Al-Sadr Loyalists Quit Iraqi Cabinet

Meanwhile, Military Reports 5 U.S. Soldiers And 2 Marines Killed

(CBS/AP)  Cabinet ministers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr quit the government Monday, severing the powerful Shiite religious leader from the U.S.-backed prime minister and raising fears al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia might again confront American troops.

The U.S. military on Monday reported five U.S. soldiers and two Marines have been killed, five of them in combat on Monday. Two others were killed on two days earlier in Anbar province.

Two Marines died in combat in Anbar province, the insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad, on Monday. A soldier was killed Monday by a deadly roadside bomb known as an explosively formed penetrator, or EFP, in southern Baghdad. Two soldiers and an Iraqi translator were wounded in the attack.

In the northern city of Mosul, a university dean, a professor, a policeman's son and 13 soldiers died in attacks bearing the signs of al Qaeda in Iraq. Nationwide, at least 51 people were killed or found dead, and the U.S. military reported two soldiers slain in Baghdad.

The political drama in Baghdad was not likely to bring down Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government, but it highlighted growing demands among Iraqi politicians and voters that a timetable be set for a U.S. troop withdrawal — the reason al-Sadr gave for the resignations.

The departure of the six ministers also was likely to feed the public perception that al-Maliki is dependent on U.S. support, a position he spent months trying to avoid. Late last year he went so far as to openly defy directives from Washington about legislative and political deadlines.

In an appearance with families of military veterans, President Bush said he had spoken with al-Maliki. "He said, 'Please thank the people in the White House for their sacrifices, and we will continue to work hard to be an ally in this war on terror,"' Bush said.

White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said al-Sadr's decision to pull his allies from the 37-member Cabinet did not mean al-Maliki would lose his majority in Iraq's parliament.

"I'd remind you that Iraq's system of government is a parliamentary democracy and it's different from our system. So coalitions and those types of parliamentary democracies can come and go," she said.

Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to al-Maliki, told The Associated Press that new Cabinet ministers would be named "within the next few days" and that the prime minister planned to recruit independents not affiliated with any political group. The nominees will need parliament's approval.

---

In Other Developments:

Two U.S. soldiers were killed in combat on Monday, both of them in Baghdad, the military reported. One soldier was killed in a roadside bombing in the south of the capital; another soldier was wounded in the attack. In southwestern Baghdad, a soldier died when his patrol was hit with small arms fire. A second soldier was wounded, the military said in separate statements. The victims' identifies were withheld until family was notified.

In Ramadi, U.S. forces mistakenly killed three Iraqi police officers Monday during a raid targeting al Qaeda in Iraq members. The U.S. military issued a statement saying its troops "coordinated their operation and no Iraqi police were known to be in the area." The Americans came under fire and responded, killing three men later identified as Iraqi police officers, the statement said. Another policeman was wounded.

At least 13 Iraqi soldiers were killed Monday when more than a dozen gunmen hiding in the back of a truck ambushed their military checkpoint near the northern city of Mosul, police said. Another four soldiers were wounded, said police Brig. Saeed Ahmed al-Jibouri, director of Ninevah police.

Ret. Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan explained his decision to refuse the post of "war czar," saying the nation's foreign policy toward the Middle East is "confused." Sheehan, in a column published in Monday's Washington Post said: "I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan — and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq."

The human rights groups Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Norwegian Refugee Council appealed to Western governments, in particular Britain, to accept more Iraqi refugees, in order to avert a humanitarian crisis in Middle Easter countries overwhelmed by tens of thousands fleeing sectarian violence. In a letter released on the eve of the first global meeting to address the Iraqi refugee crisis, the organizations indicated the U.S. had taken a step in the right direction by announcing it would accept up to 7,000 Iraqi refugees for resettlement, up from 202 in 2006. "The U.K. has done nothing to allow Iraqi refugees displaced by the conflict the chance to resettle in the U.K. — including people who have shown great loyalty and service to the U.K. in Iraq," they said.

