NEW YORK (Reuters) - The situation in Iraq is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to a classified cable and briefings from the CIA, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.

The assessments are more pessimistic than the Bush administration's portrayal of the situation to the public, government officials told the newspaper.

The classified cable -- sent last month by the CIA's station chief in Baghdad after the completion of a one-year tour of duty there -- painted a bleak picture of Iraq's politics, economics and security and reiterated briefings by Michael Kostiw, a senior CIA official, according to the Times.

The station chief cannot be identified because he is still working undercover, the Times added.

The cable, described as "unusually candid," cautioned that security in the country is likely to deteriorate unless the Iraqi government makes significant progress in asserting its authority and building up the economy, the paper said.

Spokesmen for the White House and the CIA told the Times that they could not discuss intelligence matters and classified documents.

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?&idq=/ff/story/0002/20041207/0736869812.htm&photoid=20041207BAG102D

I am glad to see your faith in the CIA has been restored

Originally posted by Travh20
I am glad to see your faith in the CIA has been restored
When did I stay I fully trust the CIA? I’m not saying everything in this article is correct, but I’m sure a lot of it is.

The generals in Iraq say we need more troops because it’s becoming chaotic. More US troops have died this month, then ever before. A poll has shown (for a long time) that the Iraqis want us out of their country. The Uranium posioning is killing off their children, and giving them non-curable diseases. And now the CIA is reporting that it’s chaos in Iraq. All signs point to, Iraq is failing. I know it's hard for you to realize...but I guess when the Bush Admin. said we would be "greeted with flowers" that was false and wrong.

The Washington Post is reporting that there seems to be no going back on the election schedule if the feelings of the majority Shiite population are to be taken into account. Under the leadership of Ayatollah Sistani, clergymen and other religious authorities have led "an unprecedented mobilization of the Shiite majority population through a vast array of mosques, community centers, foundations and networks of hundreds of prayer leaders, students and allied laypeople. The campaign has become so pitched that many Iraqis may have a better idea of Sistani's view of the election than what the election itself will decide. The momentum they have created has made a delay in the ballot difficult, if not impossible."

thanks for the update overdose. I know where to come for my daily fix of "we lost the war already" news. maybe you should reach down AND SEE IF YOU HAVE A PIAR EVERY NOW AND THEN AND REALIZE RESISTANCE IN WAR IS NOTHING NEW, THATS WHY ITS CALLED A WAR. you remind me of this guy in a WW2 book I read who was doing a patrol in germany in the last days of the war, his unit took fire from one German rifleman and he was on the radio calling in heavy resistance. th rest of the guys who had been there for a while were looking at him like he was crazy. you need to get some perspective overdose, it is something you are sorly lacking in. your ready to hang it up before its even over. maybe you believed the flowers in the streets thing but thats your fault.

Ummmmm, your comparison to World War II is laughable. We had allies that truly gave extreme amounts of solders. The circumstances were very different.

Right now, because of Bush, the war is failing. So, maybe, you should question Bush and tell him to get his act together so we can be successful.

say allies one more time and I will reach through this screen and bitch slap you

I would absolutly love seeing there elections go off on schedule and the Iraqi people elect someone that bush doesn't like and doesn't want leading them. Then we'll truly see how much he cares about the freedom of the Iraqi people. LOL

How long do you think it will be before he overthrows the new government and starts this rediculous series of events all over again?

ya, wouldnt it be a hoot if they elected an strict islamic government that executed women for baring their wrists in public, thats some funny shit!

Originally posted by Travh20
say allies one more time and I will reach through this screen and bitch slap you
Yes, taking 90% of the casualties......and spending 90% of the money! Yes, we have such strong and great allies!

and take 90% of the credit when Iraq is a free and fair country in a sea of dictatorships. the only thing standing in the way is al qeada and you

Originally posted by Travh20
and take 90% of the credit when Iraq is a free and fair country in a sea of dictatorships. the only thing standing in the way is al qeada and you
From the looks of it, and the way Bush has run the war, it won't happen. I hope I'm wrong.........but, sadly, right now, Iraq is in chaos and is worse then what it was like when Saddam was in office.

Don't you guys remember that news article about a captured Al-Qeada Courier who was carrying a rather bleak message? It went something like "while people will greet Al-Qeada as brother Muslims, they will not permit them to run a safe house from which attacks can be launched against the U.S. forces." Then there was something along the lines of "the effort to incite civil war between the Baathist and Shi-ite muslims isn't working."

Looks like I'll have to do some digging and see what I can come up with. Dammit.

ya overdose, we know you think the insurgents are winning. I am just thankful the American soldiers have a bit more intestinal fortitude and perseverance then you do, otehrwise we would have never won the war for independence after valley forge

Tenuous link, at best.

Here's what I found. I got some stuff wrong, but gist of the story is correct.

Click here (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.nirq.main/)

Okay, and that just makes Iraq look more chaotic. Care to elaborate on why you posted it? I’m lost…

Let me try and point the way for you, then.

The point of the post is that terrorists are NOT having the success they think they would've. There is NOT a massive uprising against the our forces there. There isn't a civil war tearing the kurds from the shi-ites from the baathists, and they have taken to attacking Iraqi civilians because attacking the American military doesn't seem to have much effect, and our military hits back!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
The point of the post is that terrorists are NOT having the success they think they would've. There is NOT a massive uprising against the our forces there.
Even though this month more Americans have died then in any other month.

Yes, it's getting better. *rolls eyes*

of course the fact we stormed the biggest terrorist stronghold in the world and took it over in 2 weeks of deadly urban combat doesnt seem to be a reason for the higher casualty rate this month right OD? I love how you continue to leave important things out of your "facts", I think you have been watching to many Micheal Moore movies

Wrong. Iraq wasn't a big terrorist stronghold.

so we just went into fallujah shooting at nothing? you better catch up to current events overdose. in case you didnt know it, fallujah was the headquarters of all terrorists in iraq

Originally posted by Travh20
so we just went into fallujah shooting at nothing?
I said Iraq wasn’t a big terrorist stronghold. I never said it had no terrorists. Admittedly Iraq did have terrorism, but not nearly as much as other countries.

Originally posted by Travh20
you better catch up to current events overdose. in case you didnt know it, fallujah was the headquarters of all terrorists in iraq
Yes, of Iraq. And comparing terrorism from other countries to Iraq, it isn’t that large.

there will always be more terrorists somewhere else then where you are, its the nature of the beast. to me it sounds like your stategy for fighting terrorists is akin to a dog chasing its own tail. you just cant go sending strike teams into every dictatorship on earth overdose, somehow I doubt they are going to give us clearance.

Originally posted by Travh20
there will always be more terrorists somewhere else then where you are, its the nature of the beast.
Yes, and putting a Democracy in Iraq, will only fuel more not less terrorists.

Originally posted by Travh20
you just cant go sending strike teams into every dictatorship on earth overdose, somehow I doubt they are going to give us clearance.
Which is why you strike the most harmful and threatening. And Iraq wasn’t it.

