Republicans steadfast- Bush says US will not pull out of IRAQ until stabilized

[rebeccajo 14]

Bush says we won't abandon the Iraqi's until the Iraqi's are ready to handle the situation themselves....

This is why this President will go down in history as one of the greats- he gets things done!

source

Why does the image of the 12 tribes of Israel wandering in the desert come to mind?

Because you're using the wrong reference-point (one which had nothing to do with Iraq ground-realities).

The one you need to use is that of the British going into Afghanistan in 1839.

Well what I THINK I meant was.....I can't see the Iraqi's ever being able to handle the situation themselves. At least not in a democratic way. It's a society with a war-cheiftan tribal mentality that governs by slaughter. I see our military wandering in the desert pointlessly if they are sticking around waiting for any self-control on the part of ANY leader in that part of the world.

And I would feel that way no matter WHO was the Commander in Chief that sent our men over there.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Well what I THINK I meant was.....I can't see the Iraqi's ever being able to handle the situation themselves. At least not in a democratic way. It's a society with a war-cheiftan tribal mentality that governs by slaughter. I see our military wandering in the desert pointlessly if they are sticking around waiting for any self-control on the part of ANY leader in that part of the world.

And I would feel that way no matter WHO was the Commander in Chief that sent our men over there.

Also (as I inferred in an earlier post--or maybe another thread) the Iraqis HAVE proven they can handle the situation themselves (the Iraqi/Middle-Eastern way, not the European/Western one).

In fact, like Afghanistan:

• Iraq is a polyglot country with three major groupings who have ancient animosities (that between Medes/Kurds and Arabs predates Islam; that between Sunnis and Shi'as started by the time of Muhamed's burial).
  
• majority-muslim country, none of which have successfully managed to establish a 10+year democracy (the closest was Bangladesh which got four years proper democracy under Mujib and a "one party in power, other doing bandhs"--due to the "Bengaliness" of the vast majority).
  

Basically, the last "western" power able to administer Middle East AT ALL was imperial Rome (which had no democratic tradition of any kind).

[rebeccajo 14]

Also (as I inferred in an earlier post--or maybe another thread) the Iraqis HAVE proven they can handle the situation themselves (the Iraqi/Middle-Eastern way, not the European/Western one).

Well, like you said, the Iraqi/Middle Eastern way.

So what the heck are we doing over there trying to make them do it OUR WAY for?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

... he [bush} gets things done!

Yeah, he's getting things done alright: turn the Middle East into more of a desaster zone than it's been in decades, toss a country into a civil war, needlessly get tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed. Yeah, he's getting things done for sure. Not the things anyone could possibly desire but he's sure getting them done.

[kaydee457 13]

... he [bush} gets things done!

Yeah, he's getting things done alright: turn the Middle East into more of a desaster zone than it's been in decades, toss a country into a civil war, needlessly get tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed. Yeah, he's getting things done for sure. Not the things anyone could possibly desire but he's sure getting them done.

You're a bit confused about recognizing the good guys from the bad guys, ET.

toss a country into a civil war, needlessly get tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed

...Huh??

Let's gain a bit of perspective here, shall we? Here's a count of people killed or simply disappeared during Saddam's tenure. There's no reason to believe that if we had left him in power that he would not have continued "business as usual"......nor is there any doubt that he would continue to be actively engaged in exporting his terror to other more moderate arab states.

Attacks on Iraqi Kurds

From 1977 to 1987, between 4,500 and 5,000 Kurdish villages in northern Iraq were destroyed and the population placed in "resettlement camps." As many as 50,000 Kurds died. In the spring of 1987, thousands of Kurds were killed by chemical and conventional bombs. In at least 40 cases, Gen. Ali Hasan al-Majid, "Chemical Ali," used chemical weapons to kill or chase Kurds from villages. In 1988, as many as 5,000 Kurds were killed and 10,000 injured in Halabja. During the Anfal campaign, from February to September 1988, Iraqi soldiers rounded up more than 100,000 Kurds, mostly men and boys, and executed them. More than 1-million Kurds fled and tens of thousands were killed or imprisoned when Iraq crushed an uprising after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Kurdish officials say that around 200,000 have been forcibly evicted from areas that were under Hussein's control.