The trial of Saddam Hussein's cohorts accused in the mass killings of Kurds held a brief session Monday, then adjourned until May 6, to allow lawyers more time to prepare closing statements. Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid — also known as "Chemical Ali" — is among six defendants currently on trial for Operation Anfal, in which more than 100,000 Kurds were killed in the 1980s.

A coroner on Monday reopened an inquest into the deaths of eight British servicemen at the start of the Iraq war, and criticized the United States for refusing to cooperate. The servicemen died when a U.S. Marine Corps CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter crashed in Kuwait on March 21, 2003, the second day of the war. Four Marines also died. A British inquiry concluded that technical failure was responsible for downing the plane.

Thousands upset about inadequate city services marched peacefully through the streets of Iraq's second largest city on Monday, demanding the provincial governor's resignation. Residents have complained of inadequate electricity, garbage disposal and water supplies in Basra, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Two explosions rocked central Baghdad mid-morning — apparently the sound of mortar shells slamming into a schoolyard at Baghdad University, along the Tigris river. No casualties were reported.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that he will be meeting this week with political and military leaders in Jordan, Israel and Egypt to help bolster the fragile Iraqi government. Discussions in each of the countries is likely to also focus on their military needs and what weapons and training they want from the United States, said one defense official. Gates also plans to urge countries such as Egypt and Israel to modernize their defense systems and "transition from the post-Soviet dependency on conventional weaponry to something more ... related toward counterterrorism and the non-state actors that we are all working together against in the region."

---

The Mahdi Army, the military wing of al-Sadr's political organization, put down its weapons and went underground before the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown began in Baghdad on Feb. 14 seeking to end sectarian killings and other violence.

Although dozens of the militia's commanders were rounded in the clampdown, al-Sadr kept his militia from fighting back, apparently out of loyalty to al-Maliki, who was elected prime minister with al-Sadr's help.

With the political link severed, there are signs al-Sadr's pledge to control the militia might be broken as well. Forty-two victims of sectarian murders were found in Baghdad the past two days, after a dramatic fall in such killings in recent weeks. U.S. and Iraqi officials have blamed much sectarian bloodshed on Shiite deaths squads associated with the Mahdi Army.

A week ago, on the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall to U.S. troops, al-Sadr sent tens of thousands of Iraqis into the streets in a peaceful demonstration in two Shiite holy cities. Protesters burned and ripped U.S. flags and demanded the Americans fix a date for leaving.

"I ask God to provide the Iraqi people with an independent government, far from (U.S.) occupation, that does all it can to serve the people," al-Sadr said in a statement on the Cabinet resignations.

The departure of al-Sadr's allies from the Cabinet did not affect the 30 seats held by his followers in Iraq's 275-member parliament.

"The withdrawal will affect the performance of the government, and will weaken it," said Abdul-Karim al-Ouneizi, a Shiite legislator allied with a branch of the Dawa Party-Iraq Organization, which is headed by al-Maliki.

Saad Taha al-Hashimi, an al-Sadr ally who quit as Iraq's minister of state for provincial affairs, sought to reassure the cleric's supporters that their movement would remain influential.

"This does not mean the Sadrist movement will cease contributing to society," he told reporters. "The movement, as it always has, will remain in society and the government to offer what is best and to push forward the political process."

In violence Monday, at least 13 Iraqi soldiers were killed and four were wounded when more than a dozen gunmen hiding in the back of a truck attacked a military checkpoint near Mosul, police said.

"When the driver approached the checkpoint and reduced speed, preparing to stop for a routine search, all of a sudden more than a dozen gunmen ambushed the checkpoint members and showered them with gunfire," said a security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of safety concerns.

Elsewhere in the city, gunmen killed Jaafar Hasan Sadiq, a professor at the University of Mosul's college of arts, as he was driving to work around 8:30 a.m. Five hours later, Talal Younis al-Jalili, dean of the university's college of political science, was slain as he drove home. Shortly after nightfall, gunmen killed the 17-year-old son of a Mosul policeman.

The brazen nature and the targets of the attacks are similar to previous assaults that blamed on al Qaeda in Iraq fighters, who are trying to break Iraqi military resolve and discourage secular activities such as university education.

