The Iraq Thread 2

[Acecombat 0]

I will now add that Mr Robert Fisks reporting was SPOT ON , americans neglected the security perimeter of the airport and got owned here by a couple of Strelas....

Mr Fisk in his article in the Independent had clearly spotted out that the outer defensive perimeter was shortened by merican SF who just sat at the airport inside the terminal commending Iraqi rebels tries at mortaring them and complimenting there ever accurate tries , and all they did to spook them was to send in an Apache

[Acecombat 0]

Yes MR joltan i know all that i wasnt being offensive or anything its just that i believe one is a son of his own soil i.e his own country/origination etc etc ..thats anyway a side issue , its my personal opinion.

Tribal Elders From Tikrit Give US Soldiers an Earful

Katarina Kratovac, Associated Press

TIKRIT, Iraq, 2 November 2003 — The tribal elders from Saddam Hussein’s home region extended an invitation to US soldiers for talks — and told them townspeople are against “terrorists†throwing bombs but also don’t like soldiers putting guns to men’s heads during searches.

The freewheeling discussion between some 30 tribal leaders clad in traditional white robes and headscarves and American forces marked a renewed effort by coalition forces to win support from the elders in an area that has been a hotbed of anti-American resistance.

“Who could imagine that we could sit openly and talk like this, say what we think without threats?†Lt. Col. Steve Russell said. His 4th Infantry Division troops have been hunting for Saddam supporters and Fedayeen militants in the area and have come under constant attack from insurgent forces.

Joined by local religious leaders, the police chief and the town mayor, Thursday’s meeting was organized by tribal Sheikhs in Salah Ad Din province to adopt a resolution denouncing anyone who attacked US forces as a terrorist but also endorsing the “right to resist†the occupation.

“I am against terrorists and their attacks, but I am also against (American) soldiers putting guns to the heads of our men and trampling on our dignity,†said town elder Mahmud Yasin, an arts professor at Tikrit University.

In turn, Russell reassured the group that he understood their sensitivities, but said that the guerrilla attacks should be rejected. “I understand no one likes coalition forces being here. It is a matter of your national pride. We understand this. But armed resistance is completely unacceptable,†he said.

He recalled recent incidents when Iraqis fell victims to insurgents: mortars fired Wednesday onto a soccer field, a grenade that injured a 2-year-old girl in a nearby street. But several Sheikhs at the meeting claimed resistance was the legitimate right of every person in an occupied land. “The people have a right to fight for their country,†one told the audience.

“We must distinguish between resistance and terrorist acts. Bombs in the city are not resistance. That is terrorist activity; it only kills innocent people,†said Mayor Wail Al-Ali, a former diplomat who has backed the troops since their arrival here.

The area around Tikrit, 190 kilometers north of Baghdad, has been the scene of increased attacks on US troops that coalition forces blame on die-hard Saddam supporters. This region is part of the Sunni Triangle, once favored by Saddam, and stretches to the north and west of Baghdad.

American soldiers cordoned off Uja, the village where Saddam was born, suspecting this dusty farming community about 10 kilometers south of Tikrit of being a secret base for funding and planning assaults against coalition forces.

A fence of barbed wire was erected and checkpoints were set up at all roads leading into the village of about 3,500 residents, many of them Saddam’s clansmen and distant relatives.

All adults were required to register for identity cards that US officials said would allow them “controlled access†in and out of the village. Despite strong support for Saddam in this area, the American operation faced no visible resistance, and people lined up quietly outside a police station to register for ID cards.

The tribal declaration adopted the day before condemned terrorist acts, stressed support for Iraqi police and demanded a scaled-down US troop presence show respect toward Iraqis. Tribal leaders urged the soldiers to reduce patrols in the area, saying it would be good for both sides.

“We don’t want them (Americans) to leave. We ask the coalition troops to pull back, just to be on the outside and let our police provide security in our town,†Ali said. Russell told the Sheikhs that US forces would only be able to withdraw if the two sides cooperated to achieve peace.

But townspeople were “deeply concerned†over the troops’ manner of searching for suspects, the mayor told The Associated Press: the storming of homes, mostly at night, catching men with wives and children while sleeping.