1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War

As early as 1983, Iraq used poison gas against Iranian troops. In 1988, Hussein reportedly used chemical weapons in a lightning attack to retake the vital Faw Peninsula. An estimated 20,000 Iranians were killed by Iraqi mustard gas or by the nerve agents tabun and sarin during the war.

Expulsion of minorities from Kirkuk

Beginning in 1991, more than 120,000 Kurds, Turkmen and Assyrians were expelled from this oil-rich northern city, to be replaced by Arab families resettled from southern Iraq.

Repression of Marsh Arabs and other Shiite Muslims

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq's Sunni-dominated regime arrested thousands of Shiite Muslims on charges of supporting the 1979 Iranian Revolution; many have never been accounted for. Nearly 500,000 Shiites fled to Iran. After the Gulf War, Iraqi forces shelled and shot thousands of Shiites who were hiding in the country's southern marshlands after a failed revolt. Hussein also razed towns and drained marshlands. Thousands of Shiites, including hundreds of clerics and their students, were imprisoned without charge, "disappeared" or were executed. Many Shiite shrines and institutions were demolished. Again, thousands of Shiites fled the area, some to Iran. In 1999, Ayatollah al Sayyid Mohammad Sadiq al Sadr, the most senior Shiite cleric in Iraq, was assassinated.

In May 2003, a mass grave was discovered near Mahaweel, 60 miles south of Baghdad. Most bodies appear to have been killed after a 1991 Shiite revolt. The remains of other Shiites killed after a 1999 rebellion have been discovered near Basra.

Large-scale "disappearances' and torture

An estimated 300,000 Iraqi citizens have vanished without a trace, many presumed dead. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights condemned the Iraqi regime in 2001 for "widespread, systematic torture and the maintaining of decrees prescribing cruel and inhuman punishment as a penalty for offenses." Torture methods have included hanging, beating, rape and burning alive. The 2001 U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report says the government "killed and tortured persons suspected of - or related to persons suspected of - economic crimes, military desertion and a variety of other activities. Security forces routinely tortured, beat, raped and otherwise abused detainees." It accused the regime of killing inmates to reduce prison overcrowding and executing prostitutes.

1990 invasion of Kuwait

Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990 over an oil and land dispute and then annexed the country. Occupying forces brutalized civilians; they tortured and summarily executed detainees. Retreating Iraqi troops looted Kuwait City and seized hundreds of Kuwaitis, taking them back to Baghdad. Iraqis also destroyed more than 700 oil wells and opened pipelines to let oil pour into the Persian Gulf and other water sources. The spill damaged water desalination plants and Kuwaiti fishing grounds and has left areas of Kuwait lifeless a decade later. The U.S. military maintains that Hussein's tactic of using human shields during the Gulf War was part of a strategy that included putting military arsenals beneath schools, mosques, orphanages and cultural sites so that an attacker would also kill civilians.

Death row prisoners

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that sources have said Iraq experimented on human beings to perfect biological or chemical weapons. "A source said that 1,600 death row prisoners were transferred in 1995 to a special unit for such experiments."

Rules of war

The U.S. military is investigating whether Iraqi forces executed or mistreated U.S. soldiers when a convoy was ambushed March 23 near Nasiriyah. British officials have accused Hussein's paramilitary forces of firing on civilians attempting to flee Basra. Both U.S. and British forces accused Iraqi forces under Hussein of taking off their uniforms and dressing as civilians while still combatants, of appearing to surrender and then attacking, and of firing on civilians.

- Information from the Human Rights Watch, U.S. State Department, Times files, BBC News, Associated Press and New York Times was included in this report.

source

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

... he [bush] gets things done!

Yeah, he's getting things done alright: turn the Middle East into more of a desaster zone than it's been in decades, toss a country into a civil war, needlessly get tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed. Yeah, he's getting things done for sure. Not the things anyone could possibly desire but he's sure getting them done.

