What kind of a p**** holes himself up in a religious shrine?! I'm sure the people who consider that site sacred absolutely love that.
I'm just glad major combat operations are over... __________________ All citations from http://www.whitehouse.gov. May 1, 2003 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. Bush, May 2, 2003 Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. Our coalition is now engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. May 3, 2003 THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: their mission is complete and major combat operations in Iraq have ended. Our coalition is now engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. The United States and our allies have prevailed. Bush, May 7, 2003 Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. June 12, 2003 Q In Iraq, there's what sounds like a major combat operation underway, 4,000 American troops going after what is a very strong pocket of resistance. Is it fair to say that the war isn't over in Iraq, and that major combat operations continue, despite what the President said? MR. FLEISCHER: Major combat operations, clearly, are over. But just as the President said, there are dangers in Iraq, and we will face those dangers and confront those dangers. And that's why the military is still there. And the military will take whatever action is necessary to defeat the remaining elements of the Baathist regime. July 1, 2003 Q Ari, you talked earlier about the Iraqis who were staging these hit-and-run ambushes and sabotages as having melted back into the civilian populace. Has it moved now from a situation of major combat operations to a guerrilla operation? MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's exactly as Secretary Rumsfeld said yesterday at the Pentagon. It remains a military operation outside of major combat operations to go in and to mop up after these irregulars and these people who the Secretary has called dead-enders, who if they had their way, would try to resume power in Iraq. July 2, 2003 Q Also in Iraq, when he says, "My answer is bring them on," to people who would be tempted to attack American troops, does that kind of language risk inviting more attacks? MR. FLEISCHER: I think what the -- first of all, I don't think people in Iraq who are loyal to Saddam Hussein are going to or not going to attack based on a news conference. They're going to attack because that's what they do, that's what they've done as long as they were in power, and that's what they continue to do. I think what the President was expressing there is his confidence in the men and women of the military to handle the military mission that they still remain in the middle of. Major combat operations have ended, but obviously, combat has not for those who are there. And the President has faith and confidence in the men and women of our military who are doing difficult duty. July 3, 2003 Q And on Iraq, the number of U.S. casualties that we're seeing since the President declared the end of major combat operations, is this the number of casualties for U.S. troops that you expected to see happening at this time when you launched this war? DR. RICE: Look, any casualty is one casualty too many, whether we're in major military operations or what we're doing now. But the fact of the matter is, when the President declared major military operations over, he talked about the dangers that still were ahead. He's talked numerous times about the pockets of these Baathists and others who are trying to be determined not to let their fellow Iraqi citizens have a new and better future. And so we knew that it was going to be a dangerous time. I don't think anybody spent time trying to say, well, how you define dangerous. But that it might be possible that we would take more casualties, I think everybody understood. Bush, July 23, 2003 We also keep our promise to destroy every remnant of that regime and to help the people of Iraq to govern themselves in freedom. In the 83 days since I announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq, we have made progress, steady progress, in restoring hope in a nation beaten down by decades of tyranny. July 30, 2003 Q Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al Qaeda were a key part of your justification for war. Yet, your own intelligence report, the NIE, defined it as -- quote -- "low confidence that Saddam would give weapons to al Qaeda." Were those links exaggerated to justify war? Or can you finally offer us some definitive evidence that Saddam was working with al Qaeda terrorists? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think, first of all, remember I just said we've been there for 90 days since the cessation of major military operations. Now, I know in our world where news comes and goes and there's this kind of instant -- instant news and you must have done this, you must do this yesterday, that there's a level of frustration by some in the media. I'm not suggesting you're frustrated. You don't look frustrated to me at all. But it's going to take time for us to gather the evidence and analyze the mounds of evidence, literally, the miles of documents that we have uncovered. August 9, 2003 THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Friday of this week was the 100th day since the end of major combat operations in Iraq. August 18, 2003 Q On May 1st, you flew aboard the Abraham Lincoln and you addressed the nation and you announced the end of combat operations. THE PRESIDENT: Actually, major military operations. Q Okay, I stand corrected. THE PRESIDENT: Because we still have combat operations going on. Rice, August 25, 2003 We must remain patient. When Americans begin a noble cause, we finish it. We are 117 days from the end of major combat operations in Iraq. That is not very long. Bush, August 26, 2003 Since the end of major combat operations, we have seized more than 8,200 tons of ammunition, thousands of AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons. August 27, 2003 Q Is the President at all surprised by the fact that we've now lost more troops in Iraq since he declared an end to major combat operations -- granted, not all of those are combat related. And does he feel any