[OilIsMastery]

The Kalshnikov assault rifle is not an American product, nor are Russian RPGs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

Arming is not the same thing as producing. You can arm someone without the weapons that you directly make.

The last time I checked the United States was disarming Iraq.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/us_mili ... l_guns.htm

Baghdad, Iraq-AP -- The U-S military is now telling Iraqis they cannot own or sell guns. Any Iraqi who does faces arrest, according to a new radio spot running in the country.

Lieutenant General David McKiernan, who is commanding U-S forces on the ground, says a new set of laws in Iraq are aimed at rebuilding law and order.

One problem U-S forces have is the tens of thousands of weapons Saddam Hussein's government gave out in its final days in power. Many ended up in the hands of looters or criminals.

McKiernan has issued a statement saying coalition forces will hunt down those people -- whom he calls a threat to everyone in Iraq. He is urging any Iraqi who owns a firearm to turn it in to coalition forces.

Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

I agree 100%. The sabotage of Iraq's water supply is indeed a crime against humanity commited by Iraq's occupying power: namely Al Qaeda.

Al-Qa'ida is occupying Iraq?

Yes Al Qaeda is occupying Iraq. That's why we sent troops there in the first place.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.i ... index.html

Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants.

Let's see. There are 300,000 foreigners (err, Americans mostly) in the country with the most weapons, largest single force, and nearly all of the free-flowing money.

300,000 foreigners in Iraq? LMAO. There are over 300,000 Al Qaeda alone in Iraq.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Most_forei ... 52007.html

Most foreign insurgents in Iraq are Saudis: report

AQ has even admitted in captured documents that they are left with very few men left and they're reduced to setting off basic explosives in the middle of the street. Yeah, and you think it's the latter that holds the power.

I guess the daily terrorist attacks in Iraq are a Buddhist conspiracy.

[mekrob]

Yes Al Qaeda is occupying Iraq. That's why we sent troops there in the first place.

Really? Cuz I thought it was all that talk about Saddam and his WMD programs and how we'd have so many of our men die from tripping over all of the canisters of anthrax and such.

Yes Al Qaeda is occupying Iraq.

Now where did Powell say that AQ was occupying Iraq? He never did. He said that they were harboring. That's not even close to saying they controlled Iraq. Instead, he's actually saying the exact opposite: that Iraq (er, Saddam) was in control of "Al-Qa'ida in Iraq".

There are over 300,000 Al Qaeda alone in Iraq.

You care explaining how you got that number? Every single number that I've seen given from the military and newspapers show a much much lower number. They estimate that the total insurgency is around a few ten thousand. Maybe up to 100,000 (depending on how you define insurgency and civil war). And the foreign contingency makes up a very very small part of that, generally less than 10% at any given time.

From the article:

Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

135 are foreigners. Do you have any clue how many are in US detention facilities in Iraq? Thousands. Possibly 10,000+. 135 is absolutely nothing compared to the general population in those facilities.

So how are you coming up with such a large number based off of that article?

[OilIsMastery]

The relevant points are that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and terrorists are in Iraq. Do you think maybe that's why the US military is in Iraq? LOL

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/ ... iptid=2594

there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two.

[mekrob]

Do you think maybe that's why the US military is in Iraq? LOL

So we spent $400 billion directly in Iraq (but it's going to be way over a trillion, possibly trillions when all of the damage is calculated in), lost 3000 men to hostile fire, send 150,000 men on 2,3 or 4 tours/years (so far) away from their families (not to mention all of the sacrifices that have yet to be made) all for what? 135 captured bad guys? Don't ya think then that the Dems would be right (for once) in that it should've been a 'police' action and just used CIA? So that maybe then we wouldn't have lost a shitload of money, men, equipment, respect and dignity?

Besides, when did Saddam ever use terrorism against the US? He supported (mainly) Palestinian terrorism against Israel. If it's such a big deal, let Israel fight their own battles, shed their own blood and lose their gold.

[OilIsMastery]

Do you think maybe that's why the US military is in Iraq? LOL

So we spent $400 billion directly in Iraq (but it's going to be way over a trillion, possibly trillions when all of the damage is calculated in), lost 3000 men to hostile fire, send 150,000 men on 2,3 or 4 tours/years (so far) away from their families (not to mention all of the sacrifices that have yet to be made) all for what? 135 captured bad guys? Don't ya think then that the Dems would be right (for once) in that it should've been a 'police' action and just used CIA? So that maybe then we wouldn't have lost a shitload of money, men, equipment, respect and dignity?

