What To Do With Troops In Iraq

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/23/africa/web0623iran.php"] Iran aiding Shiite attacks inside Iraq, general says[/url]
By Michael Gordon The New York Times

Published: June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON [b]Iran has stepped up its support for violent Shiite groups in Iraq and is providing the weapons and training so they can attack American troops, the top American commander in Iraq said Thursday.
[/b]
"They are using surrogates to conduct terrorist operations in Iraq both against us and against the Iraqi people," the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., told reporters. "It is decidedly unhelpful." He said that the Iranian assistance had increased since January and that this had emerged as an important factor in weighing further reductions in American forces in Iraq.

General Casey's comments were his most forceful and explicit criticism of Iran's involvement in Iraq, and came at a sensitive time in American-Iranian relations. The Bush administration has offered to conduct direct talks with Iran in an effort to persuade it to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

The general spoke at a Pentagon news conference after meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to discuss plans for reducing American forces in Iraq. General Casey said he was confident there would be troop cuts this year but stressed that there would be a "gradual reduction over time." Mr. Rumsfeld said General Casey would consult the Iraqi authorities before submitting a final recommendation on how reductions should be made.

American officials have criticized Iran's involvement in Iraq before. But General Casey's remarks were unusually specific. He said the Iranian security forces were training Shiite groups with the approval of the authorities in Tehran.

"We are quite confident that the Iranians, through their covert special operations forces, are providing weapons, I.E.D. technology and training to Shia extremist groups in Iraq," the general said. I.E.D. stands for improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs.

Some training is being carried out in Iran, he said. In other cases, Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist group, is providing weapons and training at Iran's behest.

General Casey said there was no evidence that Iranians had crossed into Iraq to direct the attacks, but said the assistance appeared to be a result of an official policy of the Iranian government, and not the actions of a faction. "You would assume that they're not doing that independently, that there is some central direction from somebody in Tehran," he said.

One indication of additional Iranian support, he said, was an increase in the number of attacks with bombs that feature shaped charges, which focus the explosive power in a single direction. That type of bomb is specially designed to destroy armored vehicles, and American commanders have previously asserted that these bombs have been built in Iran and shipped to Iraq.

General Casey had previously forecast "fairly substantial" troop cuts in 2006. Those cuts have yet to materialize. American forces in Iraq have dropped from 138,000 in March to 126,900 now, and relatively modest reductions are expected over the next several months.

He said setting a timetable and deadline for withdrawing American troops from Iraq - as Senator John Kerry and some other Democratic lawmakers have proposed - would undermine his efforts.

"I feel it would limit my flexibility," he said. "I think it would give the enemy a fixed timetable. And I think it would send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."

General Casey offered a generally upbeat interpretation of the efforts made by the Iraqi government to rein in militias and establish a coalition government. He said the Iraqi military was improving. By the end of the summer, he said, 75 percent of Iraqi brigades would be assuming the lead in military operations.

He said there were indications that some Sunnis who had opposed the new government were now considering whether to drop their armed resistance and play a political role.

The general said that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had weakened Al Qaeda, but that it remained a threat. "They're hurt, but they're not finished, and they won't be finished for some time," he said. He said the group is "still quite capable of conducting terrorist acts across Iraq."


WASHINGTON Iran has stepped up its support for violent Shiite groups in Iraq and is providing the weapons and training so they can attack American troops, the top American commander in Iraq said Thursday.

"They are using surrogates to conduct terrorist operations in Iraq both against us and against the Iraqi people," the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., told reporters. "It is decidedly unhelpful." He said that the Iranian assistance had increased since January and that this had emerged as an important factor in weighing further reductions in American forces in Iraq.

General Casey's comments were his most forceful and explicit criticism of Iran's involvement in Iraq, and came at a sensitive time in American-Iranian relations. The Bush administration has offered to conduct direct talks with Iran in an effort to persuade it to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

The general spoke at a Pentagon news conference after meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to discuss plans for reducing American forces in Iraq. General Casey said he was confident there would be troop cuts this year but stressed that there would be a "gradual reduction over time." Mr. Rumsfeld said General Casey would consult the Iraqi authorities before submitting a final recommendation on how reductions should be made.

American officials have criticized Iran's involvement in Iraq before. But General Casey's remarks were unusually specific. He said the Iranian security forces were training Shiite groups with the approval of the authorities in Tehran.

