9 Yrs wasted?

[PRBuzz]

US troops haven't been out of the country, what 72 hrs?

BAGHDAD — A wave of bombings ripped across Baghdad on Thursday morning, killing at least 57 people and injuring nearly 200 in the worst violence Iraq has seen for months. The bloodbath comes just days after American forces left the country.

The blasts also came on the heels of a political crisis between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite factions that erupted this weekend. The political spat, which pits Iraq's Shiite prime minister against the highest-ranking Sunni political leader, has raised fears that Iraq's sectarian wounds will be reopened during a fragile time when Iraq is finally navigating its own political future without U.S. military support.

While the string of explosions was likely not a direct response to the political Sunni-Shiite confrontation, it will ratchet up tensions at a time when many Iraqis are already worried about security. If continued, it could lead to the same type of tit-for-tat attacks that characterized the insurgency years ago.

Iraqi officials said at least 14 blasts went off early Thursday morning in 11 neighborhoods around the city. The explosions ranged from blasts from sticky bombs attached to cars to roadside bombs and vehicles packed with explosives. There was at least one suicide bombing among the attacks.

Most of the attacks appeared to hit Shiite neighborhoods although some Sunni areas were also targeted.

[Raven]

samo- samo.... it was all a waste land to begin with

too bad how many Americans died over there

[The Dad Fisherman]

Now its time for them to step up and take care of themselves....

wouldn't call it wasted.....lets see what happens

[Sea Dangles]

We tried. Adios.

[likwid]

Sunni on Shiite violence? Unpossible! Its not like they haven't been killing each other for a thousand years already!

[JohnnyD]

Just turn the whole region into a glass desert already.

[UserRemoved1]

This bs is never going to end. When the Americans were there it was always reported that the violence etc was due to them being there. Everyone said Americans out.

Well guess what...we're gone.

Let them kill each other. What do we care. They asked us to leave. Fix it yourself azzholes.

[striperman36]

just like Vietnam
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slick Moedee]

as those coming back can hold there heads high as we back home appreciate their efforts and sacrifices, regardless of what the f happens back there. That was not the case with NAM...

[spence]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

This bs is never going to end. When the Americans were there it was always reported that the violence etc was due to them being there. Everyone said Americans out.

Well, the answer is both. The American presence certainly does seem to have created a lot of violence, in addition to the sectarian violence already there which was suppressed by Saddam.

-spence

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Slick Moedee

That was not the case with NAM...

It should have been....

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slick Moedee

as those coming back can hold there heads high as we back home appreciate their efforts and sacrifices, regardless of what the f happens back there. That was not the case with NAM...

Agree, even with the debate about the justification for the war, there's no question the country supports our troops efforts and sacrifice.

-spence

[likwid]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

This bs is never going to end. When the Americans were there it was always reported that the violence etc was due to them being there. Everyone said Americans out.

It was because we were there. We interrupted their killing each other and goat herding.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Slick Moedee

as those coming back can hold there heads high as we back home appreciate their efforts and sacrifices, regardless of what the f happens back there. That was not the case with NAM...

I think that since then we have realized that the services don't choose their battles but only do what is asked and do it well. It will be another fourty years before we get into a nonviable fight again.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It will be another fourty years before we get into a nonviable fight again.

Precisely why Newt would have no chance of winning the general election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Mike P]

Bush-43 should have asked his dad why he left Saddam in power at the end of the first Gulf War, when he could have easily hung him from a street light in Baghdad.

A trillion or two spent, 4500 military deaths and 100,000 or more injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, and what we accomplished in the long run is strengthening Iranian hegemony in the region. Iraq was a country created by drawing lines on a map after WW 1, composed of factions that traditional hate and slaughter each other, and the only thing that kept it together was Saddam's iron fist. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what we happen once we were gone, after we hanged the bastard.

[Sea Dangles]

I can't believe we left without finding the WMD...
I do respect their right to kill eachother though.
Bring the weary soldiers home to rest,we have a world to police.
The axis of evil awaits,after Afganistan it will be on to Iran or North Korea.
They can't have nukes unless we say they can have nukes.

[GregW]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Just turn the whole region into a glass desert already.

I am taking your statement as mostly in jest.
However, Serious question, as I try to understand people's opinions.
Do you view yourself as hypocritical? You stated earlier last week that you wouldn't intervene in a fist fight to help someone getting pummeled due to your height. However, you have no problem condoning military action as long as it's not your neck on the line. Please explain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by GregW

I am taking your statement as mostly in jest.
However, Serious question, as I try to understand people's opinions.
Do you view yourself as hypocritical? You stated earlier last week that you wouldn't intervene in a fist fight to help someone getting pummeled due to your height. However, you have no problem condoning military action as long as it's not your neck on the line. Please explain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So which is it - I was talking in jest or am a hypocrite? Both is an acceptable answer.