Tell us James Bond, where does your intelligence tell you the most terrorism is? What evidence do you have? do you trust it? and how would invading that country you are so sure is harboring the greast amount of terrorists make the terrorist who are angry at us for invading iraq and less angry? I hate to break it to you, but the terrorists dont disagree with the iraq war becasue "Bush lied" about WMD's as you do. IF WMD's were there the people fighting us now wouldnt say "Oh, there were WMD's, lets go home boys". They are not there fighting us because they dont agree with the reasons we went in. They hate us, period. those same A holes who fight us in iraq would be wherver you would have sent the troops for whatever grand reasons you sent them there. You seem to think the terroists who fight us in iraq are doing it beacsue of why we invaded Iraq. In the end you dont agree with it, so you seem to assume the terroirsts fight us for the same reasons you disagree with it.

Originally posted by Travh20
Tell us James Bond, where does your intelligence tell you the most terrorism is? What evidence do you have? do you trust it?
Yes, I trust the 9/11 Panel. They are a non-bias group of people. Equal Democrats and Republicans. They see all of the intelligence and everything. They decided that many other countries had more links to terrorism.

I am glad you ignored the rest of my post that showed how wrong everyhting you have said is

Originally posted by Travh20
I am glad you ignored the rest of my post that showed how wrong everyhting you have said is
I didn’t think I’d have to reply to your idiocy, but since you asked…

Originally posted by Travh20
and how would invading that country you are so sure is harboring the greast amount of terrorists make the terrorist who are angry at us for invading iraq and less angry?
Firstly, it wouldn’t make them less angry, but it wouldn’t make them more angry which is what we are doing now. Putting a western democracy in the middle of Islamic extremist territory does not exactly make them happy.

Originally posted by Travh20
I hate to break it to you, but the terrorists dont disagree with the iraq war becasue "Bush lied" about WMD's as you do
Yes, I know they don’t hate it because of the WMD reason. But I do, because that is the reason OUR President gave us for this invasion. It was false and Iraq wasn’t a threat.

Originally posted by Travh20
They are not there fighting us because they dont agree with the reasons we went in. They hate us, period.
How illogical of a post is this? No matter where we go the terrorists will fight us, I know this. But the reason that made Iraq look more harmful then other nations was the WMD threat. Bush used that to sway and manipulate our opinions…when in reality there was more harmful threats around the world.

CIA forced workers to adhere to false stories of WMD's to promote the runup to a phony war....

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?cg=BreakingNews-InternationalNews&ao=176336

Dop

ya overdose, and if a terrorist kills you now that we have gone into iraq you will be more dead

Originally posted by Travh20
ya overdose, and if a terrorist kills you now that we have gone into iraq you will be more dead

Okay...:@@:

well, you say they are more mad at us now, it seems they were pretty pissed before, remember 9-11?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitribts/20041212/ts_chicagotrib/scroungingforiraqwarputsgisinjail&cid=2027&ncid=1478

I think it's high time this administration starts supporting the troops.

This administration is a total embarrassment.

Dop

On edit -- here's another good one ...

http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20041211/localnews/1731211.html

70 year old called up in the back door draft. Looks like they're coming after anyone that ever served.

I'm ready -- who else is???

Dop

Originally posted by Travh20
well, you say they are more mad at us now, it seems they were pretty pissed before, remember 9-11?
Yes, and we've made them more angry by the way we've run this war. What's your point?

"more" angry is pretty freaking stupid

Originally posted by Travh20
"more" angry is pretty freaking stupid
Not really. Putting a Democracy (something they hate), that is put in by Americans (the very country they hate the most) will make them more angry.

ya, we do whatever we can to make sure the terrorists are not angry. I think you better rethink your prioritys

Originally posted by Travh20
ya, we do whatever we can to make sure the terrorists are not angry. I think you better rethink your prioritys
Isn't the best way to fight terrorism, getting rid of them quickly....and not creating more of them? Well, attacking the place that does not have much terrorism is not getting rid of them quickly. And then making them even more mad, by putting in a Democracy, is creating more of them.

Yes, our priority should be to eliminate them as quickly as possible. Putting a Democracy in Iraq will not make it go fast it will only make it worse.

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/041213/323/f8g58.html

I thought it was mission accomplished and the battle was over in Fooled-ja ... what gives here? Can someone explain this or was it all just another lie by rumsfeld?

Dop

Originally posted by Overdose
Isn't the best way to fight terrorism, getting rid of them quickly....and not creating more of them? Well, attacking the place that does not have much terrorism is not getting rid of them quickly. And then making them even more mad, by putting in a Democracy, is creating more of them.

Yes, our priority should be to eliminate them as quickly as possible. Putting a Democracy in Iraq will not make it go fast it will only make it worse.

Boy overdose, I sure hope if you ever have kids you don't do everything based on not making them "more mad". The right way is never the easy way overdose. you want to do it the easy way, for the short term, but not actually do anything to resolve the situation. You want to arrest terrorists and kill terrorists. While that is necessary for the immediate future, it wont work forever. 99% of these terrorists come from middle eastern Islamic dictatorships. The dictators, in an effort to ease pressure on themselves lead their people to believe all of their woes are because of the US. Its our fault they live like animals, not the people in charge of their country. these people are then easily manipulated into becoming terrorists, they have nothing to lose. the only way we can stop the cycle is to make all of their lives better. we cant rely on the dictators to "reform" anything anymore. they are happy with the status quo. They stay in power, their people suffer and blame the US, and the cycle continues. The UN is worthless in this case because these same dictators are part of the UN and they wont vote themselves out, even if such a thing were even possible. The only way to end terrorism in the long run, beyond our lifetimes, is to stop the cycle of blame and ignorance that is kept going by the dictators in an effort to ensure their grip on power. If you can talk the dictators into giving up power and letitng their poeple see whats going on in the rest of the world then go ahead. I don't see it happening. What we have left is to remove them forcefully. Its not the easy way but for the future of the earth is is the right thing to do now.

For the future of the earth we must kill anyone that doesn't think or believe or see things the way we do.

Originally posted by Travh20
Boy overdose, I sure hope if you ever have kids you don't do everything based on not making them "more mad".
I'm going to do what will ensure they don't do it again, but also to not give them any more resentment or fuel to want to do it again.

Originally posted by Travh20
The right way is never the easy way overdose. you want to do it the easy way, for the short term, but not actually do anything to resolve the situation.
The way you propose, and the Bush Administration proposes not only avoids the present threats, but creates more futuristic threats. They are ignoring the terrorist-areas of the world, while attacking a country that had weak ties to terrorism. That should tell you something right there. Not only are they doing that, but with the way they have run this war (Prisoner Abuse, 100,000 Iraqis dead, malnutrition doubled, chaos) it's only creating more terrorists with more reason to hate us. We are not effectively fighting terrorism, as shown with the 21-year-increase in terrorism Trav. You cannot win a war on terrorism, if you give the terrorists more reason to hate us.