[/b]“Please respect our houses. Do not enter without a court order and search,†Ali said. The Sheikhs also objected to what some called a “return to the old ways of Saddam,†with innocent people jailed without any proof, many of them detainees who are later released. Others raised alleged incidents of American soldiers entering “female schools†and allegedly using dogs in searches.[/b]

Russell said his troops do not use sniffer dogs. “We are infantry, we are not soldiers with dogs,†he said. The face-to-face meetings ended with some Sheikhs pledging their support for US troops. “I will make sure my village is safe,†said Sheikh Musaleh Kuraim, whose son was killed while working as a translator for the military.

Russell said the meeting was a first step in true communication. “What happened here today transcends tribal and religious backing that the old regime supporters may have here. The Sheikhs put down what they believe in. We hear their voice.â€

In another development, the Arab militant had been in Iraq less than 48 hours before he drove an explosives-packed vehicle toward a police station in an attempted fifth suicide blast on Baghdad’s bloodiest day since Saddam Hussein fell.

Mowaffak Al-Rubaie, a member of Iraq’s Governing Council, told Reuters in an interview the young, bearded attacker was a Yemeni-born Syrian national.

His bid to blow up the police station in the southeastern suburb of Baghdad Al-Jadida on Monday was foiled when police shot him and then pulled him from his crashed vehicle.

Rubaie said the wounded man, who has since had a leg amputated, was among more than 300 foreign militants caught by US-led forces and their Iraqi allies. “Interrogations show that these foreign fighters were coming to Iraq to settle scores with the United States,†he said

[Acecombat 0]

Recent pics from Baghdad:

URL=http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=880]Soldier patrol on these now....much safe then hummer[/url]

...they reckon...

[denoir 0]

In fact, all of Iraq's neighbors would now like the US to stay:

Iraqi Neighbors to Denounce Terror Groups.

Have you been drinking?  

I've had my green tea today, as usual.

I'm telling you, that stuff ain't good for you  

Quote[/b] ]Next time, quote me in full. The start of the article says they want US forces to resture security there.

There is a big difference between wanting them to stay and wanting them to restore security. They don't want them to stay - but as long as they are there, they have a responsibility to restore the security.

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, myself being a US citizen certainly affects my feeling for this tragedy.

Had they been Swedish troops, you may have felt similarly.

Possibly, but the difference is that we don't go invading other countries. Troops getting killed is an associated risks. If you wish to avoid such "tragedies" then stop going to war so often.

When people working for the Red Cross or the UN get killed, I can agree that it's a tragedy becuase they died for a good, humanitarin cause. People getting killed occupying antoher country is a fact of life. I have more sympathy for the hundreds, probably thousands of Iraqi soldiers that died defending their country.

Of course the individual soldiers are just doing what they have been ordered to. And 19 year old kids getting killed is never nice, but that's war. Next time the US citizens should choose a government that doesn't go picking fights around the world.

It's like you go and pick a fight with a stranger in a bar and he smashes your nose. Hey - I feel sorry for your nose, but you asked for it. This is similar - hey I feel sorry for the dead soldiers - but you asked for it when you invaded another country.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I didn't see so much focus at the 15 Iraqis that got killed in Baghdad on Friday - most of them civilians.

Indeed sad. The Iraqis are suffering a lot because of the attacks. I haven't been following this thread thoroughly recently but I'm sure someone's mentioned some recent articles on the ongoing and new difficulties in daily life in Iraq because of the lack of security.

Exactly. And I'm slightly annoyed with the media making a big fuss over dead professional soldiers of an occupying force while largely ignoring the killings of innocent civillians. Now, it's understandable that US citizens feel more sorry for US troops than for Iraqi civilians, but it still gives a very bad impression.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And this number isn't very dramatic either. It's just a week's worth of casualties.

I think one death is tragic, let alone a week's worth in a single day.

Yeah but this is business as usual. I don't see the drama. Ok if 100 tropps had been killed at once - that would be news since that number takes a time to accumulate. 16 dead is as I said a week's worth. Making a big fuss over it gives the impression that this was something extraordinary - which it's really not as one or two US troops get killed every day. I'd be more worried about that constant meat grinder than the occasional spike in death toll.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://abcnews.go.com/section....02.html

Quote[/b] ]Nov. 2— Six months after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, five teams of reporters from ABCNEWS and Time magazine questioned Iraqis across the country about issues Iraqis say matter most to them.