"We are quite confident that the Iranians, through their covert special operations forces, are providing weapons, I.E.D. technology and training to Shia extremist groups in Iraq," the general said. I.E.D. stands for improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs.

Some training is being carried out in Iran, he said. In other cases, Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist group, is providing weapons and training at Iran's behest.

General Casey said there was no evidence that Iranians had crossed into Iraq to direct the attacks, but said the assistance appeared to be a result of an official policy of the Iranian government, and not the actions of a faction. "You would assume that they're not doing that independently, that there is some central direction from somebody in Tehran," he said.

One indication of additional Iranian support, he said, was an increase in the number of attacks with bombs that feature shaped charges, which focus the explosive power in a single direction. That type of bomb is specially designed to destroy armored vehicles, and American commanders have previously asserted that these bombs have been built in Iran and shipped to Iraq.

General Casey had previously forecast "fairly substantial" troop cuts in 2006. Those cuts have yet to materialize. American forces in Iraq have dropped from 138,000 in March to 126,900 now, and relatively modest reductions are expected over the next several months.

He said setting a timetable and deadline for withdrawing American troops from Iraq - as Senator John Kerry and some other Democratic lawmakers have proposed - would undermine his efforts.

"I feel it would limit my flexibility," he said. "I think it would give the enemy a fixed timetable. And I think it would send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."

General Casey offered a generally upbeat interpretation of the efforts made by the Iraqi government to rein in militias and establish a coalition government. He said the Iraqi military was improving. By the end of the summer, he said, 75 percent of Iraqi brigades would be assuming the lead in military operations.

He said there were indications that some Sunnis who had opposed the new government were now considering whether to drop their armed resistance and play a political role.

The general said that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had weakened Al Qaeda, but that it remained a threat. "They're hurt, but they're not finished, and they won't be finished for some time," he said. He said the group is "still quite capable of conducting terrorist acts across Iraq."

[KnightofChrist]

From an real Iraqi


[b][url="http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/"]The real front in the war on terror.[/url][/b]


"When The Taliban regime in Afghanistan fell young men waited in lines to get a haircut and when Saddam fell barbers became targets."
My father offered this simple example during a discussion we had about war on terror the other day. Although the example is very simple but the idea behind it is deep and aims at identifying the change of the main battleground for war with terror.

I wanted to talk about this because recently we've been watching the debate in America about redeployment of troops and identifying the real front we must focus on.
I see that al-Qaeda and terrorists in general didn't hide their position in this respect—despite the fact that they still operate in many parts of the world, they are clearly redirecting most effort and resources to the war in Iraq.
The war here has a lot that to do with drawing the future prospects of spreading religious extremism and this in turn is connected to the agendas of countries that have mutual goals with al-Qaeda in spite of the difference in ideology. This collaboration is complex but it clearly shows the priorities of the terrorists and rogue regimes and in turn suggests what our strategic priorities should be.

There are greater examples than killing barbers of course so I'd like to include some more to remind those who try to naively oversimplify the issue in the context that the commanders of al-Qaeda are hiding in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan far away from civilization.

Al-Qaeda and its supporters are using most of the capabilities of their propaganda machine to cover their effort in Iraq, and so is the case with financial resources. All evidences indicate that most of the money is used to support the terror activity in Iraq.
Let's not forget recruiting networks that are discovered constantly in many European and Arab countries; we rarely, if ever, hear that those networks were sending recruits to Afghanistan because recruits are being sent to Iraq all the time. Even more telling, some of the prominent lieutenants of al-Qaeda left Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. One example I remember was Omar al-Farouk who escaped from Bagram to be later captured in Basra!

Al-Qaeda itself boasts about the great "sacrifices" of more than 4,000 "martyrs" to emphasize the importance of the war here. And the hundreds of suicide bombers preferred to blow themselves up in Iraq than anywhere else should remind us that if al-Qaeda considers this the main war then why talk about redeployment?
Walking away from the main war is not redeployment, it's quitting.

But why Iraq became the main front?

Iraq can simply not be equated with Afghanistan which the bulk of al-Qaeda largely abandoned after few weeks of battles—that doesn't sound like al-Qaeda!

Iraq, weak after a war that toppled the regime but rich-relatively-with resources and scientific base is a greater temptation than Afghanistan, and at the same time the possibility of a democracy arising in Iraq posed a great threat to the ideology of caliph state. Therefore al-Qaeda and whoever is backing it directly or indirectly felt they had to move the front to Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan.
Let's imagine that the world left Iraq alone before the country is able to defend itself and let it fall in the hands of extremists, what would happen then?

