Comments on: U.S. Walls Off Sunni Enclave In Baghdad

Military Says Barricade Is Necessary To Protect Sunnis Surrounded By Shiites

[randalds]

Posted by tbweb at 12:55 AM : Apr 22, 2007


Of course and the world should be concerned about them. However, just like with Iraq, Bush is approaching them the completely opposite of how he should. With North Korea for instance. When Clinton was president he negotiated with them (sent Madeline Al bright and Bill Richardson over) and they agreed to a treaty where they would allow inspectors from the UN anytime they wanted to be sure that they were developing nuclear power, not weapons and they even allowed sealed cameras on the sight so inspectors could keep and eye on them. When Bush became president he decided that he was the new hot sh*it kid on the playground and he started making threatening noises. He stupidity thought it was best to belittle and threaten and insult Kim Jong-Il and even called hi names like "Midget". He said talking was reward for bad behavior, even though there was no bad behavior until he started flapping his lips. Of course Jong-Il then threw out the inspectors and shut off the cameras, so now would didn't know what he was up to. Of course Bill Richardson went back there a few weeks ago and in a matter of days of diplomacy he had Jong-Il agreeing to everything in the old treaty again.

[tbweb]

--RandalDS

Let me add something else to the mix because I think its important. I like to take a big picture view of whats going on in the world and it boils down to this for me personally until some new facts or some new information changes my view. Many of these conflicts around the world have been going on for decades, Israel comes to mind for example. The thing that makes these conflicts different from the past is new more powerful modern weapons that can end the world as we know it, this wasn't always the case when enemies could fight and live to fight another day. Now, a major conflict can end life on earth! Its not necessarily about Iran or North Korea for me, its about any nation the world see as a threat to use WMD and end life as we know it. The world is concerned about Iran and North Korea right now and these nations need to respond to the worlds concerns. So its no about Iran or N Korea for me, I would feel the same about any nation the world was not comfortable with. For some it not like this, its about religion or culture or land or whatever for them, but I just wanted to make the point that for me its about the survival of planet earth and none of the other political stuff.

[randalds]

When you're right I agree with you. I just hope if Iraq had been a success and not a failure everyone would still feel the same, that it was wrong anyway. It that the case?
Posted by tbweb at 12:34 AM : Apr 22, 2007

No it's not wrong to wish Iraq had been a success, but the problem is that there never was any way for it to be a success because it was based on a false premise. The neoconservatives who came up with the plan to invade Iraq (in the late 1990's, not after 9-11) based it on the assumption that the Iraqi's, being in the most secular nation in the entire Middle-East, would welcome a western style democracy. However the fact is that, as anyone who knew anything serious about the history of Iraq would know, is that there was no way that was ever going to happen and that without a strong dictator the nation would split, violently, into it's three natural pieces. However once they assumed that wrong premise everything else looked great on paper. The whole region would flower with democracy. The problem is that it didn't take into account that the people in that region do not WANT a western style democracy. They want only religious theocracies. So you see "victory" as it's defined here was never a possibilty no matter what. So we should not have invaded at all. It's been a waste of time, effort, money and most of all, lives.

[tbweb]

--RandalDS

When you're right I agree with you. I just hope if Iraq had been a success and not a failure everyone would still feel the same, that it was wrong anyway. It that the case?

[randalds]

"I never said he should have been removed somehow"

Of course that should read shouldn't, not should.

And speaking of al-Qaeda terrorists, there are dam*n few of them there now! Almost all of our casualties are being caused by insurgents, from both sides of this civil war. That is why there is no "victory" to be had in Iraq. In order to "win" we'd have to kill about 90% of the population because that's how many Iraqi want us to get the fu*ck out and let them settle their problems themselves. hell the only people we're protecting are the Iraqi's hiding out in the green zone pretending to try to be a government and eveyone outside of the green zone wants us gone. There is no way for us to win anything! Not unless we want to just kill them all!