Originally posted by Travh20
99% of these terrorists come from middle eastern Islamic dictatorships. The dictators, in an effort to ease pressure on themselves lead their people to believe all of their woes are because of the US.
No one has ever denied that dictators have a large role in terrorism. Although some dictators have larger rolls then others. The bottom line is, if Bush truly cared about stopping this dictator-terrorist threat he would have gone after the dictators that had larger ties to terrorism, that clearly wasn't Iraq.

Originally posted by Travh20
Its our fault they live like animals, not the people in charge of their country. these people are then easily manipulated into becoming terrorists, they have nothing to lose. the only way we can stop the cycle is to make all of their lives better.
Ironic you'd say this Trav. Although, you feel right into your own hypocrisy. You say they are easily “manipulated” into becoming terrorists because they live like “animals” Well with recent studies, reports, pictures, events it's all showing that Iraq is worse. We are not improving their lifestyle. Now they have even more reason to join the terrorists. Their homes, friends and family have been killed. Their land is in ruins, they are suffering from starvation, more so then they were before we came. It's only getting worse. So now they can be "manipulated" with more examples and reasons! Good job Trav! hahaha

poor overdose, you dont understand a thing that is happening. In case you didnt notice, our goal isnt to make iraq a crap hole, although you make sure to never miss an opportunity to make it look that way. we want to make it better. there are fringe elements and foreign terrorists in the way. there are those who want iraq to be back in the stone age. you seem to insist they are winning, and every time you say that you make that more of a reality. you are like the rest of the world, still so stuck in what ifs and upset no one listened to you you cant see the reality in your face. stomping your feet like a spoiled kid and going over the same old tired stats and reports isnt going to change anything overdose. we are in iraq, refighting the reasons for going in is ridiculous in the extreme. get with the program

Originally posted by Travh20
In case you didnt notice, our goal isnt to make iraq a crap hole, although you make sure to never miss an opportunity to make it look that way.
It isn’t our goal…correct. But since we have an idiot President, Iraq is crap. So thank him for this wonderful Democracy!

so its all george bushs fault iraq is in turmoil? man, I could of swore the islamic militants and baath loyalists had something to do with it. who am I to argue though?

Originally posted by Travh20
so its all george bushs fault iraq is in turmoil? man, I could of swore the islamic militants and baath loyalists had something to do with it. who am I to argue though?
Ummmm, didn't we bring them to Iraq?

your way of thinking is so different then mine it is scary. You want to do things based on what the terrorists want. The terrorists dont want a free iraq. they fight us and kill iraqis to show this. you are willing to oblige them and say screw you to the majority of iraqis who want elections and want to be free. I on the other hand, think what the terrorists wnat and say are complelty irrelevant. They are in the way and need to die. All I can say is this, if you fight terrorism with the goal of not angering them you will lose in the end. you do what you have to do regardless of how they feel. obviously they feel a free iraq will really damage their causeor they wouldnt be putting all of their resources into getting us out of there.

Originally posted by Travh20
your way of thinking is so different then mine it is scary. You want to do things based on what the terrorists want.
Wrong. I want to do what will kill them off the quickest.

Originally posted by Travh20
The terrorists dont want a free iraq. they fight us and kill iraqis to show this.
Yes, because we are forcing them to believe what we think is best. Imperialism at it's finest.

Now lets take this report...and see if your way is working!

You preach about how Iraq will help stop terrorism, yet here is a report
from the Pentagon Defense Science Task Force of Strategic Communications, they conclude that we are only making terrorism more of an issue for us. That “American efforts not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended." The Pentagon says that our war in Iraq actually has increased the support for radical Islamics.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

whoever said terrorism would immediatly stop? why dont you look past the end of your damn nose for a minute overdose. you look at things in a vaccum. Yes, thee are many terrorists in Iraq. Are these terrorists simple farmers who dropped their plows and picked up guns? maybe a few, but the vast majority are professional terrorists. Men who went through the training camps if afghanistan. if we didnt invade iraq, what would these men be doing now? plotting to slice your throat, thats what. Yes, it is hard and messy, but if we succeed the middle east will be a far better place and that will benefit the entire world. It is harder to succeed with a bunch of partisan worry warts and crybaby defeatests like you back here calling every obstacle a failure. things are hard somethimes overdose. I guess in your cushy life you have never had to tackle adversity, hence your insistance that every obstacle encountered equal instant failure. try looking it as an obstacle that must be overcome, not a failure. Our ocuntry has endured many set back s and even losses but have won the wars. I guess the quick victory of the first gulf war spoiled you. go read about the american revoluion or early WW2. we were not doing so hot. there were people saying the same crap as you are, how we couldnt win, we were in over our heads, we didnt have what it takes. luckily men with fortitde endured the hardships and saw it through to victory. roll up your white flag overdose, its not over yet.

Originally posted by Travh20
whoever said terrorism would immediatly stop? why dont you look past the end of your damn nose for a minute overdose.
I never said it would immediately stop. But with that official report it shows that we are not stopping terrorism, we are increasing terrorism. So, no, I don’t think it would have immediately stopped. Although, I don’t think it should be increasing. That report also says that it’s doing the opposite of what we want it to do. It’s recruiting more members…all around the world. We need to change the ways in which we fight terrorism. Sadly, you don’t understand anything.

Originally posted by Travh20
if we didnt invade iraq, what would these men be doing now? plotting to slice your throat, thats what.
We will never be able to eradicate terrorism 100% Trav. Although, I’d rather have a few terrorists planning to slit my throat, then millions of terrorists planning to slit my throat.

Originally posted by Travh20
Our ocuntry has endured many set back s and even losses but have won the wars.
The wars we have had in the past, like World War II, etc. are not the same as fighting terrorism.

Originally posted by Overdose
Yes, taking 90% of the casualties......and spending 90% of the money! Yes, we have such strong and great allies!

You make it sound as the other contributing nations have armies and budgets the same as the United States. We wont even go into details about your assumptions of their expertice on the battlefield and the technology available to their forces.

Originally posted by Tony31841
You make it sound as the other contributing nations have armies and budgets the same as the United States. We wont even go into details about your assumptions of their expertice on the battlefield and the technology available to their forces.

France and Germany have strong armies and budgets. I never said that other countries had to spend the same amount or give the same amount of troops as we do. But, the fact remains, if you add ALL the countries together, it equals only 10%...which is not a strong coalition...and Bush said he was going to get us a strong coalition. Not even one country equals 5% of what we have going into Iraq…and that’s very sad.

Originally posted by Overdose
France and Germany have strong armies and budgets. I never said that other countries had to spend the same amount or give the same amount of troops as we do. But, the fact remains, if you add ALL the countries together, it equals only 10%...which is not a strong coalition...and Bush said he was going to get us a strong coalition. Not even one country equals 5% of what we have going into Iraq…and that’s very sad.