Can we compare the opium fields with the massive oilfields of Mesopotamia? Can we afford to leave these resources in the service of the terrorists?

The other point is scientific infrastructure, especially when it comes to military technology such infrastructure almost doesn't exist in Afghanistan while Saddam celebrated 17 years ago in launching a rocket to space. The same "accomplishment' Iran claimed to have made just days ago.
This infrastructure, while still humble compared to advanced countries, could be very dangerous if captured by terrorists.

An Islamic state in Iraq whether to be led by al-Qaeda or one of the local extreme religious parties would be an enormous threat to the security of the region and the world and a turning point that might encourage fence-sitters to join the terrorists…the tide would be much more difficult to stop then.

It's true that what's happening in Iraq doesn't meet the ambitions of Iraqis or Americans and everyone admits that many mistakes were made.
I agree that the Iraqi government should be pressed to speed up the effort to establish rule of law and achieve reconciliation. And I also agree that the American administration needs to revise the way it's been handling and planning for this critical war.
But abandoning this front or failing to recognize its priority is a terrible mistake that can lead to disastrous consequences to all of us.

[KnightofChrist]

[b][url="http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/"]The future of an Islamic state in Iraq.[/url][/b]

Politicians, pundits and observers differ in their assessment as to what faction poses the greatest threat in Iraq; some, including the pentagon put the Mehdi Army on top of the list while others believe it's al-Qaeda.
Who is number one is not really the most important point because both groups are almost equally extremely dangerous and both had already caused so much mess and cost Iraq and America a heavy price in blood, treasure and precious time. Both need to be dealt with.

I think it's important to note that since any kind of theocratic rule in Iraq is a threat then it would make sense to add a third group which is religious political parties both Sunni or Shia. While the former two groups are so radical that they can't be reasoned with the third is relatively open to dialogue and when not under pressure from their radical counterparts, diplomacy and negotiations can play a role in reaching a solution.

In fact the correlation between the two main extremist groups is some sort of catch 22, though it really isn't. it might be believed that the attacks of al-Qaeda led to retaliation from the Mehdi army and at the same time that the attacks of Mehdi army's death squads left many Sunni with no choice but to seek protection under the umbrella of al-Qaeda; as if the two militant groups were enemies, while there's good evidence that they work jointly at some level to escalate the violence in Iraq.

We had said many times that Iraq's neighbors support both groups and since the most involved neighbors Syria and Iran are closest allies with mutual goals in Iraq, then there's a lot of reasons to believe that the two surrogates are receiving orders from the same top of the pyramid of the chain of command of the Tehran-Damascus axis. What I'm trying to say here is that when either wing is weakened, the whole structure of the evil plot of the bad neighbors is directly affected. And that any progress for Iraq and America at either front would be progress toward ultimately neutralizing both.

Nearly five weeks into operation Imposing Law in Baghdad the movement of the Mehdi Army has been largely restrained and its coercion and arm-twisting capacity is at least temporarily contained and with a policy of sustained pressure this threat can be drastically reduce. But what has it been like lately for the plans of al-Qaeda et al in establishing the core of a radical Islamist terror state in Iraq?
The "Islamic State in Iraq" a branch of al-Qaeda has been dealt several good blows recently in the same city they were planning to announce as the first capital of their state.

For four years since the liberation of Iraq Anbar remained distant from the rest of the country, defiant to the central government and a dangerous place for everyone including its own sons…this is slowly, yet clearly, changing now.
For a few months after more than two dozens of tribes formed the "Anbar Awakening Council" not much success was reported but recently there's been a constant stream of reports on battles between the tribes and al-Qaeda in several towns and villages across the vast western province; in most cases the tribes came out triumphant but sacrifices were also made.

The restive province is finally coming back into the arms of the state.

While I wouldn't take any poll results to be accurate assessment of the public attitude, they are useful in determining the general direction of changes in attitude among the population.

Recently there were two separately conducted polls in the news, and the results were contradictory to each other in more than one point which is not surprising at all but one item of the poll conducted for the BBC and ABC that caught my attention.
The poll shows that only about 4% of the Sunni are in favor of an Islamic rule. This is interesting and worth noting even if the error margin for this one was three times what the pollsters claimed, which is somewhat unlikely for an error margin. This extremely low approval rate is understandable given all what the Sunni had suffered under the extremists who touted the idea of Islamic rule in the Sunni areas for four years.

