Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Is this the End of Dubya???

JoseCuervo

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
9,752
Location
South of the Border
In less than three months, the U.S. is set to transfer power to the Iraqis. But fighting in Iraq has been intense and bloody in the past few days. Some lawmakers say the violence should delay the transfer. Still, the Bush administration is sticking to the June 30 deadline and says the U.S. has control of the country. Do you feel we're in control?


U.S. Attacks Mosque Compound in Fallujah

By BASSEM MROUE and ABDUL-QADER SAADI

FALLUJAH, Iraq (April 7) - U.S. Marines battled insurgents for control of this Sunni Muslim stronghold Wednesday, calling in airstrikes against a mosque compound where witnesses said dozens were killed in six hours of fighting. An anti-U.S. uprising led by a radical Shiite cleric raged for the fourth day in southern cities.

The Abdel-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque was hit by U.S. aircraft that launched a Hellfire missile at its minaret and dropped a 500-pound bomb on a wall surrounding the compound.

The U.S. military said insurgents were using the mosque for a military fire base. Iraqi witnesses estimated 40 people were killed as they gathered for afternoon prayers. U.S. officials said no civilians died and American commanders gave conflicting reports of insurgent casualties.

An Associated Press reporter who went to the mosque said the minaret was standing, but damaged, apparently by shrapnel. The bomb blew away part of a wall, opening an entry for the Marine assault. The reporter saw at least three cars leaving, each with a number of dead and wounded.

The heavy fighting against the Sunni insurgency coincided again Wednesday with attacks on coalition forces in southern Iraq led by militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. For the first time Wednesday, Shiite militiamen battled Americans in the central city of Baqouba.

Since Sunday, 35 Americans, two other coalition soldiers and more than 230 Iraqis have been killed in fighting. The Iraqi figure did not include those killed at the mosque. Since the war began, at least 630 U.S. service members have died.

Marine Corps spokesman 1st Lt. Eric Knapp said the American force besieging Fallujah has killed more than 30 suspected insurgents and captured 51 since Tuesday night. Fifteen Marines were reported killed in fighting in Fallujah and neighboring Ramadi since Monday.

The Army said a soldier died Wednesday in the capital. Another had died Tuesday in Balad, the Sunni Triangle city north of Baghdad, the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla. said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers, discounted the strength of the al-Sadr force, which appears to have been bolstered by disgruntled, unemployed young men.

U.S. officials estimate the al-Sadr force at about 3,000 fighters.

''The number of people involved in those battles is relatively small,'' Rumsfeld said. ''There's nothing like an army or large elements of people trying to change the situation. You have a small number of terrorists and militias coupled with some protests.''

Myers said the fighting came in two broad categories. West of Baghdad in cities such as Ramadi and Fallujah, the main opposition is ''former regime loyalists,'' including supporters of former president Saddam Hussein, and anti-American foreign fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born terrorist believed linked to al-Qaida.

The Marines said they waged a six-hour battle around the Abdel-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque before calling in a Cobra helicopter which fired the missile at the base of its minaret. An F-16 dropped the laser-guided bomb, Marine Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne said.

During fighting elsewhere in Fallujah, U.S. forces seized a second place of prayer, the al-Muadidi mosque. A Marine climbed the minaret and fired on guerrilla gunmen, witnesses said. Insurgents fired back, hitting the minaret with rocket-propelled grenades and causing it to partially collapse, the AP reporter said.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, said the Marines did not attack the mosque until it became clear enemy fighters were inside and using it to cover their attacks.

He told CNN the mosque was protected under the Geneva Conventions but the insurgents nullified that by attacking from the holy place.

At Camp Fallujah, Byrne said the Marines now control 25 percent of Fallujah.

The military gave widely varying casualty counts.

Marine Capt. Bruce Frame, in a statement issued from Central Command, said: ''One anti-coalition force member was killed in the attack. There is no report of civilian casualties.''

Byrne said those in the mosque were rebels, and ''We believe we killed a bunch.''