You should question yr sorce because the British commitment alone is 8% at 9,000 personnel.

the french have a strong army? a few weeks ago they pulled out of the Ivory Coast because one rusty prop driven Ivory Coast air force plane straffed them

.and sure enough the fact that we are taking on 90% of the responsibility is OUR fault in OD'S eyes.

Maybe the other nations are just UN puppets.....no, not maybe, they ARE UN puppets.

The fact that the rest of the world sends such little help only shows how little they care about us....i say we break away from the UN, it has NO value to us.

Originally posted by Decka
The fact that the rest of the world sends such little help only shows how little they care about us....i say we break away from the UN, it has NO value to us.


The fact that we swept the UN aside and went into Iraq, and again swept the UN aside and began shipping aid to the Indian Ocean, combined with the Oil For Food program, is a pretty good indicator of the UN not really relevant anymore, at least not as far as US policy.

Originally posted by Tony31841
You should question yr sorce because the British commitment alone is 8% at 9,000 personnel.
Oh, sorry, one country has 9,000...compared to our 150,000 (or so I'm told)

Originally posted by Overdose
Oh, sorry, one country has 9,000...compared to our 150,000 (or so I'm told)

I bet you thought there were 150,000 Combat personnel on the ground. I bet you forgot about cooks, truck drivers, airtrafic controllers, supply clerks, mess hall, doctors, nurses, MP's, mechanics, airport ground support, naval perssonell on ships waaaayyyyy out in the water...,etc,etc.

Originally posted by Tony31841
I bet you thought there were 150,000 Combat personnel on the ground. I bet you forgot about cooks, truck drivers, airtrafic controllers, supply clerks, mess hall, doctors, nurses, MP's, mechanics, airport ground support, naval perssonell on ships waaaayyyyy out in the water...,etc,etc.
Huh? We aren't talking about that. We are talking about us being the 90% of troops in Iraq fighting on the front lines.

Originally posted by Overdose
Huh? We aren't talking about that. We are talking about us being the 90% of troops in Iraq fighting on the front lines.


Ok.....what I'm gonna do is cut and paste each of our posts to prove a point. It may seem redundant, but it'll come in time.......

Originally posted by Tony31841
I bet you thought there were 150,000 Combat personnel on the ground. ..

Originally posted by Overdose
Huh? We aren't talking about that. We are talking about us being the 90% of troops in Iraq fighting on the front lines.

Originally posted by Tony31841
I bet you thought there were 150,000 Combat personnel on the ground. ..

Originally posted by Overdose
Huh? We aren't talking about that. We are talking about us being the 90% of troops in Iraq fighting on the front lines.

Originally posted by Tony31841
I bet you thought there were 150,000 Combat personnel on the ground. ..

Originally posted by Overdose
Huh? We aren't talking about that. We are talking about us being the 90% of troops in Iraq fighting on the front lines.

I'll I'm talking about, is the combat personnel, not all of the other things you mention. We are 90% of the fighting force in Iraq, period.

And I’m sure we are 90% of the truck drivers, airtrafic controllers, supply clerks, mess hall, doctors, nurses, MP's, mechanics, airport ground support, naval perssonell on ships too. So, what’s your point? I forgot to add that in. Damn…okay, and if we do, I bet we account for 90% of all those things in Iraq, too.

Originally posted by Overdose
I'll I'm talking about, is the combat personnel, not all of the other things you mention. We are 90% of the fighting force in Iraq, period.

And I’m sure we are 90% of the truck drivers, airtrafic controllers, supply clerks, mess hall, doctors, nurses, MP's, mechanics, airport ground support, naval perssonell on ships too. So, what’s your point? I forgot to add that in. Damn…okay, and if we do, I bet we account for 90% of all those things in Iraq, too.

Ok...since yr in a betting mood, I call your hand...show us your sources. Where'd you get your numbers?

Originally posted by Tony31841
Ok...since yr in a betting mood, I call your hand...show us your sources. Where'd you get your numbers?
Tony, stop trying to be an idiot. We have 150,000 troops in Iraq, and the second largest amount of troops in Iraq from another country is 9,000 and that’s Britain. The other countries hardly reach in the thousands.

The fact is, since we have 90% of the troops in Iraq, it would only seem logical that we would send over 90% of the truck drivers, airtrafic controllers, supply clerks, mess hall, doctors, nurses, MP's, mechanics, airport ground support, naval personnel on ships

You aren't using common sense Tony. I'm not going to look online for the figures, because it should seem fairly obvious to you. But, you're just being difficult.

You are the one who brought in all of other people who go into Iraq. I didn't, you did. So don't get on my ass about finding figures, because I didn't bring it up to begin with.

I'm pointing out that Bush said he was going to get a strong coalition, and he didn't. If he did, we would have much larger troop support from many more nations. We don't. Bottom line.

I don't care for those figures, and I don't care to debate them. If you want to find them, go for it. I don't care. You do. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

I know that we have the majority of troops in Iraq (90%), and it would only seem fit that we have 90% of all the other things in Iraq. I mean, why would Japan send over 90% of the nurses in Iraq, if they only have a few hundred soldiers? It just isn't logical.

It is logical to assume we sent over 90% of the nurses, since we have 90% of the troops in Iraq.

Originally posted by Overdose
Tony, stop trying to be an idiot. We have 150,000 troops in Iraq, and the second largest amount of troops in Iraq from another country is 9,000 and that’s Britain. The other countries hardly reach in the thousands.

The fact is, since we have 90% of the troops in Iraq, it would only seem logical that we would send over 90% of the truck drivers, airtrafic controllers, supply clerks, mess hall, doctors, nurses, MP's, mechanics, airport ground support, naval personnel on ships

You aren't using common sense Tony. I'm not going to look online for the figures, because it should seem fairly obvious to you. But, you're just being difficult.

You are the one who brought in all of other people who go into Iraq. I didn't, you did. So don't get on my ass about finding figures, because I didn't bring it up to begin with.

I'm pointing out that Bush said he was going to get a strong coalition, and he didn't. If he did, we would have much larger troop support from many more nations. We don't. Bottom line.

I don't care for those figures, and I don't care to debate them. If you want to find them, go for it. I don't care. You do. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

I know that we have the majority of troops in Iraq (90%), and it would only seem fit that we have 90% of all the other things in Iraq. I mean, why would Japan send over 90% of the nurses in Iraq, if they only have a few hundred soldiers? It just isn't logical.

It is logical to assume we sent over 90% of the nurses, since we have 90% of the troops in Iraq.


See I keep hearing 90%....90%.....90%....90%.....90%. SO you're the one that started off with figures. I asked you a simple request: Since you have what you believe to be official and valid figures, show us all the source of YOUR figures. I already have my own. The 150,000 is a ...TOTAL....of all US personnel deployed, not 150,000 with rifles and another number of support personnel.