The city that at some point was about to become the new Talibanistan is now working hand in hand with the government in Baghdad and the coalition forces to defeat al-Qaeda. Maliki's and Petraeus's visit to the province were not only of symbolic value. The visit and the meeting with the heads of tribes marked the beginning of the return of the once stray province to where it belongs.

The clash between the tribe and the mosque was inevitable. For centuries and since the early days of Islam the two institutions squabbled for power and dominance and while tribe sheiks are diplomats by nature and always seek to resole conflicts and find compromises between the two sides of a conflict, clerics, especially extreme ones, do not recognize the idea of compromise; to them there is halal and haram (or allowed and forbidden) with absolutely no gray area in between whatsoever.
Iraq and the western part in particular is a very tribal community and so the increased influence and interference of clerics became a serious threat to the position of sheiks.
Sheiks are more businessmen than ideological leaders, like my tribe's sheik put it once "the hell with them [clerics] we want to live like normal people and all they care about is death".

By no means I'm trying to say that al-Qaeda is defeated. This is still far away but we can say that the in order for al-Qaeda to continue its plan to establish a safe haven in Iraq it will have to search for alternatives to Anbar. Their primary alternative is Diyala where demographics are already not as favorable for al-Qaeda as Anbar was.

There are signs that the tribes in Diyala too are changing their attitude and there are signs that they are slowly following the steps of their peers in Anbar. If this change is encouraged and supported al-Qaeda will not have many, if any, good alternative plans.

[kujo]

If we pull out now, there will surely be thousands and thousands of people slaughtered in a Middle East variation of genocide. Do you have the stomach to watch this on Fox News and CNN? Because I sure don't.

We need to do whatever is necessary to achieve victory. 'Nuff said. I'm not intelligent or educated in the ways of the military to make any sort of plan of action. I just know what is right and what is wrong. And leaving these Iraqis to rip each other to shreds is plain WRONG.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Its important to seperate the differences between "insurgents" and the sectarian violence that's primarily being seen. We often hear that "Iranian Insurgents" came into Iran and started fighting but what more over look is that most Iraqi Shiites have family in Iran.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

I would also like to add

[quote]"Anyone out there holding — as I gather Prime Minister Blair has recently said — the prospect that, in fact, the Iraq Survey Group is going to unmask actual weapons of mass destruction, [is]really delusional." - David Kay[/quote]

Saying that there are WMD is to still assume the theories of "the yellow cake" and "aluminum tubes"

Edited April 1, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kujo' post='1225526' date='Apr 1 2007, 02:30 AM']If we pull out now, there will surely be thousands and thousands of people slaughtered in a Middle East variation of genocide. Do you have the stomach to watch this on Fox News and CNN? Because I sure don't.

We need to do whatever is necessary to achieve victory. 'Nuff said. I'm not intelligent or educated in the ways of the military to make any sort of plan of action. I just know what is right and what is wrong. And leaving these Iraqis to rip each other to shreds is plain WRONG.[/quote]


I agree, "these colors don't run" use to mean something I pray they still do. We own the Iraqi people we betrayed them in the first gulf war, some would have us do this again, which would be far worse now than then.


I pray they do not get their way. Finnish the job, dont let the enemy win.

[RezaMikhaeil]

What enemy? The Sunni or Shiite citizens?

[KnightofChrist]

[b][url="http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?s=pf&page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/13/115752.shtml?s=ic"]New Iraqi Documents Show Bush Didn't 'Lie' (Yellow Cake in Africa)[/url][/b]

Newly translated Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's regime show that President Bush was factually accurate when he told the nation in his 2003 State of the Union Address that Iraq had recently sought uranium from Africa.

Bush's 16-word statement had formed the basis for the claim adopted by administration critics that "Bush lied" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

But according to the Washington Times today, an unnamed U.S. official reports that "newly translated Iraqi documents . . . tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s."

The documents also speak of burying prohibited missiles, a government official familiar with the declassification process told the paper.

In his January 2003 address, Bush told the nation:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The statement prompted former ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson to complain to the New York Times seven months later: "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

The new documents strongly suggest, however, that Wilson was wrong - and that the "Bush lied" mantra adopted by most Democrats since Wilson first made his complaint has been based on bogus information.

Confirmation on African uranium claim offered by Iraqi documents may be just the tip of the iceberg.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra told the Washington Times that about 500 hours of Saddam audiotape is still being translated and analyzed by the U.S.