obligation to speak out to the American people about expectations and about how much longer we can expect these types of attacks on our troops? MS. BUCHAN: A couple of things. To that specific question, you might want to look at the President's interview with the Armed Forces Radio. He was asked that exact question, so you can have it in his words, exactly. But the President appreciates the sacrifices that are being made by the men and women in America's military, and by their families. And he believes that they are bravely serving a good cause and that it is a battle against terror that we cannot retreat from. And that while major combat operations have concluded, a battle still goes on. Bush, September 7, 2003 Since the end of major combat operations, we have conducted raids seizing many caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition, and we have captured or killed hundreds of Saddam loyalists and terrorists. Cheney, September 17, 2003 There are still on-going incidents, attacks on coalition forces and on others, either from remnants of the old regime or from terrorists, many of whom were in Iraq before the war, and some of whom have arrived since the conclusion of major combat operations. October 14, 2003 Q Scott, in terms of violence, there was another car bombing or suicide bombing today. Are you saying that when things like that happen -- and they seem to happen all too frequently -- you're not going to talk about that, you're not going to talk about the fact that there are security issues? MR. McCLELLAN: No, in fact, we have. And we've never said that there wouldn't be difficulties along the way. And keep in mind, when we're talking about only being five-and-a-half months away from when major combat operations are over, that we have made significant progress on the security front, if you look at the north and south. We're still focused on the Sunni Triangle area where there are some dangers that exist. There are some dangerous people in Iraq, and we're continuing to go after those killers. October 29, 2003 Q The President did not want Americans to see "mission accomplished" and think, great, the war is over? MR. McCLELLAN: The idea for the banner and the idea for the sign was suggested by those on board ship. And we were pleased to help them with that. Q And he never knew that would be the interpretation, that the mission -- his mission was accomplished? MR. McCLELLAN: The mission for those people on board the ship was accomplished. Q But the President didn't know that this would be interpreted throughout the world that we had -- that the combat mission was over, basically? MR. McCLELLAN: The major combat operations were over. That's what the President said in his remarks. But he also went on to say that there are difficulties that remain and dangers that continue to exist, and that it's important that we stay the course and finish our work and continue to work with the Iraqi people to help them realize a better future. And that's exactly what we are doing right now. Nov. 4, 2003 Q Thanks, Mr. President. I've got a couple questions. One, what's your evaluation, your assessment of this scene you've seen here? And, two, to more and more Americans, the situation in Iraq is looking like a hot war. Are we back to major combat operations? THE PRESIDENT: No, we're back to finding these terrorists and bringing them to justice. And we will continue to find the terrorists and bring them to justice. These people want to -- "these people" being the terrorists and those who would kill innocent life -- want us to retreat, they want us to leave, because they know that a free and peaceful Iraq in their midst will damage their cause. And we will stay the course, we will do our job. November 5, 2003 Q The stories on the -- that are making their way around the Internet are that there are some new protocols in place which makes it hard to get to reach some of the Iraq and September 11th information if you go through a search engine, not if you come straight in through the White House website. The implication, they say, is that you are making some material captive only to your own restrictions and you can go in and change, for instance, the word "major combat" on the headlines of the President's speech from March 1st -- I mean, May 1st. MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know who the individuals are that are making some of these allegations, but all subjects available -- are available on the White House website, including on Iraq. And they're completely accessible to all Internet users. And that's the way we want it to be. All this information is searchable, it's all available there on our website. And that's what it will -- it will continue to be. Q It's not your policy to go back in and change the -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, do you have a specific instance you want me to look into to? I will be glad to. But that's the bottom line on our website; it's all there, it's all searchable, and please come visit it. It's WhiteHouse.gov. November 11, 2003 Q Dr. Rice, F-16 and F-15 Fighter Bombers in action over Iraq for the first time since the war ended. We saw pictures here of major ground fire. Have major combat operations resumed in Iraq? DR. RICE: Major combat operations have not resumed in Iraq by really any stretch of the imagination. What has happened is that there are some elements of the old regime that are making common cause with some foreign fighters in what, I think, could classically be described as insurgency, or insurgency plus terrorism. This is very different than fighting major marching armies of the kind that we were facing in March and April, with an intact, large-scale command and control structure across the country. No, major combat operations have not begun -- have not resumed. Bush, May 1, 2004 A year ago, I declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, after coalition forces conducted one of the swiftest, most successful and humane campaigns in military history. August 12, 2004 The sound of heavy gunbattles resonated throughout the holy city of Najaf today as US forces launched a major offensive to crush a militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr.