Security:

Northern Iraq: Slightly Worse

Central Iraq: Much Worse

Southern Iraq: Worse

Health Care:

Northern Iraq: Same

Central Iraq: Same or Worse

Southern Iraq: Same or Worse

Education:

Northern Iraq: Better

Central Iraq: Better

Southern Iraq: Better

Electicity:

Northern Iraq: Better

Central Iraq: Worse

Southern Iraq: Better

Water Supply:

Northern Iraq: Same

Central Iraq: Same or Worse

Southern Iraq: Same or Worse

Quality of Local Government:

Indeterminate

Availability of Jobs:

Northern Iraq: Worse

Central Iraq: Worse

Southern Iraq: Worse

Availability of Goods

Northern Iraq: Much Better

Central Iraq: Much Better

Southern Iraq: Much Better

[theavonlady 2]

The same might have likely been true for East germany after the wall came down and Russia after the Iron Curtain came down.

[The Frenchman 0]

The same might have likely been true for East germany after the wall came down and Russia after the Iron Curtain came down.

That maybe......

[denoir 0]

The same might have likely been true for East germany after the wall came down and Russia after the Iron Curtain came down.

Not at all comparable. Sure there were some tranistional issues, especially in Romania and Hungary, but nothing dramatic. Certainly people did not get killed. There were no security problems. The transitional problems were administrative and they had some problems with corruption.

No offense but it's truly a nonsense comparison

I'm trying to find some likness, but there simply is none. Completely different situations with different context and different results.

[theavonlady 2]

No offense but it's truly a nonsense comparison  

I'm trying to find some likness, but there simply is none.

No likeness? None whatsever? Collapse of a regime, it's military structure and it's empty economic structure's collapse.

I'm not making any direct comparisons. When a country has been at war, there's a lot of destruction and a lot that's broken.

The poll results are what I would think would be expected under the circumstances.

[denoir 0]

There was no collapse of civilian infrastructure. When the democratic parties took over everything was still working. Sure a lot of work had to be done as the infrastructure had been neglected to a certain degree by the communists. The transition however was not very dramatic.

It's exactly the opposite in Iraq. You had a war and a complete breakdown of civilian infrastructure. You have an occupying force and local guerillas etc etc

As I said, I can't find any real likeness..

[theavonlady 2]

There was no collapse of civilian infrastructure. When the democratic parties took over everything was still working. Sure a lot of work had to be done as the infrastructure had been neglected to a certain degree by the communists. The transition however was not very dramatic.

It's exactly the opposite in Iraq. You had a war and a complete breakdown of civilian infrastructure. You have an occupying force and local guerillas etc etc

As I said, I can't find any real likeness..  

Once again, I'm not arguing that there are major discrepencies.

I was responding in regarding to the mood and the spirit of morale reflected in the poll results posted by Ralph.

[denoir 0]

I think the only thing might be the availability of jobs. When full market economy was introduced very rapidly a lot of civil servants and government officials lost their jobs. But the context was completely different. It was because of a transition from a large socialist government apparatus to a much smaller capitalist one. Under the communist rule, you had a guaranteed job, no matter what while under a capitalist system it was changed to hiring on a need basis.

In Iraq the problem is that the civilian infrastructure has been shot to hell, both literally through bombing and looting and sanctions. And as long as there is a huge security problem, normal civil services can't function.

[Acecombat 0]

PITT: The Ramadan Offensive

Nov 01, 2003

By William Rivers Pitt

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all convictions, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

- W.B. Yeats, 'The Second Coming'

History loves to repeat itself.

On January 31, 1968, soldiers from North Vietnam launched what has since become known as the Tet Offensive. The attacks were breathtaking in scope: North Vietnamese soldiers stormed the highland towns of Banmethout, Kontum and Pleiku, invaded 13 of the 16 provincial capitols in the Mekong Delta, attacked the headquarters of both American and South Vietnam's armies, stormed the U.S. embassy compound in Saigon, and took the city of Hue. The attacks came as a complete shock to American forces. A 1968 CIA report concluded, "The intensity, coordination and timing of the attacks were not fully anticipated." The report went on to state that, "another major unexpected point" was the ability of the North Vietnamese to strike so many targets at the same time.

In the technical jargon of war, the attacks were a failure, as the Vietcong soldiers were eventually beaten back. General Giap, commander of Vietnamese forces, had a different perspective. "For us, you know, there is no such thing as a single strategy," said Giap after the war. "Ours is always a synthesis, simultaneously military, political and diplomatic -which is why quite clearly, the Tet offensive had multiple objectives."