You're a bit confused about recognizing the good guys from the bad guys, ET.

toss a country into a civil war, needlessly get tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed

...Huh??

Depending on who you listen to, Iraq is either in a civil war today or on the brink of a civil war. That wasn't the case before Bush decided to ** the place up beyond recognition was it? And tens of thousands of civilians are dead because of the war and the fallout it caused. You may take comfort in saying that people died under Saddam as well. What does that say? That Saddam was worse than what Bush has created there? Is it really?

The death rate in Iraq today exceeds that of times past when Saddam was in power. Does that mean Saddam was a good guy? Absolutely not. But it does mean that more Iraqis die today than was the case when Saddam ruled that place. While I don't agree or sympathize with the regime Saddam was running, what's going on Iraq today is hardly better than what was going on prior to Bush's illegal attack on that country. There's no confusion here. Bush most certainly ain't the good guy.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Depending on who you listen to, Iraq is either in a civil war today or on the brink of a civil war. That wasn't the case before Bush decided to ** the place up beyond recognition was it? And tens of thousands of civilians are dead because of the war and the fallout it caused. You may take comfort in saying that people died under Saddam as well. What does that say? That Saddam was worse than what Bush has created there? Is it really?

The death rate in Iraq today exceeds that of times past when Saddam was in power. Does that mean Saddam was a good guy? Absolutely not. But it does mean that more Iraqis die today than was the case when Saddam ruled that place. While I don't agree or sympathize with the regime Saddam was running, what's going on Iraq today is hardly better than what was going on prior to Bush's illegal attack on that country. There's no confusion here. Bush most certainly ain't the good guy.

Are civil wars bad, of course they are. There are crazy fukcked up people in this world and they need to be stopped with what they understand best! In comparison Iraq isnt shite.What would the U.S. be like today with people like you running the country? Just imagine!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans

American Revolution (1775–1783)

Total servicemembers 217,000

Battle deaths 4,435

Nonmortal woundings 6,188

War of 1812 (1812–1815)

Total servicemembers 286,730

Battle deaths 2,260

Nonmortal woundings 4,505

Indian Wars (approx. 1817–1898)

Total servicemembers 106,0001

Battle deaths 1,0001

Mexican War (1846–1848)

Total servicemembers 78,718

Battle deaths 1,733

Other deaths in service (nontheater) 11,550

Nonmortal woundings 4,152

Civil War (1861–1865)

Total servicemembers (Union) 2,213,363

Battle deaths (Union) 140,414

Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097

Nonmortal woundings (Union) 281,881

Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000

Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524

Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,2972

Nonmortal woundings (Conf.) unknown

Spanish-American War (1898–1902)

Total servicemembers 306,760

Battle deaths 385

Other deaths in service (nontheater) 2,061

Nonmortal woundings 1,662

World War I (1917–1918)3

Total servicemembers 4,734,991

Battle deaths 53,402

Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114

Nonmortal woundings 204,002

Living veterans fewer than 500

World War II (1940–1945)3

Total servicemembers 16,112,566

Battle deaths 291,557

Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842

Nonmortal woundings 671,846

Living veterans 4,762,0001

Korean War (1950–1953)

Total servicemembers 5,720,000

Serving in-theater 1,789,000

Battle deaths 33,741

Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827

Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,730

Nonmortal woundings 103,284

Living veterans 3,734,0001

Vietnam War (1964–1975)

Total servicemembers 8,744,000

Serving in-theater 3,403,000

Battle deaths 47,410

Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789

Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000

Nonmortal woundings 153,303

Living veterans 8,295,0001

Gulf War (1990–1991)

Total servicemembers 2,225,000

Serving in-theater 665,476

Battle deaths 147

Other deaths in service (theater) 382

Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565

Nonmortal woundings 467

Living veterans 1,852,0001

America's Wars Total

Military service during war 42,348,460

Battle deaths 651,008

Other deaths in service (theater) 13,998

Other deaths in service (nontheater) 525,256

Nonmortal woundings 1,431,290

Living war veterans 17,578,5004

Living veterans 25,038,459

Edited November 29, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Are civil wars bad, of course they are. There are crazy fukcked up people in this world and they need to be stopped with what they understand best! In comparison Iraq isnt shite.What would the U.S. be like today with people like you running the country? Just imagine!

