Why are we in Iraq? Why have we forgotten about...

[DeSPURado]

Why are we in Iraq? Why have we forgotten about the people who did this to us? Seriously? Why?

A must see video. The blood of heroes (http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm)

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh gee I don't know. Obviously it has to be some conspiracy or what not.

[DeSPURado]

Your flippancy on this matter is not going to go over well with those who watch.

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh no.

[Yonivore]

I've seen that many times...

It just reinforces, for me, that we are doing the right thing in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also underscores that our determination has caused Libya to abandon it's programs and has put all the other terrorist and their friends on notice that they're next.

[DeSPURado]

When was the last time the president made a speech on Afghanistan?

[Yonivore]

When's the last time the Press reported on Afghanistan?

They drive the news cycle, not the President.

[Tommy Duncan]

Well, we'll just wait unil we are attacked again as John Forbes Kerry says. Then we'll have all the justification we need. Yeah.

[DeSPURado]

Bush is the one who actually said we are going to be attacked again.

[Tommy Duncan]

Have we been? Think long and hard.

[DeSPURado]

Actually we have according to the terrorism report of the US:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government acknowledged Thursday that a recent report declaring a decline in terrorism in 2003 was wrong.

The report, released in April and touted by top administration officials as a sign of the success of the war on terrorism, was based on faulty data, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

In fact, he told reporters, the corrected report will show "a sharp increase over the previous year." The corrected version is not yet completed, he said.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report/)

[DeSPURado]

Here's the revised report that they had to put out:


The revised report undercuts these assertions. The State Department now reports that there were
175 significant terrorist events in 2003. This is the highest level of significant terrorist events in
20 years. Since 2001, the number of significant terrorist attacks has increased by 41%.


NUMBER OF FATALITIES AND INJURIES
In addition, the number of fatalities and injuries reported in the new data is more than double the
number reported in the initial report. According to the new data, 625 people were killed in
terrorist attacks in 2003, more than double the 307 people reported in the April report. Similarly,
the number of people injured in the attacks also more than doubled, rising from 1,593 in the
initial report to 3,646 in the new report.

Link (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_global_terror_report_june_22_fact_sheet. pdf)

[Yonivore]

How 'bout today DeSPURate?

Well? Where, outside of Israel, Russia, or Iraq have you heard of any terrorism in the past few months?

[DeSPURado]

Like I said in the other thread. I hadn't heard about any in 2003 either.

[Yonivore]

Well, then, you weren't paying attention.

[DeSPURado]

:lol niether were you apparently when you thought the initial report was right.

[Yonivore]

I know there weren't in on U.S. Soil.

I know there were on Spanish Soil.

I know there were on Phillipine Soil, and Israeli soil, and Afghanistan soil, and Iraqi soil, and Kuwaiti soil...but that's about it.

I looked. And while terrorist attacks may have been up, they were confined to fewer geographic places.

This year, I'd be surprised if it weren't curtailed even more.

[DeSPURado]

"weren't curtailed even more."

Curtailed even more? doesn't it have to be curtailed in the first place to be curtailed more?

[Yonivore]

Like I said, even though the number went up the affected geography was constrained...I wouldn't be surprised if, in 2004, it were curtailed even more.

You're a little slow for a lawyer wannabe, you might want to consider a job in journalism or something.

[Nbadan]

Bush is the one who actually said we are going to be attacked again.

W. should know since he was a major reason we were attacked the first time. It was not only him though, it was a lot of the same people who are now attacking John Kerry who were distracting the nation with innuendo about a freakin blow job that keep Clinton from attacking terrorism more vigorously. For instance, when Clinton responded to the African Embassy bombing with cruise missiles to Sudan and Afghanistan, the Republican spin machine accused him of waging the dog.

[Yonivore]

You know, I truly hope -- once and for all -- this election drives a stake through the heart of the Demoncratic Party and their politics of destruction.

You guys only win if you can make America believe it is losing something.

Losing in the economy...

Losing in global conflicts...

Losing in international debates...

You're the party of doom and gloom. Is it any wonder people quit voting for you and that you've been losing national seats in Congress, on the Courts, and in the White House at an ever increasing rate?

Well, I hope this election shuts people like you up.