The political aspect of the offensive worked. By March of 1968, President Lyndon Johnson's approval rating had fallen to 30%, and approval for his handling of the war had fallen to 26%. Walter Cronkite, the most trusted voice in American television journalism, stated publicly that the war was unwinnable. An explosion of dissent rocked the American homeland, culminating in Johnson's decision not to seek re-election, and in the police riot at the doorstep of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

The two lessons from Tet: 1) Underestimating a guerilla enemy that is fighting on its own ground is deadly policy; 2) The American people will not long stand for a bloodbath in a faraway land that has no clear objective, spends the lives of American soldiers to no good end, and costs billions and billions of dollars better spent elsewhere. The Tet Offensive in January 1968 began a long, slow slide into ignominy and defeat for the United States that, to this day, still echoes long and loud along the hallways of power and the streets of everyday America.

It is happening again. In the last 72 hours in Iraq, a dizzying series of attacks have rocked Baghdad. It began with the downing of a Blackhawk helicopter. It did not end there.

Several missiles were fired at the Baghdad Hotel where Deputy Defense Secretary was staying during his tour of the war. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the conflict, escaped unharmed but was visibly shaken after the attacks. An American soldier was killed in that attack.

In separate attacks, three American soldiers were killed and four wounded. Two of the deaths came when a patrol from the 1st Armored Division was struck by a roadside bomb. The third death came in Abu Ghraib, on the western edge of Baghdad, when a Military Police unit was attacked. Therehave been 349 American soldiers killed in Iraq during this conflict, and thousands more wounded. Since George W. Bush strutted across an aircraftcarrier in the garb of a combat pilot on May 1st, after he said, "Bring'em on," there have been 211 American soldiers killed.

Four different Iraqi police stations were bombed in Baghdad on Monday, and a massive explosion tore into the offices of the International Red Cross. 34 people were killed, and 224 were wounded.

The attacks took place in rapidfire succession between 8:30a.m. and 10:30a.m. local time, strongly suggesting a high degree of coordination.

The similarities to Tet are chilling. In 1968, the attacks came at the onset of the Vietnamese New Year, a holiday that American command believed would herald a temporary quieting of the violence. In Iraq, these attacks come at the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The American command in Baghdad believed the holiday would bring a slacking of the attacks that have been plaguing American forces. This assumption ran so strong that the Baghdad curfew was partially lifted by American forces yesterday.

The most pointed similarity is clear: These attacks are meant to cause a political reaction. The United States military, on the whole, will not be undermined by these attacks or by the loss of four more soldiers. The political ramifications, however, are a different story, and in the longrun the political reaction will directly affect the military. *Yeah we can all hope for that ;)

The Bush administration has been trying to sell a rosy perspective of this war to the American people, a perspective that was eviscerated by these attacks. Worse, the attacks will have a further chilling effect upon the administration's attempts to bring the international community into this fight, something even the most hard-core go-it-aloners in Washington have come to see as absolutely necessary. With every explosion at a non-American outpost, with every targeting of the United Nations and the Red Cross in Iraq, this war becomes more and more the sole property of the United States and the Bush administration. Each time this happens, it becomes less likely that an international coalition will be formed to bail America out in Iraq. The old sign above the cash register at your cornerstore says it all: "You break it, you buy it."

George W. Bush said the intricately coordinated and highly effective attacks were a sign that the Iraqi insurgents were becoming "desperate." He described the attackers as people who "hate freedom" and "love terror." This is the reaction of a man residing comfortably in Bizarro World, a land where up is down, black is white, and reality has no place at the table. Basically, Bush is trying to tell us that these attacks are good news, that these "desperate" moves are a sign of looming American victory.

Ask the thousands of dead Iraqis if this is good news. Ask the Red Cross,which is strongly considering pulling out of Iraq, if this is good news. Ask the international community, which is being pressured into leaping aboard this sinking ship, if this is good news. Ask the families of the dead and wounded American soldiers if this is good news.

Ask al Qaeda, and they will tell you this is nothing but good news. This war on Iraq, built on a foundation of misinformation and lies, has led to the greatest recruiting drive in that group's bloody history. The opportunity to kill more Americans is good news for them. The ability to rock the American government is good news for them. Osama bin Laden smiles today, and it was George W. Bush who put that grin on his face.