Besides, when did Saddam ever use terrorism against the US? He supported (mainly) Palestinian terrorism against Israel. If it's such a big deal, let Israel fight their own battles, shed their own blood and lose their gold.

LOL. You've got it all figure out. We went to Iraq for 135 bad guys and Israel.

Iraqi terrorism against the United States: http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html

In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. The Kuwaitis recovered the Landcruiser, which contained between 80 and 90 kilograms of plastic explosives connected to a detonator ( the Bush device or Bush explosive device ). The Kuwaitis also recovered ten cube-shaped plastic explosive devices with detonators (the cube-bombs ) from the Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt.

[mekrob]

Iraqi terrorism against the United States

So all of that talk about Bush just wanting to go in there to revenge his daddy; and you support that and applaud it?

You think having 3,000 of our men die so far, 10,000 more lose limbs and get shot up so far, tens of thousands suffer traumatic brain injuries so far, hundreds of billions of dollars spent so far and tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost so far is justified because of a plot a decade ago to kill just a single man?

If you seriously think that one man's life is worth all of those things put together just so far (and we know by the time this is over it will be much much higher), then you are completely fucked up in the head and you need to see somebody about that.

So tell me, if you think that we went in there because Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy, then why not just use the CIA to take out Saddam? Why go through the massive war phase and have all of these repercussions take place? How can you justify the actions taken given your reasoning for a need to take out Saddam and his government?

[eric_b]

6 million people, 117 degrees and no water

Mission accomplished.

[eric_b]

The relevant points are that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and terrorists are in Iraq. Do you think maybe that's why the US military is in Iraq? LOL

Let me fix that for you fool.

"
The [s]relevant[/s] irrelevant points are that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and terrorists are in Iraq. Do you think maybe that's why the US military is in Iraq?
"

We're making terrorists in Iraq, that's a fact jack. Real ones, not fake ones like al-cia-duh.

[OilIsMastery]

Mission accomplished.

By Muslim terrorists.

[OilIsMastery]

We're making terrorists in Iraq, that's a fact jack.

You are? What about the terrorists that were in Iraq before 2003? Did you make those too?

Wait a second. I thought the terrorists are Israel and Halliburton. Did you make them too?

[eric_b]

We're making terrorists in Iraq, that's a fact jack.

You are? What about the terrorists that were in Iraq before 2003?

Exactly.

Wait a second. I thought the terrorists are Israel and Halliburton. Did you make them too?

Sure did, and you too. Unfortunately I released you before you were fully debugged.

[OilIsMastery]

So who controls the Muslim terrorists in Iraq? Is it Bush, Halliburton, or Israel?

[Chuckmak]

we've had 60 years to "do everything" we can...

The Savior of Iraq George W. Bush wasn't elected until 2000.

I agree 100%. The sabotage of Iraq's water supply is indeed a crime against humanity commited by Iraq's occupying power: namely Al Qaeda.

America is doing everything they can to help Iraqis and Muslim terrorists are doing everything they can do murder Iraqis.

we've had 60 years to "do everything" we can...

The Savior of Iraq George W. Bush wasn't elected until 2000.

OilIsMastery needs a history lesson. Then again this may go in one ear then out the other.

Let's turn back the clocks to the early 1950s. the US was backing the Batista Dictatorship in Cuba and (with help from the British) installed a Dictator - The Shah - in Iran. Both ruled with an iron fist and were absolutely brutal (yet Anti-Soviet, which makes it okay...right?) dictatorships. The seeds were sewn here.

On to 1959. The result of the Batista Dictatorship? A Revolution and another Extreme Dictator takes power in Castro. One extreme led to a swing in power to the other extreme. We didn't give two shits about Batista, but oh no, let Castro in and he gets friendly w/ the Soviets. Not our kind of puppet so we go against him.

Moving forward to 1968 (a sidebar for now so I won't go TOO in depth). The US-backed Ba'ath Party takes control, led by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. By the 1970s, however, he is mainly Pro-Soviet. His brutal regime is in power at this time.