Originally posted by Tony31841
See I keep hearing 90%....90%.....90%....90%.....90%. SO you're the one that started off with figures. I asked you a simple request: Since you have what you believe to be official and valid figures, show us all the source of YOUR figures. I already have my own. The 150,000 is a ...TOTAL....of all US personnel deployed, not 150,000 with rifles and another number of support personnel.
Okay. Then it's the TOTAL. Big whoop. Still 90% of the people in Iraq are Americans. And yes, all the different types of people make a strong coalition (like you pointed out and are correct in) so, that's nice. We have 150,000 people in Iraq, making us take up 90% of the coalition. Okay, Bush didn't get us a strong coalition, he didn’t. Okay. Are you done playing semantics?

Originally posted by Overdose
Okay. Then it's the TOTAL. Big whoop. Still 90% of the people in Iraq are Americans. And yes, all the different types of people make a strong coalition (like you pointed out and are correct in) so, that's nice. We have 150,000 people in Iraq, making us take up 90% of the coalition. Okay, Bush didn't get us a strong coalition, he didn’t. Okay. Are you done playing semantics?


Can you name the nations involved and their numbers and what types of units they contributed....before the sun comes up? If you cant, then you must admit you're argueing with unknown facts.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

28,500 total from all the other countires.

We have 150,000....

You do the math.

Originally posted by Overdose
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

28,500 total from all the other countires.

We have 150,000....

You do the math.


In doing the math....28,500 is 19% of 150,000...not the 10 % you've been argueing. Also, US perssonel is not at 150,000 but 142,000.

Okay. So we have 81% of the people in Iraq. Not 90%. I was 9% off.

So wait, you think you think taking 81% of everything means we have a strong coalition? Really? That's pretty sad.

If you think about it, we have 121,500 more troops in Iraq, when comparing to all of the other countries TOGETHER.

That's a sad coalition if I ever saw one. But, it's okay, I was off by 9%, lord forgive me.

Originally posted by Overdose
Okay. So we have 81% of the people in Iraq. Not 90%. I was 9% off.

So wait, you think you think taking 81% of everything means we have a strong coalition? Really? That's pretty sad.

If you think about it, we have 121,500 more troops in Iraq, when comparing to all of the other countries TOGETHER.

That's a sad coalition if I ever saw one. But, it's okay, I was off by 9%, lord forgive me.

Well, we can argue numbers all night, my intent was to show a pattern of inconsistency on your part. I think I'm done for the evening.

Originally posted by Tony31841
Well, we can argue numbers all night, my intent was to show a pattern of inconsistency on your part. I think I'm done for the evening.

Inconsistency? That proves nothing. I can argue numbers like you say, all night. But the fact remains that we take up WAY MORE THEN HALF of the support on the ground of Iraq. Period. So sure, be done. I don't care. Bush gave us a weak coalition, period. Accept it, and move on.

Originally posted by Overdose
Inconsistency? That proves nothing. I can argue numbers like you say, all night. But the fact remains that we take up WAY MORE THEN HALF of the support on the ground of Iraq. Period. So sure, be done. I don't care. Bush gave us a weak coalition, period. Accept it, and move on.

Now that you've said it, let me give you my view. Sniper team 3, 2Bn 7th Marines, I personally dont want these European nations fighting alongside us. Let them run logistics for awhile, but the fight has to be taught to the Iraqi Army, not the Nations that cowar to the UN. When the US military has given the Iraqi troops the skills and confidence it needs, then they'll be able to take care of themselves. Are we to request that Belgium and France teach the Iraqi soldiers how to be the best fighting force? You're not using common sense , OD.

Country
In Iraq
1 United Kingdom 9,861
2 South Korea 3,600
3 Italy 3,085
4 Poland ~2,400-2500
5 Ukraine 1,589 1,589
6 Netherlands 1,345
7 Romania 700
8 Japan ~550
9 Denmark 496
10 Bulgaria ~485
11 El Salvador 380
12 Australia ~870
13 Georgia 300
14 Mongolia 180
15 Azerbaijan 151
16 Portugal 128
17 Latvia 122 122
18 Czech Republic ~110
19 Lithuania 105 105
20 Slovakia 105
21 Albania 71
22 Estonia 55
23 Tonga ~45
24 Macedonia 33
25 Kazakhstan 29
26 Moldova 12
27 Norway 10

Originally posted by Tony31841
Now that you've said it, let me give you my view. Sniper team 3, 2Bn 7th Marines, I personally dont want these European nations fighting alongside us.
That’s sad…and very nationalistic. I’m sorry, but you need allies to fight wars. You need allies to be successful in wars, period.

Originally posted by Tony31841
When the US military has given the Iraqi troops the skills and confidence it needs, then they'll be able to take care of themselves.
Lets see how well that goes, --rolls eyes—

The fact is, we take up the vast majority of the troops in Iraq. And no matter what your opinion, Bush promised us a strong coalition, and we didn’t get one.

Originally posted by Overdose
That’s sad…and very nationalistic. I’m sorry, but you need allies to fight wars. You need allies to be successful in wars, period.

Country
In Iraq
1 United Kingdom 9,861
2 South Korea 3,600
3 Italy 3,085
4 Poland ~2,400-2500
5 Ukraine 1,589 1,589
6 Netherlands 1,345
7 Romania 700
8 Japan ~550
9 Denmark 496
10 Bulgaria ~485
11 El Salvador 380
12 Australia ~870
13 Georgia 300
14 Mongolia 180
15 Azerbaijan 151
16 Portugal 128
17 Latvia 122 122
18 Czech Republic ~110
19 Lithuania 105 105
20 Slovakia 105
21 Albania 71
22 Estonia 55
23 Tonga ~45
24 Macedonia 33
25 Kazakhstan 29
26 Moldova 12
27 Norway 10


Originally posted by Overdose
Lets see how well that goes, --rolls eyes—

The fact is, we take up the vast majority of the troops in Iraq. And no matter what your opinion, Bush promised us a strong coalition, and we didn’t get one. [/B]

So then it's REALLY about....."I hate Bush". You're absolutely angry at Bush for not giving you, in your opinion, a strong coalition, but I bet you never blinked an eye when a previous president made our spy satellite photos AND THEIR POSITIONAL DATA.......public record. You have absolutely no sound basis for your arguement, nor anything to counter recorded law here-------------------->http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1995_register&docid=fr28fe95-133.pdf

Originally posted by Tony31841
Country
In Iraq
1 United Kingdom 9,861
2 South Korea 3,600
3 Italy 3,085
4 Poland ~2,400-2500
5 Ukraine 1,589 1,589
6 Netherlands 1,345
7 Romania 700
8 Japan ~550
9 Denmark 496
10 Bulgaria ~485
11 El Salvador 380
12 Australia ~870
13 Georgia 300
14 Mongolia 180
15 Azerbaijan 151
16 Portugal 128
17 Latvia 122 122
18 Czech Republic ~110
19 Lithuania 105 105
20 Slovakia 105
21 Albania 71
22 Estonia 55
23 Tonga ~45
24 Macedonia 33
25 Kazakhstan 29
26 Moldova 12
27 Norway 10
Why do you keep posting that list of countries? They are hardly supplying us with any troop support. Honestly, that isn’t a strong coalition. Bush said a strong coalition, and that isn’t strong. Period.