In Basra, in the deep south of Iraq, about 3,000 protesters angry over inadequate city services marched peacefully through the streets of Iraq's second largest city to demand that the provincial governor resign.

The demonstrators gathered near the Basra mosque, then marched a few hundred yards to Gov. Mohammed al-Waili's office, which was surrounded by Iraqi soldiers and police officers. The protest ended a few hours later.



© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Share:

Digg

Share

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Mixx

More From Iraq After Saddam

• Chief Pentagon Auditor Forced from Post
• AP: Military Contractor Oversight Too Lax
• Top Saddam Aide Gets Second Conviction
• Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
• Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
• Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
• Celebration, Carnage Mark Handover in Iraq

• 

  PhotosExplosions Rock Baghdad

• 

  PhotosIraq Photos:July 13?July 19

Add a Comment

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
...
• 13
• next

See all 241 Comments

by nyteryder2 April 18, 2007 5:45 PM EDT

Indeed, the Chinese did invade, after they warned they would, and after MacArthur told Truman they wouldn't.

MacArthur and Truman differed on how the war should be fought; MacArthur pressed for all-out warfare (with China) and Truman wanted to maintain a limited war.

MacArthur was ultimately removed from command after criticizing Truman's policies in Korea (insubordination), and because the Joint Chief's lost confidence in his military strategy.

Reply to this comment

by rafterman1 April 17, 2007 11:24 PM EDT

"Go back and study some more. It was the Chinese that intervened on the Korean peninsula which was the reason MacArthur was taken out of the theater."

MacArthur was removed because he and Truman hated each other. MacArthur wanted to attack China directly, one of the main reasons he was removed. Also, who do you think was flying some of the NK MiG's? Chinese and Russian pilots. Russia also shares a border with NK. If MacArthur started flinging nukes around, who knows what would have happened. It went beyond just China.

"And it was the ordinary citizens of Britain that rescued the troops. They couldn't advance or retreat you idiot."

Nice manners. Talk to your parents like that when you disagree IDIOT? And they did retreat though they very much could have stayed and took on the Germans. A retreat is a retreat regardless of how they got out of Dunkirk. But according to you, Churchill would have "emboldened" the Germans by fleeing Dunkirk. Stay and fight without a goal. F*cking brilliant.

"And ike I said you can imagine how wonderful it will be once we leave Iraq so imagine it. Seems to me you know how to "swing" one yourself. Ugh!!!"

F*ck Iraq. You still haven't give me a single reason how staying in Iraq helps American security goals.

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 7:15 PM EDT

macarthur was ousted because he wanted to invade china, and had a rubbed truman wrong. he was not removed,just because the chinese invaded ??????

I didn't say the Chinese invaded, idiot. I said the Chinese intervened in Korea. Look, you misguided punk, stick it in your ear. Okay? Take your anti-religious innuendos and your smug attitude and sit on it. You may just give yourself a trill.

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 7:01 PM EDT

now come back with some more slogans and smears !!!

Posted by usadvisor101

You know how to better it better than I. Good night!

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 6:55 PM EDT

MacArthur wanted to use nukes. What do you think would have happened? (hint: Russia had nukes by then too). Yes, the Brits fought another day. Which would not have happened if the followed the Iraq strategy of no retreat and had their army destroyed or captured in France. A perfect example of a strategic retreat that was beneficial in the long run.

Go back and study some more. It was the Chinese that intervened on the Korean peninsula which was the reason MacArthur was taken out of the theater. And it was the ordinary citizens of Britain that rescued the troops. They couldn't advance or retreat you idiot. And ike I said you can imagine how wonderful it will be once we leave Iraq so imagine it. Seems to me you know how to "swing" one yourself. Ugh!!!

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 6:41 PM EDT

time to let the inhabitants of iraq take care of themselves !!!
and those that decided to invade iraq, better pray to their contrived gods for forgiveness.
Posted by usadvisor101

Yeah, time to cut and run. Only pagans have contrived gods - greed, sloth, pride, envy, anger, lust, gluttony - they worship at the alter of Hollywood values. They don't need forgiveness because they have all the answers. Their gods show them the way.