Well, the nearly 3,000 service members that died a senseless death in Iraq would still be alive, the many more that were wounded would not have been. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be breathing as well. That's what it would look like. But you seem to prefer death.

[cmartyn 0]

Yeah, and I want my 300 billion dollars back.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Well, the nearly 3,000 service members that died a senseless death in Iraq would still be alive, the many more that were wounded would not have been. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be breathing as well. That's what it would look like. But you seem to prefer death.

They died a senseless death? NICE! The jews were breathing too, in the concentration camps .So I guess if your breathing according to you everything is good. I dare you to go greet one of our guys or gals in Iraq and tell them their buddies died senselessly.

[kaydee457 13]

Are civil wars bad, of course they are. There are crazy fukcked up people in this world and they need to be stopped with what they understand best! In comparison Iraq isnt shite.What would the U.S. be like today with people like you running the country? Just imagine!

Well, the nearly 3,000 service members that died a senseless death in Iraq would still be alive, the many more that were wounded would not have been. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be breathing as well. That's what it would look like. But you seem to prefer death.

Once again one needs some perspective. This casualty rate is extremely low compared to other conflicts we've been in.

I don't happen to think that their deaths were "senseless" given that they're protecting our interests in the middle east.

At the rate we consume the earth's resources, particulary oil, we need to assure our supplies are at the very least coming from friendly and/or reliable and stable governments and not governments that would take our dollars and wage war against us......Like it or not, that's the reality of why we're in the middle east. Our very way of life, as well as our standard of living is at risk.

We do not live on an island.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, the nearly 3,000 service members that died a senseless death in Iraq would still be alive, the many more that were wounded would not have been. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be breathing as well. That's what it would look like. But you seem to prefer death.

They died a senseless death? NICE! The jews were breathing too, in the concentration camps .So I guess if your breathing according to you everything is good. I dare you to go greet one of our guys or gals in Iraq and tell them their buddies died senselessly.

What have we accomplished in that war that now lasts longer than fcuking WWII? Destabilized the Middle East and tossed Iraq onto the brink or right into civil war. That's about all. Is that worth fighting and dying for?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are civil wars bad, of course they are. There are crazy fukcked up people in this world and they need to be stopped with what they understand best! In comparison Iraq isnt shite.What would the U.S. be like today with people like you running the country? Just imagine!

Well, the nearly 3,000 service members that died a senseless death in Iraq would still be alive, the many more that were wounded would not have been. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be breathing as well. That's what it would look like. But you seem to prefer death.

Once again one needs some perspective. This casualty rate is extremely low compared to other conflicts we've been in.

I don't happen to think that their deaths were "senseless" given that they're protecting our interests in the middle east.

At the rate we consume the earth's resources, particulary oil, we need to assure our supplies are at the very least coming from friendly and/or reliable and stable governments and not governments that would take our dollars and wage war against us......Like it or not, that's the reality of why we're in the middle east. Our very way of life, as well as our standard of living is at risk.

We do not live on an island.

So would you now be suggesting that Iraq was about something more than the "imminent threat WMD #######" you've been regurgitating for the last few weeks?

Well, the nearly 3,000 service members that died a senseless death in Iraq would still be alive, the many more that were wounded would not have been. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be breathing as well. That's what it would look like. But you seem to prefer death.

They died a senseless death? NICE! The jews were breathing too, in the concentration camps .So I guess if your breathing according to you everything is good. I dare you to go greet one of our guys or gals in Iraq and tell them their buddies died senselessly.

A general observation here - countries with working governments and an effective law enforcement infrastructure are usually preferable to those without either.

There's a difference of course between a strong leader and a good leader, but there are 'law and order' benefits of leadership. Saddam was certainly not "good", but noone can fault a dictator for not being 'strong'.