Let me rephrase, we need countries that can actually supply us with sufficient troops in Iraq.

If you think about it, we have 121,500 more troops in Iraq, when comparing to all of the other countries TOGETHER.

So keep posting those countries. They mean nothing. We still have 121,500 more troops then ALL OF THEM TOGETHER. That is proving we have a WEAK coalition.



Originally posted by Tony31841
So then it's REALLY about....."I hate Bush". You're absolutely angry at Bush for not giving you, in your opinion, a strong coalition, but I bet you never blinked an eye when a previous president made our spy satellite photos AND THEIR POSITIONAL DATA.......public record. You have absolutely no sound basis for your arguement, nor anything to counter recorded law here
Yes, if the American public is promised a strong coalition, then we deserve one. I’m sorry I expect our President to do what he promises…I know, it’s such a huge un-believable request of me. –rolls eyes--

Originally posted by Overdose
Why do you keep posting that list of countries? They are hardly supplying us with any troop support. Honestly, that isn’t a strong coalition. Bush said a strong coalition, and that isn’t strong. Period.

Let me rephrase, we need countries that can actually supply us with sufficient troops in Iraq.

If you think about it, we have 121,500 more troops in Iraq, when comparing to all of the other countries TOGETHER.

So keep posting those countries. They mean nothing. We still have 121,500 more troops then ALL OF THEM TOGETHER. That is proving we have a WEAK coalition.

Yes, if the American public is promised a strong coalition, then we deserve one. I’m sorry I expect our President to do what he promises…I know, it’s such a huge un-believable request of me. –rolls eyes--


Would you like to see video of what has happening to some of these nations that dont "provide troop support"?
Also, I noticed you completely skipped right over

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...r28fe95-133.pdf

I’m not degrading their service, Tony. I’m just pointing out; that they aren’t contributing enough, to make this a strong coalition. We either need more countries, or more troops from those countries. So far more countries have left our coalition (Spain etc.) and none have added to our coalition. We are only weakening, Tony.

Originally posted by Overdose
I’m not degrading their service, Tony. I’m just pointing out; that they aren’t contributing enough, to make this a strong coalition. We either need more countries, or more troops from those countries. So far more countries have left our coalition (Spain etc.) and none have added to our coalition. We are only weakening, Tony.

You're the only one seeing the weakness, and probably because you want to.

Originally posted by Tony31841
You're the only one seeing the weakness, and probably because you want to.
Wrong There is a weakness in Iraq. I suggest you wake up to reality, and stop living in your fantasy world.

Is Iraq in a good condition right now? No. Their malnutrition rates have doubled since the start of this war. Over 100,000 Iraqis have perished. Their homes have been destroyed. Constant fighting occurs throughout their lands. Many were threatened to not vote, or else they would be killed…which has put a huge damper on the “voting turnout” and the idea of Democracy “blooming in Iraq” Do you even keep up on the news? Seriously. A poll was conducted throughout Iraq, and the vast majority say they were better off BEFORE the war began. What does that tell you? That tells you that we aren’t making their lives better. The majority of Iraqis was us OUT of their country. We do have a weakness in our military, or else Iraq wouldn’t be in such a tarnished condition right now. We wouldn’t have the majority of them wanting us to leave their country.

And I posted a thread recently, and it showed that the Generals IN Iraq, right now (not when you were in Iraq) say we need MORE TROOPS to stabilize Iraq…proving we are weakening.

Originally posted by Overdose
Wrong There is a weakness in Iraq. I suggest you wake up to reality, and stop living in your fantasy world.

Is Iraq in a good condition right now? No. Their malnutrition rates have doubled since the start of this war. Over 100,000 Iraqis have perished. Their homes have been destroyed. Constant fighting occurs throughout their lands. Many were threatened to not vote, or else they would be killed…which has put a huge damper on the “voting turnout” and the idea of Democracy “blooming in Iraq” Do you even keep up on the news? Seriously. A poll was conducted throughout Iraq, and the vast majority say they were better off BEFORE the war began. What does that tell you? That tells you that we aren’t making their lives better. The majority of Iraqis was us OUT of their country. We do have a weakness in our military, or else Iraq wouldn’t be in such a tarnished condition right now. We wouldn’t have the majority of them wanting us to leave their country.


Since yr so trusting of newspapers and covinced of US weaknes, run with this.........

Tue Jan 04 2005 09:49:47 ET

DUBAI, January 4 (Itar-Tass) - Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, whom the US occupation authorities declared to be the "target number one" in Iraq, has been arrested in the city of Baakuba, the Emirate newspaper al-Bayane reported on Tuesday referring to Kurdish sources. Al-Zarqawi, leader of the terrorist group Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad, was recently appointed the director of the Al-Qaeda organisation in Iraq.

The newspaper's correspondent in Baghdad points out that a report on the seizure of the terrorist, on whom the US put a bounty of 10 million dollars, was also reported by Iraqi Kurdistan radio, which at one time had been the first to announce the arrest of Saddam Hussein.


And I posted a thread recently, and it showed that the Generals IN Iraq, right now (not when you were in Iraq) say we need MORE TROOPS to stabilize Iraq…proving we are weakening.

Originally posted by Overdose
Wrong There is a weakness in Iraq. I suggest you wake up to reality, and stop living in your fantasy world.

Is Iraq in a good condition right now? No. Their malnutrition rates have doubled since the start of this war. Over 100,000 Iraqis have perished. Their homes have been destroyed. Constant fighting occurs throughout their lands. Many were threatened to not vote, or else they would be killed…which has put a huge damper on the “voting turnout” and the idea of Democracy “blooming in Iraq” Do you even keep up on the news? Seriously. A poll was conducted throughout Iraq, and the vast majority say they were better off BEFORE the war began. What does that tell you? That tells you that we aren’t making their lives better. The majority of Iraqis was us OUT of their country. We do have a weakness in our military, or else Iraq wouldn’t be in such a tarnished condition right now. We wouldn’t have the majority of them wanting us to leave their country.

And I posted a thread recently, and it showed that the Generals IN Iraq, right now (not when you were in Iraq) say we need MORE TROOPS to stabilize Iraq…proving we are weakening.


Since yr so trusting of newspapers and covinced of US weaknes, run with this.........

Tue Jan 04 2005 09:49:47 ET

DUBAI, January 4 (Itar-Tass) - Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, whom the US occupation authorities declared to be the "target number one" in Iraq, has been arrested in the city of Baakuba, the Emirate newspaper al-Bayane reported on Tuesday referring to Kurdish sources. Al-Zarqawi, leader of the terrorist group Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad, was recently appointed the director of the Al-Qaeda organisation in Iraq.

The newspaper's correspondent in Baghdad points out that a report on the seizure of the terrorist, on whom the US put a bounty of 10 million dollars, was also reported by Iraqi Kurdistan radio, which at one time had been the first to announce the arrest of Saddam Hussein.