Reply to this comment

by rafterman1 April 17, 2007 6:37 PM EDT

"How nice of you to point out two defeats. Real patriot aren't you?"

Well, you don't usually retreat if you are winnning. And we aren't winning in Iraq.

"Look, I really don't care any more what the whole lot of you think -- because you will continue to think it. Cut and run is just that - Leave the Iraqis to their own demise."

I think what I think from studying military history (I'm big into it). I don't subscribe to wishful thinking, which seems to be the current Iraq strategy.

"Who know if North and South Korea would have been one had MacArthur succeeded. The Brits returned to fight another day. Please get a new tactic other than retreat."

MacArthur wanted to use nukes. What do you think would have happened? (hint: Russia had nukes by then too). Yes, the Brits fought another day. Which would not have happened if the followed the Iraq strategy of no retreat and had their army destroyed or captured in France. A perfect example of a strategic retreat that was beneficial in the long run.

If the situation warrants it, you withdraw. Read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". But there are too many "d1ck swingers" around here who think we need to show how tough we are by staying in Iraq.

Reply to this comment

by down-ndirty April 17, 2007 6:20 PM EDT

If you want to learn how not to fight a war, google "rumsfeld doctrine."

On the other hand, the questions that should be answered affirmatively before military action, are... (google "powell doctrine" to learn the answers.

Hint: Start with Wikipedia for the simple version.

Two conservatives; two opposing war theories. One guarantees success; the other guarantees disaster.

Even a neocon moron should be able to figure out which theory was employed in Iraq.

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 6:18 PM EDT

Cut and run? What does that mean? It's a great slogan, but it has no meanng. Did MacArthur "cut and run" when he left the Philippines in 1942? Or when he retreated to the Pusan paremeter in 1950? Did the British "cut and run" when they evac'ed out of Dunkirk in 1940?

Truman relieved MacArthur of his command which is why North Korea is what it is. And Dunkirk was not the Brits finest hour since they were pinned down in Dunkirk and the Brits in their ordinary boats went across the channel to rescue them. How nice of you to point out two defeats. Real patriot aren't you? Look, I really don't care any more what the whole lot of you think -- because you will continue to think it. Cut and run is just that - Leave the Iraqis to their own demise. Who know if North and South Korea would have been one had MacArthur succeeded. The Brits returned to fight another day. Please get a new tactic other than retreat.

Reply to this comment

by rafterman1 April 17, 2007 6:04 PM EDT

"I don't see cutting and running as an alternative"

Cut and run? What does that mean? It's a great slogan, but it has no meanng. Did MacArthur "cut and run" when he left the Philippines in 1942? Or when he retreated to the Pusan paremeter in 1950? Did the British "cut and run" when they evac'ed out of Dunkirk in 1940?

I see no cut and running. I see tactical withdrawls as dictated by the situation. Iraq is no different. The tactical situation is no longer favorable and we are losing more than we are gaining by staying in Iraq. And only a fool cuts off his nose to spite his face.

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 5:49 PM EDT

most,all the former vets on here and in congress(kerry, chuck hagel,murtha) have stated this iraq occupation is a debacle and needs to end NOW!!!
Posted by usadvisor101

We've come a long way since Vietnam, Desert Storn/Desert Shield. Pleassssssssssssse don't hold up Kerry, Hagel or Murtha as shinning examples of anything. And everyone including you and me seems to have an opinion. I don't see cutting and running as an alternative and none of these bright lights have offered any solutions to the contrary. You try too hard, so hard in fact you seem to be losing your head.

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 5:38 PM EDT

he tried to make a new oil puppet in iraq and it blew up in his face like a baghdad IED !!!!!!!
Posted by usadvisor101

Yeah, that's why we are paying what we're paying at the pump. If that were the case oil would be free, Iraq not Iran seems to be oil-rich. Iran would love nothing better than to make Iraq its puppet. But you read what you want and justify what you want like the rest of you let's lose the war dimwits.