1) I never said it was solely because of my height, but it's certainly one of the many reasons I wouldn't have stepped in. Regardless of someone's size, anyone stepping into that situation is grossly outnumbered considering the number of people cheering the situation on. (As an aside, bart mentioned the word around town is that kid did steal those shoes. If so, he got off easy by not being sent to the hospital on a stretcher.)

2) You're welcome to look at my post history in the Political Forum to answer you questions on my opinions of sending our military abroad as the world's police force.

[GregW]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

So which is it - I was talking in jest or am a hypocrite? Both is an acceptable answer.

1) I never said it was solely because of my height, but it's certainly one of the many reasons I wouldn't have stepped in. Regardless of someone's size, anyone stepping into that situation is grossly outnumbered considering the number of people cheering the situation on. (As an aside, bart mentioned the word around town is that kid did steal those shoes. If so, he got off easy by not being sent to the hospital on a stretcher.)

2) You're welcome to look at my post history in the Political Forum to answer you questions on my opinions of sending our military abroad as the world's police force.

Well, if you had read correctly, I said that I was taking it mostly in jest. Meaning that I was removing the ridiculousness of your statement, justifying the annihilation of an entire region based upon your opinion, while not removing your justification of military action against the region.

The reference to the shoe incident was just that, a reference. Has it not been established that a receipt was produced by the parents. Your justification is laughable at best. We are to believe the conspiracy theory of a person who was expelled from school based upon actual evidence. I really don't care to argue that case anymore. I see it as a waste of time and your point was taken. You feared bodily harm and therefore would not interject. That is your opinion and you are justified to it. I only mention it in contradiction to your justification of others risking their lives in a much more dangerous situation, while you yourself would not.

And finally I do not care to discuss this any further. Nothing will be gained and I see no point engaging in this. I simply asked a question to gain insight. The only reason I posed the question was in reference to one of the premier authors of the century posing a simple question:
Why is it that people justify military action when they themselves would not participate in it themselves? And, if they were too old why would they not volunteer their sons and daughters?
It fits right in with your statement. You are either hypocritical in the fact that you would justify the action and not participate yourself or will prove you are hypocritical if your post in the political forum are of the opposite nature. Take your choice. I don't care to research your past posting in the political forum. I see no reason for me to view the forum. It consists of people arguing back and forth and no one changing their opinion.

[spence]

Originally Posted by GregW

Why is it that people justify military action when they themselves would not participate in it themselves? And, if they were too old why would they not volunteer their sons and daughters?

It's a great question. Could it be the ease of a volunteer service? The use of force rather than politics to achieve impatient goals? The economic wealth that demands intervention to sustain it? The erosion of what it means to be a citizen?

I remember the first time ever in a casino in Windsor...was playing on a 25 dollar black jack table with another person's money...felt like I couldn't lose.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by GregW

Well, if you had read correctly, I said that I was taking it mostly in jest. Meaning that I was removing the ridiculousness of your statement, justifying the annihilation of an entire region based upon your opinion, while not removing your justification of military action against the region.

So, you accept that the comment was a joke, but then criticize the comment as if it was serious?

And finally I do not care to discuss this any further. Nothing will be gained and I see no point engaging in this.

You don't care to discuss it any more yet you continue on with...

I simply asked a question to gain insight. The only reason I posed the question was in reference to one of the premier authors of the century posing a simple question:
Why is it that people justify military action when they themselves would not participate in it themselves? And, if they were too old why would they not volunteer their sons and daughters?
It fits right in with your statement. You are either hypocritical in the fact that you would justify the action and not participate yourself or will prove you are hypocritical if your post in the political forum are of the opposite nature. Take your choice. I don't care to research your past posting in the political forum. I see no reason for me to view the forum. It consists of people arguing back and forth and no one changing their opinion.

Since you've read farrrr too much into a statement made as a joke, I'll humor your...

For starters even if I was 100% serious, turning the entire region into a "glass desert" wouldn't put an American life in immediate danger as the comment is in reference to the effect on the silica in sand when a nuclear weapon is detonated. Sand + extreme heat = glass.

And to answer the original source motivating your long diatribe regarding my assumed support of sending American troops anywhere as the worlds police force and the hypocrisy of such a statement... I've been vehemently against Iraq from day one, just as I'd be against any action in Iran, Pakistan or North Korea. I'm more in the Ron Paul camp of pulling most non-essential American troops out of foreign deployments.

As a serviceman, I can respect your distaste for people that want to send our troops out yet wouldn't sign up themselves. I've mentioned this in that past... I tried to sign up my senior year of college, was medically declined and was declined again during the appeal process. Also worked as an EMT for 6 years, 4 of which were responding to emergencies in some of the crappiest neighborhoods, unsecured shooting victims, gang violence, etc. - nothing like a war zone and that doesn't make my opinion any more valid, but I mention it as I do take some contention with your statement: "I only mention it in contradiction to your justification of others risking their lives in a much more dangerous situation, while you yourself would not."