Originally posted by Tony31841
Tue Jan 04 2005 09:49:47 ET

DUBAI, January 4 (Itar-Tass) - Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, whom the US occupation authorities declared to be the "target number one" in Iraq, has been arrested in the city of Baakuba, the Emirate newspaper al-Bayane reported on Tuesday referring to Kurdish sources. Al-Zarqawi, leader of the terrorist group Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad, was recently appointed the director of the Al-Qaeda organisation in Iraq.

The newspaper's correspondent in Baghdad points out that a report on the seizure of the terrorist, on whom the US put a bounty of 10 million dollars, was also reported by Iraqi Kurdistan radio, which at one time had been the first to announce the arrest of Saddam Hussein.

Okay...? I proved we are weak in Iraq, Tony. Get over yourself.

That just shows one man, out of the thousands and thousands of terrorists are captured. Is it good that he's captured? Sure. But if you look at the terrorist report from 2004, it shows we are at a 21 year high in terrorism....so just because we caught one guy, does not mean the terrorists are weakening. They are actually, stronger. And I'm not debating the fact that we aren't catching terrorists, because we are. I'm pointing out that Generals in Iraq say we need more troops, and that the Iraqis are suffering. Bottom line. Your "story" shows nothing and it does not discredit anything I've said.

Originally posted by Overdose
Okay...? I proved we are weak in Iraq, Tony. Get over yourself.

That just shows one man, out of the thousands and thousands of terrorists are captured. Is it good that he's captured? Sure. But if you look at the terrorist report from 2004, it shows we are at a 21 year high in terrorism....so just because we caught one guy, does not mean the terrorists are weakening. They are actually, stronger. And I'm not debating the fact that we aren't catching terrorists, because we are. I'm pointing out that Generals in Iraq say we need more troops, and that the Iraqis are suffering. Bottom line. Your "story" shows nothing and it does not discredit anything I've said.

My own personal knowledge discredits what you've said. The situation has not turned 180 from last summer. You proved nothing. You quoted some newpaper, you say there's a terrorism report that shows, terrorism at a high without referencing the source, you say Generals asking for more troops is sign of weakness without naming the generals and posting their statements so we can see if you took their comments out of context ( which you've done alot and recently ). You say Iraqi's have spoken in some poll, but you wont give us the wording of the questions, who conducted the poll and what areas of Iraq were questioned. You have nothing beyond TV, Internet, and the papers. All you know is what OTHER people tell you. You have no personal experience, never been to Iraq to see with you own eyes, never served in ANY military capacity, you have no knowledge on how to read and discern legal documents and you're going to tell me to get over myself.

Originally posted by Tony31841
You quoted some newpaper, you say there's a terrorism report that shows, terrorism at a high without referencing the source, you say Generals asking for more troops is sign of weakness without naming the generals and posting their statements so we can see if you took their comments out of context ( which you've done alot and recently ). You say Iraqi's have spoken in some poll, but you wont give us the wording of the questions, who conducted the poll and what areas of Iraq were questioned. You have nothing beyond TV, Internet, and the papers.
Wrong. Go look through the threads. I have the links and the quotes from the Generals in Iraq. It’s not out of context, you can see the full report (go look around allforums, you’ll find it. I’m not your babysitter). You can see the full terrorism report, too. You are just too lazy to look at it. I believe official reports, and I’m sorry you don’t. That’s just too bad. I believe them, because they were reported directly from Iraq showing what is actually going on in Iraq. I sure as hell proved a point. Generals say we need more troops, Iraqis are suffering, and they want us out of their country. Go look through some threads, Tony.

Originally posted by Tony31841
All you know is what OTHER people tell you. You have no personal experience, never been to Iraq to see with you own eyes, never served in ANY military capacity, you have no knowledge on how to read and discern legal documents and you're going to tell me to get over myself.
Okay, and if you go to Iraq Veterans Against the War (you can find their web-page online) they discredit all of your “personal knowledge” with their personal knowledge. There is always going to be troops for and against the war. You will get differing perspectives depending on what troops you speak to. So, you must take a step forward and take the reports into account. Trusting some guy I met online, over official reports is very, very ridiculous of you to expect me to do.

You were there over a year ago, you know nothing of how Iraq is going presently. You have no present information to share with this forum, so your word is meaningless. I’m sorry, but the reports are in my favor. You just dislike what they convey, and that isn’t my problem. That’s yours.

If you want to debate something, then debate it. You ask for me to factually back up my claims, and when I do, you say they are bogus reports…so really, catch a clue and stop acting like an idiot.

Originally posted by Overdose
Wrong. Go look through the threads. I have the links and the quotes from the Generals in Iraq. It’s not out of context, you can see the full report (go look around allforums, you’ll find it. I’m not your babysitter). You can see the full terrorism report, too. You are just too lazy to look at it. I believe official reports, and I’m sorry you don’t. That’s just too bad. I believe them, because they were reported directly from Iraq showing what is actually going on in Iraq. I sure as hell proved a point. Generals say we need more troops, Iraqis are suffering, and they want us out of their country. Go look through some threads, Tony.


Okay, and if you go to Iraq Veterans Against the War (you can find their web-page online) they discredit all of your “personal knowledge” with their personal knowledge. There is always going to be troops for and against the war. You will get differing perspectives depending on what troops you speak to. So, you must take a step forward and take the reports into account. Trusting some guy I met online, over official reports is very, very ridiculous of you to expect me to do.

You were there over a year ago, you know nothing of how Iraq is going presently. You have no present information to share with this forum, so your word is meaningless. I’m sorry, but the reports are in my favor. You just dislike what they convey, and that isn’t my problem. That’s yours.

If you want to debate something, then debate it. You ask for me to factually back up my claims, and when I do, you say they are bogus reports…so really, catch a clue and stop acting like an idiot.


Put-downs and name-calling.

Originally posted by Tony31841
Put-downs and name-calling.
Truth, and logic. Did reality set in? Because I hope it did. You just want to find a reason to leave the debate, and that isn't my problem.

Originally posted by Overdose
Truth, and logic. Did reality set in? Because I hope it did. You just want to find a reason to leave the debate, and that isn't my problem.

The fact you speak with no personal authority on the subject is sufficient reason to leave.

You were there over a year ago, you know nothing of how Iraq is going presently. You have no present information to share with this forum, so your word is meaningless.

I returned from there in July and still maintain contact with friends in 2bn 7th 1st MEF now out in Anbar province, 1bn 8th still at Fallujah and 3rd Force Recon 31st MEU working southeast of Baghdad. Since I still hear about things FROM THE TROOPS THEMSELVES, along with my own recollections, I think my word is more than meaningless.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20041211/localnews/1731211.html

70 year old called up in the back door draft. Looks like they're coming after anyone that ever served.
I'm ready -- who else is???

Dop [/B]

A prime example of taking something out of context. Your post makes it sound like a retiree was drafted to go fight on the front lines. When you read the story, it's actually the Army asking a well-respected surgeon to come back to work here in the US....and listen to his response.........