Kimmitt said, ''I understand there was a large casualty toll taken by the enemy.''

Rumsfeld said the United States knew risks would increase with the approach of the June 30 date for the handover of power to an interim Iraqi government.

U.S. commanders also fear violence could escalate during the religious ceremonies this weekend for al-Arbaeen, when millions of pilgrims gather in Shiite cities to mark the end of the mourning period for a 7th-century martyred Shiite saint.

The number of U.S. troops in Iraq is up, Rumsfeld said, because of the planned rotation of forces. The United States has about 135,000 troops there now.

''The United states will stay the course. We will stay until the task is complete,'' he said, warning that some U.S. troops ready to leave the country might have to stay a while longer.

Al-Sadr, meanwhile, said Iraq would become ''another Vietnam'' for the United States

''I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army...,'' he said in a statement issued from his office in the southern city of Najaf. ''Otherwise, Iraq will be another Vietnam for America and the occupiers.''

Al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army launched heavy gunbattles with coalition forces in the streets of at least six cities Wednesday and, for the first time, in the north.

Iraqis protesting the Fallujah operation clashed with U.S. troops outside the northern city of Kirkuk. The battles left eight Iraqis dead and 10 wounded.

Al-Sadr fighters battled American troops in the town of Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad, hitting a U.S. helicopter with small arms fire. The OH-58 Kiowa chopper was damaged and forced to land, but the two crew members were unharmed.

And Shiite gunmen drove Ukrainian forces out of the southern city of Kut - raising concerns over the ability of U.S. allies to combat al-Sadr's uprising.

After overnight fighting in which 12 Iraqis died, the Ukrainians withdrew from Kut with about 20 coalition officials, and al-Sadr followers swept into their base, seized weapons stores and planted their flag on a nearby grain silo.

The black-garbed gunmen of the al-Mahdi Army also had virtual control of the Shiite religious centers of Kufa and Karbala, where Iraqi police were laying low, allowing militiamen to move freely.

Militiamen in Karbala clashed with Polish patrols, and a cleric who was a senior official in al-Sadr's office was killed.

Al-Sadr and his militia are unpopular among most of Iraq's Shiite majority, and there was no sign that the Shiite public in the south was rallying to their side to launch a wider uprising.

But the week's fighting showed a strength that few expected from the al-Mahdi Army.

The country's most respected Shiite leader was silent until Wednesday, when he called for all sides to stop fighting.

''Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani condemned the methods used by occupation forces in the current escalating situation in Iraq... . We also condemn assaults on public and private property, and any action that disturbs order and prevents officials from carrying out their duties,'' said a statement from Sistani's office.

But there were signs of sympathy for the Sadr revolt among Sunni insurgents, who have been fighting the U.S.-led occupation for months and have often chided their Shiite countrymen for not joining in.

Portraits of al-Sadr and graffiti praising his ''valiant uprising'' appeared on mosque and the walls of government buildings in the Sunni city of Ramadi. Peaceful protests in support of al-Sadr occurred in the northern cities of Mosul and Rashad.

Monday night in Baghdad, al-Sadr gunmen went to a mainly Sunni neighborhood to join with insurgents in firing on U.S. Humvees - the only known instance so far of Sunni and Shiite militants combining forces.

Also in Kut on Wednesday, an AP photographer and his driver were detained by armed al-Sadr militiamen who accused them of being ''traitors.'' They were bound, blindfolded and taken to the al-Sadr office in Kut. There they were well-treated and given food.

The photograph knew a cleric in another city who vouched for the pair when called by their captors. The Sadrists then took the two, in the drivers' car, to a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad, where they were freed.

An AP stringer in Karbala, meanwhile, was told to leave the city by al-Sadr's militiamen on Tuesday, and he has not been allowed to return.
 
On one hand, EG, you say Why are we there? and that we should get out now.

On the other hand, you seem to be saying we can't just leave by June 30 and that we need to take control.