Similarly (generally speaking) when a country gets itself embroiled in war, its generally out of some form of self interest - millions of people die in country's around the world on a daily basis out of neglect, starvation and genocide. Is that ok - certainly not, but you don't see the US or Europe going out of their way too redistribute the wealth of capitalism or to stop the likes of the Khmer Rouge or Idi Amin when we know full well they were committing massive atrocities. The point is that you can't moralise something like foreign policy, that is intrinsically amoral.

If we were all genuine moralists we'd be giving away our wealth and worldly goods and helping the homeless. You have to ask why a great many people don't do this, and why our governments don't raise more than a finger when millions of people are dying around the world. It's an interesting question..

Edited November 29, 2006 by erekose

[kaydee457 13]

Are civil wars bad, of course they are. There are crazy fukcked up people in this world and they need to be stopped with what they understand best! In comparison Iraq isnt shite.What would the U.S. be like today with people like you running the country? Just imagine!

Well, the nearly 3,000 service members that died a senseless death in Iraq would still be alive, the many more that were wounded would not have been. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be breathing as well. That's what it would look like. But you seem to prefer death.

Once again one needs some perspective. This casualty rate is extremely low compared to other conflicts we've been in.

I don't happen to think that their deaths were "senseless" given that they're protecting our interests in the middle east.

At the rate we consume the earth's resources, particulary oil, we need to assure our supplies are at the very least coming from friendly and/or reliable and stable governments and not governments that would take our dollars and wage war against us......Like it or not, that's the reality of why we're in the middle east. Our very way of life, as well as our standard of living is at risk.

We do not live on an island.

So would you now be suggesting that Iraq was about something more than the "imminent threat WMD #######" you've been regurgitating for the last few weeks?

Well, the nearly 3,000 service members that died a senseless death in Iraq would still be alive, the many more that were wounded would not have been. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be breathing as well. That's what it would look like. But you seem to prefer death.

They died a senseless death? NICE! The jews were breathing too, in the concentration camps .So I guess if your breathing according to you everything is good. I dare you to go greet one of our guys or gals in Iraq and tell them their buddies died senselessly.

A general observation here - countries with working governments and an effective law enforcement infrastructure are usually preferable to those without either.

There's a difference of course between a strong leader and a good leader, but there are 'law and order' benefits of leadership. Saddam was certainly not "good", but noone can fault a dictator for not being 'strong'.

Similarly (generally speaking) when a country gets itself embroiled in war, its generally out of some form of self interest - millions of people die in country's around the world on a daily basis out of neglect, starvation and genocide. Is that ok - certainly not, but you don't see the US or Europe going out of their way too redistribute the wealth of capitalism or to stop the likes of the Khmer Rouge or Idi Amin when we know full well they were committing massive atrocities. The point is that you can't moralise something like foreign policy, that is intrinsically amoral.

If we were all genuine moralists we'd be giving away our wealth and worldly goods and helping the homeless. You have to ask why a great many people don't do this, and why our governments don't raise more than a finger when millions of people are dying around the world. It's an interesting question..

You need some reading comprehension training, erekose.

I have written about Al Qaueda's inevitable and eventual aquisition of nuclear materials; this is pretty much a "given" and just a matter of time.

But that's a whole different topic. We're fighting a war in the middle east to protect our interests, period.

That means to assure that we have stable, reliable, and hopefully friendly (but not entirely necessary) source of oil to protect our interests and our way of life. We cannot have Al Qaueda carving out a large portion of Iraq, as they did in Afghanistan and growing a reinvigored network of well finaced terrorist.

There's no one single reason we're fighting in Iraq. In fact it's overly simplistic to believe so. There's a multitude of reasons, including an attempt to put down a now emboldened enemy that a previous U.S. President ignored and has demonstrated its consistent and persistent propensity to be our enemy for too long. If they had been squelched in the past following the embassy bombings, the Cole and other attacks against the U.S. we might nit have had 9/11.

Now we pay the price.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are civil wars bad, of course they are. There are crazy fukcked up people in this world and they need to be stopped with what they understand best! In comparison Iraq isnt shite.What would the U.S. be like today with people like you running the country? Just imagine!