Keeping the ball rolling, let's visit the 1970s. We're still backing the Pro-US, BRUTAL dictatorship of the Shah. Cheyney and Rumsfeld back a plan for the Iranians to go nuclear at this time as they see their oil production will peak in the future. However, it's too far gone as ANOTHER extreme element in Iran takes fold, under a religious doctrine. They feel they have to fight the extremism in the Shah dictatorship with a religious extremism, which has been festering for a decade.

1979 is a landmark year for foreign policy debacles. One extremism replaces another in Iran as the Ayatollah and Muslim extremists take over in Iran. This extremism, however, is not Pro-US like the last Extreme Dictatorship of the Shah. So we go against them. We cuddle up with the Iraqis, ironically, and become buddy buddy with Saddam again. Also, that same year, the Soviets invade Afghanistan.

the 1980s continue the mistakes trend by our short-sighted anti-Soviet foreign policy. The Iran/Iraq war begins. By the mid-1980s, we supply Saddam with Weapons of Mass Destruction to be used against the Iranians (yes, if you haven't figured it out, we gave him those WMDs). At the same time, to fight the Soviets in a proxy war in Afghanistan, we side with muslim extremists known as the Mujahadeen (sp?) (the forerunner of both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda). Our CIA provides them with billions in high-tech weapons and military training. Among those recipients of aid and traning was one Osama Bin Laden. At the same time, we cuddle up to an extremist and hard line theorcatic monarchy in Saudi Arabia in an effort to bankrupt the Commies (mind you 75% of the 9/11 hijackers were, well, Saudi) and this continued into the 1990s. By the 1990s, the Soviets have been defeated, and the Iranians and Iraqis had been fighting for nearly a decade, and, exhausted, they stop fighting.

This leads to the question of our anti-Soviet allies. Well, the Soviets were no more, and these were alliances of conveniences...they hated our guts but wanted to fight the Soviets so they gladly took our aid...only to use that aid against us in the 1990s and today. So you see, our fuck ups during the Cold War essentially caused us to be in the assed out, no vaseline situation we're in now.

Oh by the way, while we're buddy buddy trading partners w/ the Chinese, they're gladly supplying (along w/ the Russians) military aid to the Iranians...whoops!

Hope this will clarify things for you, OilIsMastery.

[OilIsMastery]

But Bush is evil because he removed Saddam Hussein from power not to mention Bush controls all of the Muslim terrorists in Iraq...LOL

[mekrob]

But Bush is evil because he removed Saddam Hussein from power not to mention Bush controls all of the Muslim terrorists in Iraq...LOL

Why are you laughing so much? Is it because of some of the stuff you say? Like 300,000 in AQI? AQ occupying Iraq?

With all sincerity and I'm not making fun of you if you are or not, but... are you (severely) mentally retarded? That's the only way that I can explain your posts and behavior.

[Chuckmak]

But Bush is evil because he removed Saddam Hussein from power not to mention Bush controls all of the Muslim terrorists in Iraq...LOL

Like I thought...in one ear and out the other. Do you have a rational bone in your body?

BTW...don't go partisan on me...i have an equal distaste for conservatives/republicans and liberals/democrats so playing that card on me won't work. Choose your words wisely.

[jboogy]

Don't waste your time ,beneath troll.As ron weasely would say-"ewwww, troll bogey"

[Zardoz]

Basra is going to hell in a handcart:

As British Leave, Basra Deteriorates - Violence Rises in Shiite City Once Called a Success Story

Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.

[Troyboy1208]

yea and I hear 1/4 of al Malaki's Cabinet walked out...The sunnis of course. Isn't the Iraqi Parliament on vacation right now? Because you know they have been working so hard. I don't think you could have a worse political situation. But the Iraqi's have surprised me before. The situation often goes from worse to ummm....worser lol

[Zardoz]

Death toll soars to 175 in Iraq suicide bombings - Blasts that injured at least 200 targeted small Kurdish religious sect

Four suicide bombers struck nearly simultaneously at communities of a small Kurdish sect in northwestern Iraq late Tuesday, killing at least 175 people and wounding 200 more, Iraqi military and local officials said.

The death toll was the highest in a concerted attack since Nov. 23, when 215 people were killed by mortar fire and five car bombs in Baghdad’s Shiite Muslim enclave of Sadr City. And it was most vicious attack yet against the Yazidis, an ancient religious community in the region whose members are considered infidels by some Muslims.