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 5:25 PM EDT

hope so because the lives of more American and allied troops are at stake (not to mention thousands of Iraqis). If Iraq becomes peaceful, it won't be at the point of a gun. It will be because of things like reconciliation.

Posted by Rafterman1

Nothing is ever resolved at the point of a gun. There has to be diplomacy as well. However, to assume that diplomacy alone will resolve things is follie as well. There are some mean people in Iraq. The insurgents have finally realized that Al Qaeda does not have their best interests at heart and have turned against them. They seem to be waking up to the fact that this is their country and like us, they must defend it. That's the true meaning of democracy -- autonomy, freedom to practice your religious beliefs, respect for the beliefs of others and the rule of law. What, did we become the United States in 4 years?

Reply to this comment

by rafterman1 April 17, 2007 5:21 PM EDT

"Seems like there is some reconciliation going on there or the beginnings of it."

I hope so because the lives of more American and allied troops are at stake (not to mention thousands of Iraqis). If Iraq becomes peaceful, it won't be at the point of a gun. It will be because of things like reconciliation.

Reply to this comment

by rafterman1 April 17, 2007 5:18 PM EDT

"Actually, I was just quoting the other guy. But you didn't respond to the rest of my post about the terrorist strategy of an Iraqi diversion. It's the reason why all these retired generals are coming out againt Iraq. They know its a strategic and tactical dud."

To expand on what I said, I have not yet heard one coherent argument from a pro-Iraq person on how staying in Iraq helps protect America. All I hear is "emboldening the terrorists". But do you honestly think the terrorists are going to say "oh, look how America continues to fight, look how scary they are. I guess I better just go back to the village since America won't quit." Does anyone believe that? They've been fighting the Israelis for 60 years. They fought the Soviets for 10 years. And they didn't quit those fights. It's ridiculous to think we can scare them into quitting.

The real threats are from terrorists in other countries, not Iraq. We quit Iraq not because we are running but because the reasons for fighting have changed and it is no longer beneficial to us.

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 5:17 PM EDT

Actually, I was just quoting the other guy. But you didn't respond to the rest of my post about the terrorist strategy of an Iraqi diversion. It's the reason why all these retired generals are coming out againt Iraq. They know its a strategic and tactical dud.

Posted by Rafterman1

I don't know of these generals but there have been several I've heard about who haven't been active in years like the Wesley Clark's. So I don't buy too much into that argument. Since Patreus is on the ground, I would tend to trust his instincts more so. Also, the very fact that Al Sadr's men have pulled out of the parliment is a great thing. The loser left the country because there was some in-fighting and threats to his life and it seems that his group has lost its power base so having them leave is the best thing that could have happened. Also, apparently some Sunnis paid a visit to Grand Aytollah Al-Sustani and they walked out saying that the Sunni and Shia are all brothers. Also there has been some talk with insurgent groups and the Baathists as well. Seems like there is some reconciliation going on there or the beginnings of it.

Reply to this comment

by rafterman1 April 17, 2007 5:10 PM EDT

"And if we leave, will they thank us and play nice, nice and help Iraq stand on its two feet. Will they say poor America, they lost the will to fight, they lost the ware, let's just leave them alone to lick their wounds. Get real."

Actually, I was just quoting the other guy. But you didn't respond to the rest of my post about the terrorist strategy of an Iraqi diversion. It's the reason why all these retired generals are coming out againt Iraq. They know its a strategic and tactical dud.

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 5:01 PM EDT

Make sure you let your elected officials know how you feel about them selling our young lives for the sake of Israel and Saudi Arabian foreign policy!
Posted by bluestardad

Well, didn't you all let your elected representatives know? Wasn't that the reason why Pelosi went to Damascus so that it could lead to peace? Why are you people always blaming Israel? Seems to me that Israel is always fending off attacks never initating them. So are you advocating that we should sink Israel? I don't ever think I'd want you watching my back.