Well, the nearly 3,000 service members that died a senseless death in Iraq would still be alive, the many more that were wounded would not have been. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be breathing as well. That's what it would look like. But you seem to prefer death.

Once again one needs some perspective. This casualty rate is extremely low compared to other conflicts we've been in.

I don't happen to think that their deaths were "senseless" given that they're protecting our interests in the middle east.

At the rate we consume the earth's resources, particulary oil, we need to assure our supplies are at the very least coming from friendly and/or reliable and stable governments and not governments that would take our dollars and wage war against us......Like it or not, that's the reality of why we're in the middle east. Our very way of life, as well as our standard of living is at risk.

We do not live on an island.

So would you now be suggesting that Iraq was about something more than the "imminent threat WMD #######" you've been regurgitating for the last few weeks?

Well, the nearly 3,000 service members that died a senseless death in Iraq would still be alive, the many more that were wounded would not have been. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be breathing as well. That's what it would look like. But you seem to prefer death.

They died a senseless death? NICE! The jews were breathing too, in the concentration camps .So I guess if your breathing according to you everything is good. I dare you to go greet one of our guys or gals in Iraq and tell them their buddies died senselessly.

A general observation here - countries with working governments and an effective law enforcement infrastructure are usually preferable to those without either.

There's a difference of course between a strong leader and a good leader, but there are 'law and order' benefits of leadership. Saddam was certainly not "good", but noone can fault a dictator for not being 'strong'.

Similarly (generally speaking) when a country gets itself embroiled in war, its generally out of some form of self interest - millions of people die in country's around the world on a daily basis out of neglect, starvation and genocide. Is that ok - certainly not, but you don't see the US or Europe going out of their way too redistribute the wealth of capitalism or to stop the likes of the Khmer Rouge or Idi Amin when we know full well they were committing massive atrocities. The point is that you can't moralise something like foreign policy, that is intrinsically amoral.

If we were all genuine moralists we'd be giving away our wealth and worldly goods and helping the homeless. You have to ask why a great many people don't do this, and why our governments don't raise more than a finger when millions of people are dying around the world. It's an interesting question..

You need some reading comprehension training, erekose.

I have written about Al Qaueda's inevitable and eventual aquisition of nuclear materials; this is pretty much a "given" and just a matter of time.

But that's a whole different topic. We're fighting a war in the middle east to protect our interests, period.

That means to assure that we have stable, reliable, and hopefully friendly (but not entirely necessary) source of oil to protect our interests and our way of life. We cannot have Al Qaueda carving out a large portion of Iraq, as they did in Afghanistan and growing a reinvigored network of well finaced terrorist.

There's no one single reason we're fighting in Iraq. In fact it's overly simplistic to believe so. There's a multitude of reasons, including an attempt to put down a now emboldened enemy that a previous U.S. President ignored and has demonstrated its consistent and persistent propensity to be our enemy for too long. If they had been squelched in the past following the embassy bombings, the Cole and other attacks against the U.S. we might nit have had 9/11.

Now we pay the price.

Yet the argument still stands that Iraq had dubious links to Al Qaeda, and that pursuing Saddam Hussein took the focus off of Bin Laden et al, got us bogged down in a civil war in which many of the elements we are specifically fighting, who weren't present prior to the invasion, infiltrated the country after the fact and are a direct cause of much of the current instability. More to the point, if the Baathists didn't have close links to Al Qaeda before, they certainly do now. This is because:

1) Rumsfeld did not deploy enough troops to effectively secure the country, against the objections of some of his generals.

2) The Iraqi army was disbanded - a mistake which has been widely noted, but a necessary one considering point 1) above.

So now - while we're all clapping our hands on a job well done - an Al Qaeda linked Islamic (Jihadist) militia operation is assuming power in Somalia:

Islamists claim Mogadishu victory

US Concerned Somalia Conflict Could Spread

Another Afghanistan?

It makes you wonder whether the 'War on Terror' is actually doing what it says on the tin. I don't think it is, and I'm not alone in thinking that.

Edited November 30, 2006 by erekose