That is my point. We need to let the people who consider that site sacred take al-Sadr to task for using it as a base of military operations. It will happen sooner or later, but if we raze it, WE will be the ones hated by the Shi'ites, not al-Sadr. I would be willing to bet that this is exactly what al-Sadr wants: for the US to destroy a holy shrine so that he can rally even MORE to his cause.
Well good to see many on board are down with the whole neocon-Likud dream to turn this into a war against Islam and 1 billion muslims. I guess battling a few thousand Al Qaeda members didn't put enough cash into the Carlyle -Bush coffers and wasn't enough to frighten the USW population into voting for the fear mongering Pres and his followers. I know our own Pres has said once or twice "the Iraqis are a proud people" so he isn't anti-Muslim. After all Chalabi was his and Laura's bud. It is disgusting that we are going to kill these Iraqi patriots and freedom fighters for the sake of the neo-con geo-political fantasies. These brave ****e fighters pose no threats to America, just to the nutty policies of the neocns.
Remember when the adminstration kept telling us that the resistence in Iraq was because they were desperate. The resistence is because we were doing so well.
"You...Light up my life..." Thanks for the pick-me-up. Glad you realize that the "neocns" are your fellow countrymen and that we had our own wars in years gone by to give you right to slam them... and that the military now still defends your sorry leftist commie outlook. Freedom fighter? Maybe in the fact that they are now fighting their liberators from the previous dictatorship, while trying to establish a democracy there. You're a true freedom lover, that's for sure, grinch.
I'd like to level the place with the radicals inside. Would it do more harm than good long term. Yes.
Exactly. They don't love it. al-Sadr is the leader of a minority sect, who is adept at exploiting the dissatisfaction of the very large number of Iraqis who don't look kindly on the occupation of their country by a foreign power. (us) And the majority of the country are Shiite, who see this mosque, that some of you are so eager to blow up, as their most holy shrine. (this has been plastered all over the news for months, but some of you still see it as a terrorist occupation of the corner Walgreens) al-Sadr does not have the support of the majority of Iraqi Shiites. But if their most holy place is turned into a battlefield, support for his group and worldwide, not to mention Iraqi, hatred towards us will go up astronomically. As has been mentioned, it is no different than if the Vatican were leveled to take out a small group of terrorists. Or the Capitol of our own country. Or the birthplace of Jesus at Bethlehem. A group of you here need to visit your eye doctor. You're blind to the consequences of what you propose. Give this situation time, and enough Iraqi's will get angry enough with al-Sadr to either get him to leave, or take care of him themselves. If we do it, it's an act of madness.
You know what's funny is that the military is probably more aware of this than any of us. That's why they haven't just painted the thing and waited for a guided bomb to turn it to rubble. So we're arguing in support of the strategy being used while you guys want them to take action in a way that will endanger even more soldier's lives.