Retired Army colonel, 70, sent to Afghanistan
Dr. John Caulfield thought it had to be a mistake when the Army asked him to return to active duty. After all, he's 70 years old and had already retired - twice. He left the Army in 1980 and private practice two years ago........

Caulfield lived and practiced oral surgery in Salisbury, N.C., before moving to Satellite Beach two years ago.

When the call came, he had no qualms about serving. He said that because the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq were within such a close time, the military is exhausting some specialties. They have rotated some reservists in and out.

"Because there is no draft, they are using and maybe overusing the National Guard and Reserve," he said. "There is no obligatory method."

Caulfield said he is glad to be able to help.

"I've been a soldier for 25 years," he said. "When your country asks, you do it."

His wife of 47 years, Patricia, said she thought a cruise through the Panama Canal they took after he gave up his private practice would be the most adventurous experience they would have after retirement.

"I feel a lot more comfortable than when he was in Vietnam," she said. "This is a great way to finish his career."

Originally posted by Tony31841
The fact you speak with no personal authority on the subject is sufficient reason to leave.
bla. bla. bla. can't argue with official reports.

Originally posted by Tony31841
I returned from there in July and still maintain contact with friends in 2bn 7th 1st MEF now out in Anbar province, 1bn 8th still at Fallujah and 3rd Force Recon 31st MEU working southeast of Baghdad. Since I still hear about things FROM THE TROOPS THEMSELVES, along with my own recollections, I think my word is more than meaningless.
I'm sure you do. LOL! Okay, so you want me to believe you? A random stranger I met on an online forum, over reports that reflect directly what is going on in Iraq? Really? That makes me laugh.

And it's funny because I know a man who came back from Iraq, and he says it's pure chaos. As do all the Iraqi Veterans against the War, they have formed an organization (go surf the web some).

Them, as well as the reports don't agree with you. Since each man in uniform has different political agenda's and biases, and differing perspectives, you must turn to looking at the news and reports...and that's what I do. Deal with it. I can't trust yours or the Iraq Veterans against the War, because you both are bias in your "perspective"...so if you want me to believe you, you are insane.

Originally posted by Overdose
bla. bla. bla. can't argue with official reports. [QUOTE]

These are the "Official" reports you've posted in this thread, and again I remind you, The Comm report is NOT a Pentagon report
About Iraq. It's an independent panel report about WORLDWIDE US Communication policies, Iraq is not mentioned.
The Global Security article is only an Orders of Battle report, nothing positive or negative about the situation in Iraq.

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/st...20041207BAG102D

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/...mmunication.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...t_coalition.htm



[QUOTE][I'm sure you do. LOL! Okay, so you want me to believe you? A random stranger I met on an online forum, over reports that reflect directly what is going on in Iraq? Really? That makes me laugh. [QUOTE]

And I'm supposed to believe you? So there we are.


[QUOTE][And it's funny because I know a man who came back from Iraq, and he says it's pure chaos. As do all the Iraqi Veterans against the War, they have formed an organization (go surf the web some).

Them, as well as the reports don't agree with you. Since each man in uniform has different political agenda's and biases, and differing perspectives, you must turn to looking at the news and reports...and that's what I do. Deal with it. I can't trust yours or the Iraq Veterans against the War, because you both are bias in your "perspective"...so if you want me to believe you, you are insane.


Well, whats his name and what unit did he serve with? Notice all also all these complainers are coming from the Army. What did they think they were doing when they signed the paper and took the oath, joining the boy scouts for camping trips?

Again, name-calling and put-downs,......a sign of no ground to stand on.

Originally posted by Tony31841
Again, name-calling and put-downs,......a sign of no ground to stand on.
Okay, you know why I get rather annoyed with you? Because you don't seem to understand that I cannot take your word into account. You are a stranger, who I just met on an online forum. How do I know you aren't making this up? How do I know for sure you are who you say you are? You want me to blindly trust your word? Is that really realistic? And you also don't understand that each solider in Iraq has a different perspective on what is going on in Iraq, based on their political persuasion. You don't understand that there is an organizations of eye-wittinesses from Iraq, who served just like you, that have personal knowledge, that contradict all of your “personal knowledge” So, really, how can I believe you? How can I believe the troops when there is one troop saying Iraq is going well, and one saying Iraq is going badly? I mean, you are both eye-wittinesses, but for some reason, each soldiers eyes sees something different. You see it as going well, because you are most like supportive of this war. While an Anti-War solider see it as going badly, because he isn't supportive of this war. Basically what I'm saying is, I can't trust your judgment because I have many sources that are also eye-witnesses concluding something very different. So, the only option left is to trust the news and official reports that hopefully, don't have any bias political agenda's.

Originally posted by Overdose
Okay, you know why I get rather annoyed with you? Because you don't seem to understand that I cannot take your word into account. You are a stranger, who I just met on an online forum. How do I know you aren't making this up? How do I know for sure you are who you say you are? You want me to blindly trust your word? Is that really realistic? And you also don't understand that each solider in Iraq has a different perspective on what is going on in Iraq, based on their political persuasion. You don't understand that there is an organizations of eye-wittinesses from Iraq, who served just like you, that have personal knowledge, that contradict all of your “personal knowledge” So, really, how can I believe you? How can I believe the troops when there is one troop saying Iraq is going well, and one saying Iraq is going badly? I mean, you are both eye-wittinesses, but for some reason, each soldiers eyes sees something different. You see it as going well, because you are most like supportive of this war. While an Anti-War solider see it as going badly, because he isn't supportive of this war. Basically what I'm saying is, I can't trust your judgment because I have many sources that are also eye-witnesses concluding something very different. So, the only option left is to trust the news and official reports that hopefully, don't have any bias political agenda's.

I never asked you to blindly trust my word. I have at every post called into question your sources of information. Your stand has always been based on news or the views of select individuals.

Yahoo profile : JumpersAwayDZ

Originally posted by Tony31841
Tue Jan 04 2005 09:49:47 ET

DUBAI, January 4 (Itar-Tass) - Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, whom the US occupation authorities declared to be the "target number one" in Iraq, has been arrested in the city of Baakuba, the Emirate newspaper al-Bayane reported on Tuesday referring to Kurdish sources. Al-Zarqawi, leader of the terrorist group Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad, was recently appointed the director of the Al-Qaeda organisation in Iraq.

The newspaper's correspondent in Baghdad points out that a report on the seizure of the terrorist, on whom the US put a bounty of 10 million dollars, was also reported by Iraqi Kurdistan radio, which at one time had been the first to announce the arrest of Saddam Hussein.

By the way, this news item has been debunked. They did not catch him.

Originally posted by Echo2
By the way, this news item has been debunked. They did not catch him.


You forgot to include what I wrote before the news article. I wrote it for a reason and it's sets the context of my post as a total.

Originally posted by Tony31841
I never asked you to blindly trust my word. I have at every post called into question your sources of information. Your stand has always been based on news or the views of select individuals.

Okay, good. Now, I guess this is done with.