Reply to this comment

by bluestardad April 17, 2007 4:55 PM EDT

Well we have now made the Republican quota of dead american soldiers can we go on now? STAY THE COURSE! SUPPORT THE TROOPS! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Can anyone tell us who we are even fighting?

Make sure you let your elected officials know how you feel about them selling our young lives for the sake of Israel and Saudi Arabian foreign policy!

Reply to this comment

by mudrose-2009 April 17, 2007 4:54 PM EDT

"we are just emboldening our enemies in iraq, as long as we continue to stay there!!! bushs foriegn policy is only exacerbating terrorist world wide."

Posted by Rafterman1

And if we leave, will they thank us and play nice, nice and help Iraq stand on its two feet. Will they say poor America, they lost the will to fight, they lost the ware, let's just leave them alone to lick their wounds. Get real.

Reply to this comment

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
...
• 13
• next

See all 241 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements, commercial links, or repetitive posts

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Off-topic: Commentary unrelated to the storyline

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[nyteryder2]

Indeed, the Chinese did invade, after they warned they would, and after MacArthur told Truman they wouldn't.

MacArthur and Truman differed on how the war should be fought; MacArthur pressed for all-out warfare (with China) and Truman wanted to maintain a limited war.

MacArthur was ultimately removed from command after criticizing Truman's policies in Korea (insubordination), and because the Joint Chief's lost confidence in his military strategy.

[rafterman1]

"Go back and study some more. It was the Chinese that intervened on the Korean peninsula which was the reason MacArthur was taken out of the theater."

MacArthur was removed because he and Truman hated each other. MacArthur wanted to attack China directly, one of the main reasons he was removed. Also, who do you think was flying some of the NK MiG's? Chinese and Russian pilots. Russia also shares a border with NK. If MacArthur started flinging nukes around, who knows what would have happened. It went beyond just China.

"And it was the ordinary citizens of Britain that rescued the troops. They couldn't advance or retreat you idiot."

Nice manners. Talk to your parents like that when you disagree IDIOT? And they did retreat though they very much could have stayed and took on the Germans. A retreat is a retreat regardless of how they got out of Dunkirk. But according to you, Churchill would have "emboldened" the Germans by fleeing Dunkirk. Stay and fight without a goal. F*cking brilliant.

"And ike I said you can imagine how wonderful it will be once we leave Iraq so imagine it. Seems to me you know how to "swing" one yourself. Ugh!!!"

F*ck Iraq. You still haven't give me a single reason how staying in Iraq helps American security goals.

[mudrose-2009]

macarthur was ousted because he wanted to invade china, and had a rubbed truman wrong. he was not removed,just because the chinese invaded ??????

I didn't say the Chinese invaded, idiot. I said the Chinese intervened in Korea. Look, you misguided punk, stick it in your ear. Okay? Take your anti-religious innuendos and your smug attitude and sit on it. You may just give yourself a trill.

[mudrose-2009]

now come back with some more slogans and smears !!!

Posted by usadvisor101

You know how to better it better than I. Good night!

[mudrose-2009]

MacArthur wanted to use nukes. What do you think would have happened? (hint: Russia had nukes by then too). Yes, the Brits fought another day. Which would not have happened if the followed the Iraq strategy of no retreat and had their army destroyed or captured in France. A perfect example of a strategic retreat that was beneficial in the long run.

Go back and study some more. It was the Chinese that intervened on the Korean peninsula which was the reason MacArthur was taken out of the theater. And it was the ordinary citizens of Britain that rescued the troops. They couldn't advance or retreat you idiot. And ike I said you can imagine how wonderful it will be once we leave Iraq so imagine it. Seems to me you know how to "swing" one yourself. Ugh!!!

[mudrose-2009]

time to let the inhabitants of iraq take care of themselves !!!
and those that decided to invade iraq, better pray to their contrived gods for forgiveness.
Posted by usadvisor101

Yeah, time to cut and run. Only pagans have contrived gods - greed, sloth, pride, envy, anger, lust, gluttony - they worship at the alter of Hollywood values. They don't need forgiveness because they have all the answers. Their gods show them the way.

