah nice boat.
 

Similar Threads

81
For Bush, it's from bad to worse
by #juan | Nov 29th, 2005
1
Worse Than Ashcroft
by moghrabi | Dec 1st, 2004