So what do you think we should do, besides take pot shots at Bush no matter what he does?
 
Cali,

Without knowing "why we are there", how can you know when you have accomplished your objectives?

If the goal was to remove Saddam, and make sure there were no WMDs, then we are done, and we can leave, independent of the cahos and instability we would have caused in the region.

If the goal was to put in a puppet regime (like the Shah's in Iran, then we need to get working on that.

Answer the first, and then the second becomes easier to develop a plan.

Cali, if it continues like the current events, at what point would you call it a "Quagmire"? In '05? ;06?, '07?
 
Look at this.

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

Washington DC has 262 murders for a population of 600,000 in a years time.

Iraq has a population of millions. We need a lot more deaths to be asking the question your post title has, it would seem.

Or else, you're wanting to blame the Washington, DC murder rate on? You think Washington is a bigger quagmire than Iraq, Elkgunner? I think you're ill focussed, we are at war on terrorism, focus on that.

We are there to stop the threat of weapons of mass destruction, to fight terrorism, and to establich a democratic process in Iraq. What do you mean, without knowing why we are there?
 
Tom,

If it was a war on terroism, then what are we doing in Iraq?

It is since the War that terroists have moved into Iraq. The Dubya administration now mostly acknowledges there was no connection between Iraq and Al-Quaida. Colin Powell is even starting to point fingers within the adminstration, based upon the complete set of lies he was given to present at the UN.


And yes, Tom, I think we should pull out of Washington DC.
 
if this uprising is shortlived, i dont think it will hurt Bush too badly.

If it lasts, Bush is history.

Either way i hope they kill every one of those bstrds in falluja that hung those bodies off the bridges.
 
I would call it a quagmire immediately if there was no plan except to continue the present situation. I don't think the administration is just sitting back and doing nothing. They are responding and attempting to take control. They are sticking to their deadline of June 30, and trying to make that happen. It may or may not. As long as we have a defined objective in mind and are effectively working towards that, it is not a quagmire...in just my opinion. Will that effort be without setback or possibly re-evaluation if the situation changes? Of course not.

The goal now, as I understand it, is to turn the reins of government over to a native administration of some sort, whether it is permanent or transitional. There are people attacking our troops, which makes it more difficult. Thugs do not want us there and have a vested interest in keeping us from achieving that goal. The goal remains the same, but the plans may have to change. That is normal in war or in Life, period.
 
Cali,

June 30 is just over two months away, and there is no plan as to who they will turn control over to. (Condi Rice is currently testifying that the Transition between Administration takes much longer than that...) Or are you aware of a plan that I am not aware of?

"Thugs do not want us there and have a vested interest in keeping us from achieving that goal. "
Who does want us there? Not the Sunnis, not the Shiites.....
 
Those rebels are pissed they don't have a representative on the government I heard, not even a moderate one of them. Its hard to go from a terrorist government to a completely democratic one at once.

The UN is registering people in Afganistan for voting in that new government, a few weeks ago Time magazine reported the UN only had 10% of the population registered.

It takes a while, Columbus didn't write the US constitution over night. They had that Boston tea party and all that, how long did that take?
 
EG, You amaze me with your "canned" conclusions. I lived in Iran while the Shah was in power and don't think for a moment that he was anyone's puppet. He was a progressive thinking man who had his own vision for his country. He was extremely deft at playing politics and assessing the world situation. He did what he felt was best for Iran.. regardless of what anyone, including Richard Nixon, thought.

Your assessment of Iran under the Shah is reflective of most Americans failure to understand either the logic patterns or the thought processes or the values of middle eastern peoples. Your assessment of the actions of a few as being the condition of the majority is short sighted in introspective. You need to expand your horizons. You need to look beyond the headlines and the stories in the great liberal press and find out what really is going on.

For instance, did you know that the World Trade Center was occupied by Jews? Everyone who worked there and was in the building when the planes crashed into it were Jews. Don't believe me?? Read the Cairo newspapers from September 12th and 13th and 14th, 2001. It explains everything..