[rafterman1]

"How nice of you to point out two defeats. Real patriot aren't you?"

Well, you don't usually retreat if you are winnning. And we aren't winning in Iraq.

"Look, I really don't care any more what the whole lot of you think -- because you will continue to think it. Cut and run is just that - Leave the Iraqis to their own demise."

I think what I think from studying military history (I'm big into it). I don't subscribe to wishful thinking, which seems to be the current Iraq strategy.

"Who know if North and South Korea would have been one had MacArthur succeeded. The Brits returned to fight another day. Please get a new tactic other than retreat."

MacArthur wanted to use nukes. What do you think would have happened? (hint: Russia had nukes by then too). Yes, the Brits fought another day. Which would not have happened if the followed the Iraq strategy of no retreat and had their army destroyed or captured in France. A perfect example of a strategic retreat that was beneficial in the long run.

If the situation warrants it, you withdraw. Read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". But there are too many "d1ck swingers" around here who think we need to show how tough we are by staying in Iraq.

[down-ndirty]

If you want to learn how not to fight a war, google "rumsfeld doctrine."

On the other hand, the questions that should be answered affirmatively before military action, are... (google "powell doctrine" to learn the answers.

Hint: Start with Wikipedia for the simple version.

Two conservatives; two opposing war theories. One guarantees success; the other guarantees disaster.

Even a neocon moron should be able to figure out which theory was employed in Iraq.

[mudrose-2009]

Cut and run? What does that mean? It's a great slogan, but it has no meanng. Did MacArthur "cut and run" when he left the Philippines in 1942? Or when he retreated to the Pusan paremeter in 1950? Did the British "cut and run" when they evac'ed out of Dunkirk in 1940?

Truman relieved MacArthur of his command which is why North Korea is what it is. And Dunkirk was not the Brits finest hour since they were pinned down in Dunkirk and the Brits in their ordinary boats went across the channel to rescue them. How nice of you to point out two defeats. Real patriot aren't you? Look, I really don't care any more what the whole lot of you think -- because you will continue to think it. Cut and run is just that - Leave the Iraqis to their own demise. Who know if North and South Korea would have been one had MacArthur succeeded. The Brits returned to fight another day. Please get a new tactic other than retreat.

[rafterman1]

"I don't see cutting and running as an alternative"

Cut and run? What does that mean? It's a great slogan, but it has no meanng. Did MacArthur "cut and run" when he left the Philippines in 1942? Or when he retreated to the Pusan paremeter in 1950? Did the British "cut and run" when they evac'ed out of Dunkirk in 1940?

I see no cut and running. I see tactical withdrawls as dictated by the situation. Iraq is no different. The tactical situation is no longer favorable and we are losing more than we are gaining by staying in Iraq. And only a fool cuts off his nose to spite his face.

[mudrose-2009]

most,all the former vets on here and in congress(kerry, chuck hagel,murtha) have stated this iraq occupation is a debacle and needs to end NOW!!!
Posted by usadvisor101

We've come a long way since Vietnam, Desert Storn/Desert Shield. Pleassssssssssssse don't hold up Kerry, Hagel or Murtha as shinning examples of anything. And everyone including you and me seems to have an opinion. I don't see cutting and running as an alternative and none of these bright lights have offered any solutions to the contrary. You try too hard, so hard in fact you seem to be losing your head.

[mudrose-2009]

he tried to make a new oil puppet in iraq and it blew up in his face like a baghdad IED !!!!!!!
Posted by usadvisor101

Yeah, that's why we are paying what we're paying at the pump. If that were the case oil would be free, Iraq not Iran seems to be oil-rich. Iran would love nothing better than to make Iraq its puppet. But you read what you want and justify what you want like the rest of you let's lose the war dimwits.

[mudrose-2009]

hope so because the lives of more American and allied troops are at stake (not to mention thousands of Iraqis). If Iraq becomes peaceful, it won't be at the point of a gun. It will be because of things like reconciliation.