[randalds]

Saddam committed many attrocities and whether the U.S. should have been the one to address them is up for debate, but don't act like Saddam was an Angel and didn't deserve to be removed, the point is, don't go to the opposite extreme either!
Posted by tbweb at 12:15 AM : Apr 22, 2007

I never said he should have been removed somehow, but I am saying it was not worth one drop of our soldiers blood to do it, esp when Bush lied to us by saying it was somehow connected with terrorism when he knew it was not. There were no al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq until after we invaded. Not a single one. Saddam was an as*shole, but he hated al-Qaeda as much as he hated us for dumping him from our buddy list in the region. he would have had al-Qaeda members shot on sight! He was a secularist, not a religious fanatic and he did not want them around as he thought they threatened his power. Of course they don't have to worry about that anymore as we took Saddam out for them. Not the smartest dam*n move, though classically Bush.

[tbweb]

--RandalDS

The problem is complex because I agree in most cases its not about Iraq or any country at all. Its about religion and terrorist without flags or countries. There are many terrorist in many countries doing things THAT countrys government is not responsible for. Its not as black and white as you try to make it either, its many shades of grey! Saddam committed many attrocities and whether the U.S. should have been the one to address them is up for debate, but don't act like Saddam was an Angel and didn't deserve to be removed, the point is, don't go to the opposite extreme either!

[randalds]

I don't agree with everything the adminstration is doing or the way its doing it but its doing something and something is better than nothing. I keep hearing about a war of choice but once again America didn't chose any of this!

1993 - First attempt to blow up World Trade Center
1996- Khobar towers blown up in Saudi Arabia
1998- US embasy in Kenya blown up
2000- USS Cole bombed in Yemen
2001- World Trade Center blown up


Posted by tbweb at 11:58 PM : Apr 21, 2007

NO! NO! NO! Doing the wrong thing is WORSE then doing nothing! That idea is what got this moron re-elected! Dumb things like "Well at least you know where he stands", when in fact where he stands is the wrong godda*mn place! Or "At least he's strong and resolute", when he is not either of those, he's just pig-headed, childishly stubborn!

And Bush is doing the wrong thing because this war in Iraq had and still has not any connection to any of the attacks you list! None! Nada! Zip! Not a single dam*ned thing! The war in Iraq is the war of choice, not the so-called Global war on Terror (which is really the war whoever the hell doesn't like us, which is quickly getting to be everyone).

[tbweb]

Americans keep making the same stupid mistakes, not responding the way they should until a Pearl Harbor or 911 type attack and then everyone becomes united "briefly" until the danger goes away and the threat subsides and its back to business as usual. I don't agree with everything the adminstration is doing or the way its doing it but its doing something and something is better than nothing. I keep hearing about a war of choice but once again America didn't chose any of this!

1993 - First attempt to blow up World Trade Center
1996- Khobar towers blown up in Saudi Arabia
1998- US embasy in Kenya blown up
2000- USS Cole bombed in Yemen
2001- World Trade Center blown up

[randalds]

The goal. Wall them off and then start the exterminations. Don't think our government is that sick? Take another long look at Di*ck Cheney and then say that level of evil does not exist in our government. That fat Nazi would do it in a heartbeat, assuming he has a heart to beat.

[toolmangler-2009]

The current field of wannabees is not desirable.

Posted by radiob at 08:35 AM : Apr 21, 2007


I'm with you radiob.

[toolmangler-2009]

This callous excuse of a man, calls himself the "war president" - doesn't take life or anything else serious - because he has been given everything his whole life!
Never again elect someone who has not had to face the hard trials of life - at least once in his/her life.

Posted by karlimhof at 07:58 AM : Apr 21, 2007




'K' Don't feel bad a lot of people misunderstood just how 'clueless' this guy is. I hope its 'clueless' and he is not this mean and stupid by nature.