:cool:
 
Danr already said it, but I will, too - just because a few Sunnis or Shiites do not want us there, and they demonstrate loudly and boldly, and a minority of them actually are fighting us, does not mean that the majority of the people or the majority of either sect do not want us there or do not support what we are doing.

Just how bad do you think the situation would be if the majority of the Iraqi people did not want us there? I think it would be a whole lot worse than it is.

Don't get me wrong - if the Iraqi economy is not stabilized and the common folk don't see things getting better as far as jobs and quality of Life in general, things can go to Hell in a hand basket. The best thing to do is get Iraqis back in charge, so the oil can get pumping again and their economy can get jump started. If we do anything with their oil, then everyone in the world, including you, will start accusing us of starting the war just for oil.

In my opinion, worth no more than yours, that is what needs to be done. I'm no genius,( test scores notwithstanding ;) ) so I must assume others know this, too.
 
EG, you can't read your own posts through your hatred of Bush.

EG asks:
If it was a war on terroism, then what are we doing in Iraq?
Yet,in his original topic post it states:
Myers said the fighting came in two broad categories. West of Baghdad in cities such as Ramadi and Fallujah, the main opposition is ''former regime loyalists,'' including supporters of former president Saddam Hussein, and anti-American foreign fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born terrorist believed linked to al-Qaida.
 
The original post also states -

Al-Sadr and his militia are unpopular among most of Iraq's Shiite majority, and there was no sign that the Shiite public in the south was rallying to their side to launch a wider uprising.

Yet EG says that the Shiites don't want us there, although this says that the extremists are not popular among the majority of the Shiites. ????
 
Because I have friends and a brother currently in Iraq and because I wanted to figure out the great question of "why are we there". I have been doing a lot of reading regarding this issue.

I believe that short version of why are we there does involve the chance that Saddam had WMD. In addition he was a brutal dictator who again threatened an ally of the U.S.; Saudia Arabia, not to mention Turkey(again a NATO Ally), which both share a border with Iraq.

I believe there is much more to the reality of why we needed to go there. Here is what I think:

1. We absolutely had to get rid of our permanent bases in Saudia Arabia. We can maintain them on stand by and will be available to us at a moments notice. We will continue to maintain our POMCUS sights for 1 full armored division but we will not have boots on the ground there. Why? Because those troops were too symbolic to the Muslim world. They were a political problem for the Saudis. Since the invasion of Iraq we have all but closed our bases and the missions they handled.

2. Like it or not the entire area is in our vital economic interests because of the oil they produce. We could not walk away from the fact that we had to have troops based in theatre. We cannot continue to use Kuwait becasue the country was too small. Our invasion force shut down nearly a third of Kuwaiti territory. Qatar and Kuwait are fine for airfields but cannot accomodate large scale forces on a permanent basis.

3. By opening a second front with a real live shooting war we would attract the most fanatical Muslim Jihadist across the entire middle east to come to Iraq. They are pouring into the country to take a crack at our soldiers and marines. What that accomplishes is that a. they aren't planning to attact the U.S. homeland because they want to go toe to toe with us on the battlefield. b. we are able to defend ourselves in Iraq rather than in New York. We have our trained troops fighting the war for us. We will lose people but it they aren't American civilians working in office buildings.

That is only my opinion made up from my own observations.

Nemont
 
E.G.
I have a close friend who just returned from Iraq, he was one of the first over. He is amazzed at our liberal press and thinks it is doing us, the soldiers currently in Iraq, And the President and his administration a HUGE disservice.
He says that the Majority of the people of Iraq are greatful for what we have done, that all we hear about is the as he put it maybe 5% that are causing all the problems. He is very disappointed that the news never talks about the great things being done Such as getting schools going, helping the common people rebuild their lives, working to rebuild the infrastructure so that they can have all the things we take for granted.
All he hears are people like you parroting the same crap and he is very disappointed.
 
mike, I sure hope what your friend says about the 5% is accurate. Now, if we can just kill the 5% maybe things will settle down.