Posted by Rafterman1

Nothing is ever resolved at the point of a gun. There has to be diplomacy as well. However, to assume that diplomacy alone will resolve things is follie as well. There are some mean people in Iraq. The insurgents have finally realized that Al Qaeda does not have their best interests at heart and have turned against them. They seem to be waking up to the fact that this is their country and like us, they must defend it. That's the true meaning of democracy -- autonomy, freedom to practice your religious beliefs, respect for the beliefs of others and the rule of law. What, did we become the United States in 4 years?

[rafterman1]

"Seems like there is some reconciliation going on there or the beginnings of it."

I hope so because the lives of more American and allied troops are at stake (not to mention thousands of Iraqis). If Iraq becomes peaceful, it won't be at the point of a gun. It will be because of things like reconciliation.

[rafterman1]

"Actually, I was just quoting the other guy. But you didn't respond to the rest of my post about the terrorist strategy of an Iraqi diversion. It's the reason why all these retired generals are coming out againt Iraq. They know its a strategic and tactical dud."

To expand on what I said, I have not yet heard one coherent argument from a pro-Iraq person on how staying in Iraq helps protect America. All I hear is "emboldening the terrorists". But do you honestly think the terrorists are going to say "oh, look how America continues to fight, look how scary they are. I guess I better just go back to the village since America won't quit." Does anyone believe that? They've been fighting the Israelis for 60 years. They fought the Soviets for 10 years. And they didn't quit those fights. It's ridiculous to think we can scare them into quitting.

The real threats are from terrorists in other countries, not Iraq. We quit Iraq not because we are running but because the reasons for fighting have changed and it is no longer beneficial to us.

[mudrose-2009]

Actually, I was just quoting the other guy. But you didn't respond to the rest of my post about the terrorist strategy of an Iraqi diversion. It's the reason why all these retired generals are coming out againt Iraq. They know its a strategic and tactical dud.

Posted by Rafterman1

I don't know of these generals but there have been several I've heard about who haven't been active in years like the Wesley Clark's. So I don't buy too much into that argument. Since Patreus is on the ground, I would tend to trust his instincts more so. Also, the very fact that Al Sadr's men have pulled out of the parliment is a great thing. The loser left the country because there was some in-fighting and threats to his life and it seems that his group has lost its power base so having them leave is the best thing that could have happened. Also, apparently some Sunnis paid a visit to Grand Aytollah Al-Sustani and they walked out saying that the Sunni and Shia are all brothers. Also there has been some talk with insurgent groups and the Baathists as well. Seems like there is some reconciliation going on there or the beginnings of it.

[rafterman1]

"And if we leave, will they thank us and play nice, nice and help Iraq stand on its two feet. Will they say poor America, they lost the will to fight, they lost the ware, let's just leave them alone to lick their wounds. Get real."

Actually, I was just quoting the other guy. But you didn't respond to the rest of my post about the terrorist strategy of an Iraqi diversion. It's the reason why all these retired generals are coming out againt Iraq. They know its a strategic and tactical dud.

[mudrose-2009]

Make sure you let your elected officials know how you feel about them selling our young lives for the sake of Israel and Saudi Arabian foreign policy!
Posted by bluestardad

Well, didn't you all let your elected representatives know? Wasn't that the reason why Pelosi went to Damascus so that it could lead to peace? Why are you people always blaming Israel? Seems to me that Israel is always fending off attacks never initating them. So are you advocating that we should sink Israel? I don't ever think I'd want you watching my back.

[bluestardad]

Well we have now made the Republican quota of dead american soldiers can we go on now? STAY THE COURSE! SUPPORT THE TROOPS! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Can anyone tell us who we are even fighting?

Make sure you let your elected officials know how you feel about them selling our young lives for the sake of Israel and Saudi Arabian foreign policy!

[mudrose-2009]

"we are just emboldening our enemies in iraq, as long as we continue to stay there!!! bushs foriegn policy is only exacerbating terrorist world wide."

Posted by Rafterman1

And if we leave, will they thank us and play nice, nice and help Iraq stand on its two feet. Will they say poor America, they lost the will to fight, they lost the ware, let's just leave them alone to lick their wounds. Get real.