[Nbadan]

Well Yoni, it's people like you why the U.S. has lost in prestige in foreign affairs. Why the U.N. won't listen to us anymore. Why North Korea and Iran have intensified their efforts to acquire Nuclear weapons. Why our leaders aren't welcome on foreign borders, and why we are losing the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror.

I hope once the Neocons are defeated in November all their acts of cronyism and betrayal of the American people comes out into the open no longer protected by phony cries of national security secrets.

[Yonivore]

"Well Yoni, it's people like you why the U.S. has lost in prestige in foreign affairs."
What France and Germany?

You do realize there are 33 countries with combat troops on the ground in Iraq, right? France and Germany are going to find themselves on the outside looking in when this is all settled.

Who else? No, really, besides France and Germany, who else is splitting the sheets with the U.S.?

"Why the U.N. won't listen to us anymore."
Who cares? Who ever listens to the U.N.? Really? Saddam Hussein didn't -- for 12 years and through 17 resolutions he didn't.

They really need to get out of the security business and stick with handing out bandaids and rice -- it's all they've ever done well. I challenge you to find one international conflict or genocidal maniac they've quelled. Just one.

"Why North Korea and Iran have intensified their efforts to acquire Nuclear weapons."
Because Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are stupid? What do you want me to say?

I suspect Iran will be bulldozing the remains of whatever nuclear program they have fairly soon...and Jimmy Carter was the guy that assured everyone he had an agreement with North Korea. By the time President Bush was elected, that problem was beyond intervention and into containment.

"Why our leaders aren't welcome on foreign borders, and why we are losing the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror."
Where aren't our leaders welcome?

Again, France and Germany.

And, I disagree, I believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are both being won by coalition forces. Both countries are still liberated. The terrorists are confined to a small segment of the country where they are being squeezed into committing bolder and more violent acts -- belying their positions and their command and control strategies.

You're just weak-kneed, that's all. As Margaret Thatcher would say, "you've gone wobbly."

"I hope once the Neocons are defeated in November all their acts of cronyism and betrayal of the American people comes out into the open no longer protected by phony cries of national security secrets."
I don't know about Neocons, but President Bush isn't going to lose in November. You might as well get used to that idea right now...because, it'll be easier to take then.

[Nbadan]

You do realize there are 33 countries with combat troops on the ground in Iraq, right? France and Germany are going to find themselves on the outside looking in when this is all settled.

I'll give ya $100 if you can name 30 countries that have combat troops in Iraq. (by the way, I know Sean Insanity used the number 33 in his show today, another coincidence?)

[Yonivore]

Actually, I heard it on WOAI...who's that guy on in the afternoon?

[Yonivore]

I find six with combat troops and another 11 with defense support activities and people, in country, with a total of 45 to 48 as aligned with the coalition in other support roles.

I'll see if I can track down where the 33 number came from.

[Yonivore]

Here's a site with a list of 29 countries that have varying numbers of personnel, in the coalition, involved in combat and rebuilding efforts in Iraq.

www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/foreigntroops.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/foreigntroops.html)

[Yonivore]

then I found this.

www.fact-index.com/u/u_/u_s_led_coalition_against_iraq.html (http://www.fact-index.com/u/u_/u_s_led_coalition_against_iraq.html)

[Nbadan]

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain, Australia, and Poland. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries. The United States is expected to be responsible for essentially the entire cost of the war, at least $75 billion.

13 is hardly 30, and all the remaining countries in the coalition are only in it with their hands out. A Muslim-country-free invasion force to liberate a predominantly Muslim country probably wasn't one of the wises moves by administration.

[DeSPURado]

Say goodbye to our biggest allie. Thanks Bush.


The overwhelming majority of voters want Tony Blair to start preparing British troops to pull out from Iraq, according to a new opinion poll.

An ICM poll for The Guardian found 71% wanted the Prime Minister to set a date for the troops to leave.

That contrasted with the findings of a similar ICM/Guardian poll in May when 45% said that they believed the troops should remain in Iraq "for as long as necessary".

The poll showed that public opinion over the Iraq war remained divided, with 45% saying it was unjustified as against 40% who said it was justified.


Link (http://www.ananova.com/news/)

[Tommy Duncan]

Do we want to deal with security threats to this nation or do we just want to be loved in European opinion polls?