William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three books - "War On Iraq," available from Context Books, "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available from Pluto Press, and "Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism," available in August from Context Books.

As the saying goes both the american army/bush and terrorists/Bin laden are made for each other....

[ralphwiggum 6]

the comparison with tet offensive is a very long shot.

1.the tet offensive was a faliure in miltary terms. most of the clandestine uprisings were squshed in the south.

2. tet offensive reached some effect becuase US military managed to fool themselves into thinking in French colonialist's shoes. remember that the final blow to French in Indo China was when their men were trapped in an open field and could not go. thus the last reversal wave attack set the deal for Vietcongs. US military was well aware of it and manged to fool themselves into thinking that the attack on a valley was the 'final deck of cards'

3. the propaganda value at tet offensive is different that it was a lot more dramatic. the vietnam war lost its support when the US gov't could not justify sending troops to Vietnam and subsequent images of soldiers getting shot down. unfortunately there are enough morons on this land that still thinks Iraq had WMD and gave them to AQ. furthermore, the rate at which US soldiers are killed are far less than what it was in Vietnam. it will get there, but not that fast. and that means US may have chance to hand over to Iraq interim gov't and get out.

do i support this war? not really. but screaming that US is going Hindenburgh within a second is also as equal as bad as GWB's speach.

[USSoldier11B 0]

I doubt U.S. casualty rates will ever appraoch those of Vietnam in Iraq. The NVA/VC had massive support infrastructure. These Iraqi elements of "resistance" do not. Comparing these wars is a long shot at best. Bush made a mistake by declaring an end to major combat operations, when in fact there is still a war on. People die in war and I'd have to say that casualty wise we have been fortunate if you look at the bloodshed of the 20th century. In WWII losing a platoon was acceptable losses (or maybe even a battalion if you were Russian), in Vietnam losing a squad was acceptable losses, in the squeamish times we are in now 1 casualty is a Earth shattering tragedy. If only 1 U.S. serviceman was killed per month in Iraq it would still get negative attention. Personally I'd feel safer in Baghdad then I would in Jamaica Queens in New York.

[theavonlady 2]

Personally I'd feel safer in Baghdad then I would in Jamaica Queens in New York.

And the music is better in Baghdad, too!

[USSoldier11B 0]

Now take that scenario and imagine being a college educated upper middle class white boy in that neighborhood. The Iraqi's would kill me out of ideology, the thugs in Queens would kill me for my watch or maybe my Subway sandwich stamps.

[denoir 0]

I doubt U.S. casualty rates will ever appraoch those of Vietnam in Iraq.

I agree. I think Putin was right when he said that there is no risk of Iraq becoming a new Vietnam, but that there is a real risk of Iraq becoming a new Afghanistan. It's a low-intensity conflict but it can just as well prevent the situation in Iraq from normalizing. Already now, Iraq is becoming a new convergence point for various fundamentalist and terrorist groups. Should the US leave Iraq, you can bet that the situation in Iraq would go from bad to a disaster.

Funny thing, about six months ago I lost a bet to Warin over a hockey match and had to post a pro-Bush post in this thread. I said basically that I hoped that Bush would get re-elected because that it would be in the interest of the Iraqis that USA has a goverment that is comitted to following this thing through. I meant it as a joke at the time, but right now, I'm not sure.

As you know, I'm not a fan of Bush and I was against the war. While I agree with Bush's opposition that the war was wrong, I agree with Bush that America has to see this through. I'm getting worried when I see how the major democratic candidates advocate a withdrawal of US troops. The war was wrong and bad, but what is done is done and now America has to take responsibility for its actions. It has a responsibility to do whatever it takes to bring Iraq onto its feet. USA and its war partners should certainly pay the entire bill. Leaving Iraq now would be just bad and irresponsible. Besides the comittment to the Iraqis it's important that both the US leaders and the US public recognize that choosing to attack another country has its consequences. The American soldiers dying in Iraq and the big reconstruction bill are the effects of giving Bush support for a war. Hopefully this will make both the public and politicians think harder next time before attacking another country.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see Bush getting rewarder with a second term after all the bad things he has done. There should be consequences for him for his actions as well.