And U.S. Central Command has 48,000 boxes of Iraqi documents, of which the military has delivered just 68 pages to his committee so far.

"I don't want to overstate what is in the documents," Hoekstra told the paper. "[But] I certainly want to get them out because I think people are going to find them very interesting."

[KnightofChrist]

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium (yellow cake), have been found in Iraq

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620565/posts"]1999, 2000 Iraqi memos: Procurement of 50000 Aluminum Tubes That Can Be Used For URANIUM ENRICHMENT.[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1225562' date='Apr 1 2007, 03:05 AM']What enemy? The Sunni or Shiite citizens?[/quote]


I should tell you I don't see your post unless I choose too... anyway I would point you to post's #14-18 on this thread for the answer of who is the enemy in Iraq.


Good Night

[RezaMikhaeil]

I find it almost humorous that you can't even post your own words, you have to litter this thread with your propaganda of factual inaccuracies, in which those that wrote them have never been to Iraq, served in the military, etc.

I'm going to leave you with this question though, if so called "WMD" has been found in Iraq, as you and your propaganda suggest, then why hasn't the Bush Administration used it to gain support for the war? As you know Bush's approval rating is below 30% and is dropping, but rather then use the "proof" that your sources of propaganda claim, Mr. Bush has said over and over again that NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ. If Bush's Administration, and every other intelligences agency of our government [and Russias, and Britians] have proclaimed that NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ, what makes you think that your sources of propaganda are more credible? If WMD was found in Iraq, Bush would be the first person to proclaim it and get his public approval rating higher, get the respect for his presidental administration back and go down as a relatively on point president.

As David Kay put it, it's dulusional to say that Iraq had WMD after everything that we know today. David Kay was part of the Iraq Study Group and was a UN Weapons Inspector.

Reza

PS: Of course you don't respond to me, because I'm the only person here that has family from Persian [Iraq/Iran] decent, that has relatives and family friends that still travel to Iran/Iraq for pilgrimages, etc. I'm also a former soldier with extensive connections to the Army, including lots of friends that are Amry Rangers. Your propaganda claims have little to no weight because everyone that knows the culture and the situation in Iraq know about the sectarian violence in Iraq, about the civil war and the full situation. Even General Abizaid was willinig to call it for what it is, but you don't seem to think that you know more then the top generals in Iraq. I'm guessing that your position has to do with the fact that you've never served in the army, and don't have a direct connection to Iraqis, other then what you read on your propaganda sources and what you see on TV.

Edited April 1, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Anomaly]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1225584' date='Apr 1 2007, 07:20 AM']I find it almost humorous that you can't even post your own words, you have to litter this thread with your propaganda of factual inaccuracies, in which those that wrote them have never been to Iraq, served in the military, etc.

I'm going to leave you with this question though, if so called "WMD" has been found in Iraq, as you and your propaganda suggest, then why hasn't the Bush Administration used it to gain support for the war? As you know Bush's approval rating is below 30% and is dropping, but rather then use the "proof" that your sources of propaganda claim, Mr. Bush has said over and over again that NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ. If Bush's Administration, and every other intelligences agency of our government [and Russias, and Britians] have proclaimed that NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ, what makes you think that your sources of propaganda are more credible? If WMD was found in Iraq, Bush would be the first person to proclaim it and get his public approval rating higher, get the respect for his presidental administration back and go down as a relatively on point president.

As David Kay put it, it's dulusional to say that Iraq had WMD after everything that we know today. David Kay was part of the Iraq Study Group and was a UN Weapons Inspector.

Reza

PS: Of course you don't respond to me, because I'm the only person here that has family from Persian [Iraq/Iran] decent, that has relatives and family friends that still travel to Iran/Iraq for pilgrimages, etc. I'm also a former soldier with extensive connections to the Army, including lots of friends that are Amry Rangers. Your propaganda claims have little to no weight because everyone that knows the culture and the situation in Iraq know about the sectarian violence in Iraq, about the civil war and the full situation. Even General Abizaid was willinig to call it for what it is, but you don't seem to think that you know more then the top generals in Iraq. I'm guessing that your position has to do with the fact that you've never served in the army, and don't have a direct connection to Iraqis, other then what you read on your propaganda sources and what you see on TV.[/quote]
Well, I've finally gotten a bett picture of who you are.