I believe the situation in Iraq was just going to continue to get worse with Saddam there and we had to do something about it now or continue to deal with a growing problem there for many years in the future. There had to be a drastic change to keep things from getting worse in all the Arab countrys.
 
Hey Nemont,

Thanks for sharing the thoughtful process. I think I can buy almost everything you have concluded. I wish Dubya and Powell would be that straight forward.

I am not sure on point 3, as that seems a bit risky, as I think the "homeland" is a bit underguarded. My neighbor is a cop in one of the 'Burbs of Boise, and they are losing all of their officers to the Boise Police Department because the BPD's officers are all in Iraq on Guard Duty. Kind of a 'trickle up' theory. My guess is there are lots of National Guard people in big city PDs, Border Patrol, FAA, and other groups that we are relying on for Homeland security. It may just be providing an opening, just the opposite of your Third post.


MikeR,
What is the "huge disservice" that the liberal media is doing? I am curious as to what the "disservice" actually is. (I am not trying to be a smart-ass, just wondering what the tangible "disservice" is.) Are the troops not getting the equipment/$$$/etc.. they need, due to the media? (Again, not being a smart-ass, but I would like to know what your buddy feels he is lacking, that is attributable to the liberal media.)

Cali,
Suprisingly, you are quicker to call it a 'quagmire' than I am. I think as long as the troops have our support, and the commanders in Iraq feel they are in control, it is not a quagmire. If the test for quagmire is a "plan", then you are correct, it is a quagmire, as I don't think Dubya has a plan. The UN has re-buffed him.

MikeR,
Why does your buddy think it is a good thing to be building schools and roads in Iraq? Does he think that is why we are over there? Just curious, as if you read the Idaho papers, you would find that we have a Judge here who has held the Legislature in Contempt for the condition of our schools in Idaho. I can't beleive we invaded a country in order to build them schools....

Hey Nemont,
(How'd I do "stirring"?) ;)
 
You think the President has no plan, but you also say he is still sticking to the deadline to turn control over to the Iraqis and our military forces there are working to quell the unrest. Hmmm - kinda sounds like a plan to me.
 
Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
You think the President has no plan, but you also say he is still sticking to the deadline to turn control over to the Iraqis and our military forces there are working to quell the unrest. Hmmm - kinda sounds like a plan to me.
Cali,
Unfortunately, that is even worse than a plan. He announced his deadline, with no plan. Kinda like buying a new truck. Go in and tell the Dealer that you need to buy a new truck by the end of the month, and my guess is he will string you along until right before your deadline, and then hit you with a bunch of new, unexpected costs.

I think Dubya made a mistake by disclosing a deadline, instead of a "goal". He should have said "by the Summer, if all goes well". Now he is caught between rushing and trying to find somebody, anybody, to hand over control, or having to break his promise. Either way looks bad for Dubya and the US. I think he overplayed his cards on this hand.... :(
 
MikeR,
What is the "huge disservice" that the liberal media is doing? I am curious as to what the "disservice" actually is. (I am not trying to be a smart-ass, just wondering what the tangible "disservice" is.) Are the troops not getting the equipment/$$$/etc.. they need, due to the media? (Again, not being a smart-ass, but I would like to know what your buddy feels he is lacking, that is attributable to the liberal media.)
The disservice is that everything the press talks about is always negetive, How many stories have you heard that are positive? The liberal press slants everything to make it appear that things are worse than they really are. They never carry stories of the great things being accomplished in Iraq.

MikeR,
Why does your buddy think it is a good thing to be building schools and roads in Iraq? Does he think that is why we are over there? Just curious, as if you read the Idaho papers, you would find that we have a Judge here who has held the Legislature in Contempt for the condition of our schools in Idaho. I can't beleive we invaded a country in order to build them schools....
E.G.
Are you serious.......
I can't beleive we invaded a country in order to build them schools
negative11.jpg
 
Back
Top