[bn880 5]

Well Denoir, it seems that Bush is an extremely stupid man, but yet he has pulled a nice chess move over US citizens. It is an absolutely absurd situation, I think the situation in Iraq could be resolved if Bush and co, were promptly executed for their murders (ok maybe life in prison), and new leadership was willing to bring Iraq back to where it was. Hehhe yeah none of you will like the sound of this, bring a regime back.

[denoir 0]

Well Denoir, it seems that Bush is an extremely stupid man, but yet he has pulled a nice chess move over US citizens.  

Yeah, you hear a lot of that "Poor Americans - they were duped by Bush and his henchmen etc". Well, it's possible, but it's a democracy. Over 50% of the American people supported the war with Iraq and they are responsible for that decision. So it's only fair that they the consequences of it as well. A clear majority of the congressmen and senators - including leading democrats - voted for a war. Now Bush may have lied to them about the threat that Iraq was posing but they did not analyze his claims. And since most of the world was against the war and pointed out that Bush's case for war was pure BS, the idea of critically analyzing his claims was not at all far-fetched.

So:

1) America should take responsibility for its actions. This includes every American man, women and child. It may have been Bush & Co who came up with the idea for war, but over half of the population supported him. And in a democracy this means that this was the decision of your country. You took the decision collectivly and you should pay the cost collectivly. For those that were against the war: though luck. Democracy is a majority rule.

2) Hopefully the American people have recognized by now that Bush ain't a good leader. Because of his and his administration, you are going to pay for the whole reconstruction of Iraq all by yourself - both in money and blood.

It's easy to blame the leaders. However since the ultimate power lies with the people, it's not unreasonable to expect the people to take some responsibility too. Especially since so many (70%+) supported this war.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well Denoir, you're in luck. Only one of the 8 leading Democratic presidential candidates supports the "Oops, let's get the fuck out of here, now" policy. Coincidentally, he's also one of the most unelectable. Everybody say 'hi' to Congressman Dennis "My mom says I'd make a great president" Kucinich:

(mini-transcript of one of the Democratic debates)

Quote[/b] ]"KUCINICH TO DEAN : I want to ask him, do you believe in spending $87 billion to keep our troops in Iraq? Because I don't. Do you?...Would you fund to keep the troops in Iraq?

"DEAN: Yes."

[denoir 0]

What about the other, whatshisname - Al Sharpton? I saw him talk on a recent demonstration in Washington about pulling out all US troops.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

What about the other, whatshisname - Al Sharpton? I saw him talk on a recent demonstration in Washington about pulling out all US troops.  

It's possible that I'm wrong- wouldn't be the first time I don't actually know what his stance on that issue is, as he's kept his mouth shut about it during the debates.

[theavonlady 2]

I had a tough time deciding whether this goes here or in the gun control debate thread.

Judge behind anti-Saddam probing commission killed in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) - The judge behind the creation of a judicial commission to probe former officials of Saddam Hussein's ousted regime was shot dead, as insurgents stepped up their campaign against pro-US public figures.

[quicksand 0]

I don`t think the resistance should be underastimated..I think what we see now is only the first part of the guerrilla war that will follow..They are not organised most of them are just ordinary iraquis then want to spill their anger on the americans for destroying theirs homes,killing their famillies, making it worst then with the old regime...But the important fact is that Saddam is still alive and free,he still has support of many iraquis and some of the old regime members are also free..And they are probably comunicating as we speak with other resistance groups trying to organise the resistance move..And if this is gonna be done then we are going to see living hell for the americans..

Oh and you still think that americans have suport from the iraquis...If they would have liked the fact that americans are on their soil ,that they toppled the old regime and that they are going to reconstruct Iraq they would have finger-pointed  where the resistance is coming and even where saddam is...

But the americans have by everey day that passes less support from the iraquis..So if iraquis aren`t happy with what they did what`s the hell was Iraq Eliberation?it was bs..All lies from a president that has got me so disggusted that I`m not gonna even pronounce his name..If you would go to an iraq and ask him why aren`t you happy you are free now he would spit on you...They all hate the american occupation..

I fought the americans learned their lesson from Vietnam..But they will never learn with all those ignorants that live in the country...I mean 45% of americans were SURE that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks before the war started  

I am pretty sure that if the americans are beated and driven away from iraq even if it woudn`t be best for iraquis it would be best for the rest of the world..or else they would start other crazy adventures in Iran,Syria and who knows where else...

I know many people won`t agree with my opinions but I just wanted to express them because I am very furious of what`s happening right now...