Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anbar Province was controlled by Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Funny how people seem to dismiss the obvious thing here...
We are fighting Al Qaeda IN Iraq....the same group that attacked the USA on 9/11.
Yet somehow this is wrong.
Some seem to miss the obvious.
First off, I don't know who said "its wrong" but I suspect this is yet another statement that no one said that you just decided to add to the discussion.
The United States, the worlds most sophisticated and well equipped military in the entire world that has rotated over 1.5 million soldiers through Iraq in the past 5 years barely has "substantial" control over the green zone, let alone the rest of Iraq. Yet a couple of insurgents claiming to be Al Qaeda have managed to "substantially control" the entire Anbar province? Please, someone wipe the tears of laughter from my face as these assertions totally stretch the realm of possibility.
After 'our bastard' the Shah of Iran was desposed by the Shia Islamic Fundamentalists, the Iranians took US hostages, claiming truthfully that the US had been supporting the Shah's barbaric reign with weapons and money. After that, we similarly pumped up Saddam and his Baath party and encouraged him to attack Iran. After that we kill Saddam, removing Iran's biggest foe, and empowering the Shia in Iraq. Does this sound like a US policy to 'stabilize' the Middle East? No, quite the contrary.
After 'our bastard' the Shah of Iran was desposed by the Shia Islamic Fundamentalists, the Iranians took US hostages, claiming truthfully that the US had been supporting the Shah's barbaric reign with weapons and money. After that, we similarly pumped up Saddam and his Baath party and encouraged him to attack Iran. After that we kill Saddam, removing Iran's biggest foe, and empowering the Shia in Iraq.
While I'm not for completely taking over countries, and I don't think that is what we are doing in this case, you just made a pretty good argument for it.
First off, I don't know who said "its wrong" but I suspect this is yet another statement that no one said that you just decided to add to the discussion.
The United States, the worlds most sophisticated and well equipped military in the entire world that has rotated over 1.5 million soldiers through Iraq in the past 5 years barely has "substantial" control over the green zone, let alone the rest of Iraq. Yet a couple of insurgents claiming to be Al Qaeda have managed to "substantially control" the entire Anbar province? Please, someone wipe the tears of laughter from my face as these assertions totally stretch the realm of possibility.
Please, by all means, do explain to this dumb ole hillbilly exactly what the point was then.
The OP states as it does in the topic header, and I quote, "Al Qaeda no longer has substantial control of any area of Iraq". To which I first replied, when did they ever have a substantial control over any area of Iraq because they never did.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
From an AP report of the Iraqi Study Group's findings:
Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.
Saudi Arabia is probably a bigger threat than either Iraq or Iran as they're the worst kind of enemy, the one that pretends to be your friend and denies everything else.
While I'm not for completely taking over countries, and I don't think that is what we are doing in this case, you just made a pretty good argument for it.
I haven't made the case for anything, except keeping our nose out of other countries' business.
Please, by all means, do explain to this dumb ole hillbilly exactly what the point was then.
The OP states as it does in the topic header, and I quote, "Al Qaeda no longer has substantial control of any area of Iraq". To which I first replied, when did they ever have a substantial control over any area of Iraq because they never did.
I was referring to post #70. Why do you refer to yourself as a "dumb ole hillbilly"? It can't be sarcasm because I don't know you so it would mean nothing to me.
If the whole issue were as simplistic as just defeating the Al Qaeda that had sprung up after we dismantled the Iraqi government and army, then Bush could dust off that old "Mission Accomplished" Banner and leave office with a Victory Parade down the middle of New York. (He still might do it, I would not put it past him.)
But of course the Middle East is a bit more complex then that, isn't it.
So when McCain then talks about defeating the Al Qaeda being sent by Iran to destabilize Iraq, this shows he is just another linear "Defeat the Evil Doers, and don't forget to use the Force, Luke!" kind of guy with no real concept of what is going on over there.
Al Qaeda never had had any substantial control of any area of Iraq BEFORE WE INVADED.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