Sorry pal, I do have family living in Mosul and Bagdhad right now, and have been living there for genertaions. My sister married into an Iraqi famil before the first Gulf War. Quite frankly, I consider your comments and opinions quite biased, myopic, and without reason or logic.

First off, as I've brough up to you and the people here, regardless of what the validity of the US's reasons for going in, whether it was for oil, revenge against Sadaam, a contuation of the first Gulf War, WMD, to remove support for terrorists, or to help little old ladies cross the street in Fasul, the fact remains the US finds iteself in a quandry.

I don't believe you really care about the Iraqi people in any real manner because you can't seem to differentiate people dying while trying to establish self rule, or dying at the hands of oppressive rulers. You demonstrate that with your callous comment about people are dying now, compared with people being killed by the people in power. That is such a disgusting (and quite frankly, disturbing) comment, it demonstrates a willing inhumane attitude towards Iraqis. Whether they die in a struggle against evil, or die at the hands ofevil, you've pointedly made no distinction, as if they are mere vermin being exterminated by a farmer.

Your lack of logic in the other aspects show a willingnes to set aside real discerernment in order to justify your hate of (what?, Republicans, Bush, the US, Iraqi's, people here you disagree with?) I'll let you fill in the blank.

But sadly, you are pretty typical of the Catholics and other partisans here. You are so pickle-sure you have the answer, you won't ask questions if you fear you might not know the answer or the answer won't support you bias.

You used John Paul II's admonishment against starting the Iraqi War as evidence to support your conclusion the war is wrong and the US should pull out troops. I challenged you to tell me what JP-II said after the war had started and any obligation the US had. Your response was illustriative of you bias. You refused to answer or consider his anser and said I should tell you since I'm Roman Catholic. You failed to see my 'Seperatated Brethern' status. You also made the typical mistake of bigots, but quoting people when they support your bigotry, but ignoreing them when they may disagree. Why is JP-II's opinion valid before the war, but meaningless once the war started? Why is there one set of moral principles before the war started, but they can be disregard one comitted?

I don't find your bigotry or lack of reason or logic the least bit humourous, but it's typical of the world today.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1225584' date='Apr 1 2007, 05:20 AM']I find it almost humorous that you can't even post your own words, you have to litter this thread with your propaganda of factual inaccuracies, in which those that wrote them have never been to Iraq, served in the military, etc.

I'm going to leave you with this question though, if so called "WMD" has been found in Iraq, as you and your propaganda suggest, then why hasn't the Bush Administration used it to gain support for the war? As you know Bush's approval rating is below 30% and is dropping, but rather then use the "proof" that your sources of propaganda claim, Mr. Bush has said over and over again that NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ. If Bush's Administration, and every other intelligences agency of our government [and Russias, and Britians] have proclaimed that NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ, what makes you think that your sources of propaganda are more credible? If WMD was found in Iraq, Bush would be the first person to proclaim it and get his public approval rating higher, get the respect for his presidental administration back and go down as a relatively on point president.

As David Kay put it, it's dulusional to say that Iraq had WMD after everything that we know today. David Kay was part of the Iraq Study Group and was a UN Weapons Inspector.

Reza

PS: Of course you don't respond to me, because I'm the only person here that has family from Persian [Iraq/Iran] decent, that has relatives and family friends that still travel to Iran/Iraq for pilgrimages, etc. I'm also a former soldier with extensive connections to the Army, including lots of friends that are Amry Rangers. Your propaganda claims have little to no weight because everyone that knows the culture and the situation in Iraq know about the sectarian violence in Iraq, about the civil war and the full situation. Even General Abizaid was willinig to call it for what it is, but you don't seem to think that you know more then the top generals in Iraq. I'm guessing that your position has to do with the fact that you've never served in the army, and don't have a direct connection to Iraqis, other then what you read on your propaganda sources and what you see on TV.[/quote]

The fact of reality remains WMD's have indeed been found and will continue to be found in Iraq, reality is not delusional. Factual documents from Iraq, and News reports from Iraq proving WMD where found, and Syria and Iran are sending and supporting the "insurgents" in Iraq counter your flawed claim that the contrary is true, which it is not. That doesn't make it propaganda, its evidence, and it makes your stance wrong.

All you offer is your flawed weak opinion. I've offered facts you have yet to disprove, and you can not disprove facts or reality, but I challenge you to try.

Lastly, you are not the only one with friends and family in Iraq, rather rude of you to assume other wise.