[radiob-2009]

The surge talks now say "it will take longer" than first thought.....duh. An immediate turnabout will take place when the contracts for oil revenues/production are completed. Reports state talks have taken place in Dubai (Halliburton?), and other places. January 20, 2009...Is this the date the insurgents are waiting for along with the rest of us?
Posted by panhandlpete


Sources Pete Sources credible

[panhandlpete]

Just learned yesterday that mercernary soldiers working for BLACKWATER gets $30,000 per month salary. With more than 120 private contractors and over 120,000 employees, with salaries such as this, no wonder this war is expensive. No accountability and no contract bidding......no wonder the FBI wants a field office set up in IRAQ.

The truth slowly seeps to the surface, yet no matter how corrupt, deceitful or costly, no one gets taken to task or removed from office.

The surge talks now say "it will take longer" than first thought.....duh. An immediate turnabout will take place when the contracts for oil revenues/production are completed. Reports state talks have taken place in Dubai (Halliburton?), and other places. January 20, 2009...Is this the date the insurgents are waiting for along with the rest of us?

[skyk-2009]

You guys know who came up with this plan it was the American Enterprise Institute.

For some reason I can't see how a bunch of people who care so little for Working People and their Kids just are the ones to end a war. They have a long history in this nation but NONE of it shows any knowledge how to UNITE people. That history is one of how to divide people for your own greedy ends. These people had no intention of LEAVING Iraq but Exploiting Iraq and they probably came up with the Wall as well. That's the way they think.

[skyk-2009]

I watched George W. Bush on the News last night, watched him very carefully and I've come to the conclusion that this man is Mentally Impaired. He's not in touch with reality. Here we are building WALLS between the waring parties in Iraq and he's still talking like everything is just hunky dorry. He's not with us folks and to be honest I'm not sure he ever was. He is and has been a complete FRAUD for so long now, no one really knows who's in charge of the nation. One thing is certain, it is NOT someone who cares about those of us who work and pay the taxes... that is for certain.

[radiob-2009]

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52 percent of Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed October 9, 50 percent said that if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him. The President's deceit is not only an abuse of power; it is a federal crime. Specifically, it is a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.
Posted by bluestardad

Not defending Bush but where is the legal proof? I have never believed the reasons given to go to war or the reasons for the continuance of the war that have been given by the admin.It has from the beginning been suspicious but again where is the hard evidence that can be legally used?And if such evidence can be obtained does it include Cheney? Barring some unforseen event President Bush will go down in history as the worst president in American history. He has not only tarnished the reputation of the US but he has forever tarnished his family name making it virtually impossible for another "Bush" to serve in the White House. Hurry up 2008 so we can finally rid ourselves of this pariah although the current field of wannabees is not desirable.

[nearl4511]

So...Now we are helping to build the Iraqi system of apartheid?

I agree that it is good to limit the potential for sectarian, or should I say civil war, attacks. However, now can we se that this is not a military winnable situation because the Shia and Sunni will continue with revenge attacks until they correct the fatally flawed government arrangement. Yes there are outside influences, but the solutions need to be seen as fair and the economy needs to get rolling or this whole scenario will continue indefinitely.

[nearl4511]

So...Now we are helping to build the Iraqi system of apartheid?

I agree that it is good to limit the potential for sectarian, or should I say civil war, attacks. However, now can we se that this is not a military winnable situation because the Shia and Sunni will continue with revenge attacks until they correct the fatally flawed government arrangement. Yes there are outside influences, but the solutions need to be seen as fair and the economy needs to get rolling or this whole scenario will continue indefinitely.

[karlimhof]

I always knew personally how hard it is to say :

I'm sorry, I was wrong....

and I'm only half Irish decent.

But if a life were on the line, I'd say it in an instant - and find another solution.

This callous excuse of a man, calls himself the "war president" - doesn't take life or anything else serious - because he has been given everything his whole life!

Never again elect someone who has not had to face the hard trials of life - at least once in his/her life.