I just want sleeping gas to blanket that area...put them all to sleep and then go in and arrest the lot of them. DD
It's a tough row killing people for neocon fantasies. Little harder than for the guys designing video games or chilling in their offices who root for war. ********** GIs in Iraq are asking: Why are we here? Anne Barnard/ The Boston Globe The Boston Globe Thursday, August 12, 2004 RAMADI, Iraq Four months into their tour of duty at one of the most dangerous American bases in Iraq, young marines say the slow pace of progress is shaking their faith in their mission. . Playing cards one recent evening while on call to respond to any sudden outburst of violence, Lance Corporal David Goward and the rest of his squad voiced two growing concerns: that the U.S. military would linger here indefinitely and that the troops' very presence was provoking the fighting it was meant to stop.... "I don't think any of us even care what happens to this country," Goward said, as a half-dozen marines, all stationed here in the capital of the restive Anbar Province, nodded in agreement. "I'm here to make sure these guys get home safely. And they're here to make sure I do."... They can recite by heart their stated mission, to protect the fledgling local government until Iraqi security forces are strong enough to take over. But as continued attacks and new U.S. tactics have cut down on their interactions with Iraqis - other than in combat - many say they witness little gratitude and little progress. ... Asked about their experiences in Iraq, they first reacted with sheepish silence; then poured out their own questions about their situation. . "I haven't seen any improvement since I've been here," said Corporal Jaime Duenas, 23, of Nogales, Arizona. He contrasted Ramadi to southern Iraq, where he was stationed last year just after the invasion and worked with locals happy to see Saddam toppled. . "Last year, it was pretty chill; kids ran up to us and waved," he said. "Here, kids throw rocks." . "People are tired of us being here," said Lance Corporal Anthony Robert, 21, of Charlottesville, Virginia. "It's the same as if someone came to the U.S. and started taking over. You'd do what you'd have to do." . Lance Corporal Kenneth Burke, 22, of Lufkin, Texas, looked up from his cards. "OIF-1 had a purpose," he said, referring to Operation Iraqi Freedom 1, the Marine Corps deployment in the invasion. "This one, I don't think so." ... . But they are disappointed that they spend little of their time working with Iraqis to rebuild their country. An increase in violence since April and a U.S. decision to take a lower profile in the area have prevented that. . The squad members said they had come to resent Iraqi security forces who seemed unwilling to take risks and Iraqis who did not want them there. . "It doesn't matter how much America looks like it's trying to help," said the squad's leader, Corporal Glen Handy, 26, of Las Vegas. "If we stay 10 years or if we stay one year, we're going to leave and there's going to be chaos here." . The marines are surprised at some of their own ugly emotions. The Army troops whom the marines replaced told them, "You're going to learn to hate these people," Goward recalled. "I thought, 'With that attitude, no wonder you're having a hard time.' But you know what? They're absolutely right." . link
We hear about the thousand who have died and the 6,000 or more seriously wounded, many who lost limbs, but there is another toll that will cause problems for our country in the years to come. ************* N.C. soldiers report post-traumatic rate near Vietnam veterans The Associated Press Aug 10, 2004 : 1:17 am ET FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. -- Fort Bragg paratroopers coming back from serving in Iraq suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder at almost the same rate as Vietnam War veterans, according to a military survey. The survey of about 1,300 paratroopers from the 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division 2nd Brigade that have returned from a year of service found 17.4 percent of soldiers have post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. The 3,000 soldier brigade was part of the invasion force and spent most of its time in Baghdad. The numbers are similar to those published in a New England Journal of Medicine study that found that 16 percent of Iraq veterans reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression or severe anxiety. "The numbers are looking more and more like Vietnam," said Capt. Jill Breitbach, chief of psychology services for the 82nd. A national study of Vietnam veterans determined in 1988 that the prevalence of PTSD was about 15 percent at that time. In all, 30 percent had experienced the disorder at some point since returning home. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder include nightmares, extreme anxiety, inappropriate anger and feelings of disconnection from family and friends. Headaches, dizziness, chest pain and anxiety attacks also are common. Crowds, stoplights or even Wal-Mart shopping bags can trigger anxiety, Breitbach said. The Wal-Mart bags resemble those used by insurgents in Iraq to hide roadside bombs. Stopping at a light in Iraq could lead to an ambush, so it is standard for military convoys to speed through intersections with little regard for traffic lights. Another survey showed that paratroopers of the 3rd Brigade -- which spent eight months in Iraq -- suffer from stress disorder. The survey of 1,900 soldiers found about 9.6 percent had symptoms of the disorder, putting them in line with rates from the general population. The numbers don't represent actual diagnoses by doctors, Breitbach said. The surveys were distributed to paratroopers after they had been home for three months. Stress disorder was the most common problem, but the survey indicates soldiers also suffer from depression and anxiety. Fort Bragg doctors have received training on treating combat stress and paratroopers take part in group and individual counseling sessions to help them cope, Breitbach said. "You dictate how you cope with things," Breitbach said. Many soldiers go untreated, though. Some worry about the stigma of seeking mental health care. Platoon leaders and sergeants also make it difficult to put together group sessions because they want their paratroopers to train, Breitbach said. But she said it's important that soldiers get help. "If you let it fester, you start losing soldiers," she said. "They are not crazy. They are just having trouble adjusting." link
I wanted a real discussion about whether to blow up the shrine or not. I don't have an issue with it...whipe it out, they will get over it. But if they can do it with gas, then they should, I just don't think there is such a device yet. DD
Man, if we only had that nuke that kills people but leaves buildings we'd be in clover right now. That Commie Kerry probably voted against it though.
