You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. The DoD released a report this week stating that there was no relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Here it is, it's really long: http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf
Summary:
An executive summary of
An executive summary of the study says that Saddam's regime had interaction with terrorist groups, including Palestinian terror organizations and some pan-Islamic groups.
But "the predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq," says the summary, posted online by ABC News.
That confirms what many experts on Saddam's Iraq have long argued: that his security services were dedicated mainly to fighting threats to his rule.
The summary says that Saddam's secular regime increased cooperation with — and attempts to manipulate — Islamic fundamentalists after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, despite being leery of the Islamists. Iraqi leaders "concluded that in some cases, the benefits of associations outweighed the risks," it says.
General Petraeus also has affirmed what most of us knew already, the surge has failed.
BAGHDAD, March 13 -- Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.
Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.
The general's comments appeared to be his sternest to date on Iraqis' failure to achieve political reconciliation. In February, following the passage of laws on the budget, provincial elections and an amnesty for certain detainees, Petraeus was more encouraging. "The passage of the three laws today showed that the Iraqi leaders are now taking advantage of the opportunity that coalition and Iraqi troopers fought so hard to provide," he said at the time.
Petraeus came back to Iraq a year ago to implement a counterinsurgency strategy, backed up by a temporary increase of about 30,000 U.S. troops, intended to reduce violence so Iraqi leaders could pass laws and take other measures to ease the sectarian and political differences that threaten to break the country apart.
Hope this clears up some misunderstandings around these parts.
__________________ "If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out."
My major beef is with the misunderstanding that we can somehow change things for the better in Iraq. Nothing we do will change anything. I really am for leaving Iraq, and just letting all the tribes and cultures have the civil war they are dying to have...
My major beef is with the misunderstanding that we can somehow change things for the better in Iraq. Nothing we do will change anything. I really am for leaving Iraq, and just letting all the tribes and cultures have the civil war they are dying to have...
I see it becoming more of an ethnic cleansing than a civil war. Whomever comes out on top will spend the next few years 'eliminating' the losers. The powers that be should have left well enough alone.
__________________ LA Kings Hockey - Disappointing Kings fans since 1967!
Petraeus came back to Iraq a year ago to implement a counterinsurgency strategy, backed up by a temporary increase of about 30,000 U.S. troops, intended to reduce violence so
Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence
I see it becoming more of an ethnic cleansing than a civil war. Whomever comes out on top will spend the next few years 'eliminating' the losers. The powers that be should have left well enough alone.
Much, not all, of this could be avoided if they would just break the damn country up into three parts: Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. Of course it probably isn't that easy given the amount of OIL money involved AND the fact Turkey wouldn't like the new Kurd state. Whatever the case it seems to me this would probably be a good solution. It's also odd to me the US would support a separate Palestine but not a separate Iraq.....
jom
__________________ Old men's room wall saying: Flush hard, it's a long way to Washington
Much, not all, of this could be avoided if they would just break the damn country up into three parts: Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. Of course it probably isn't that easy given the amount of OIL money involved AND the fact Turkey wouldn't like the new Kurd state. Whatever the case it seems to me this would probably be a good solution. It's also odd to me the US would support a separate Palestine but not a separate Iraq.....
jom
Fine points Jom, ones I happen to agree with. I'm sure the Iraqi's would hate that idea though, since they have no idea what they want, but if we all say, tough titty, make do, maybe something good would happen. I think a good start would be in them paying for the infrastructure building costs from now on. They have the oil revenues to do it now. We need to stop paying for their "liberation".
Last edited by chu gar; March 15th, 2008 at 12:11 PM.
all I had to see was "ABC news" and "washington post".......FAIL!!!!!
Seriously dude, stop trolling the board with all your useless comments (see above) and crackpot conspiracy theories.
My first link goes directly to the report written by the Department of Defense, it's simply hosted at ABC news because the Pentagon refused to host it themselves.
The Washington Post article is about an interview Gen. Petraeus had recently in which he admits that the surge has failed in terms of Iraqi political reconciliation and will have no lasting benefits.
Petraeus came back to Iraq a year ago to implement a counterinsurgency strategy, backed up by a temporary increase of about 30,000 U.S. troops, intended to reduce violence so
Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence
I'm not sure what your point is here Hatter. Care to elucidate?
Seriously dude, stop trolling the board with all your useless comments (see above) and crackpot conspiracy theories.
My first link goes directly to the report written by the Department of Defense, it's simply hosted at ABC news because the Pentagon refused to host it themselves.
The Washington Post article is about an interview Gen. Petraeus had recently in which he admits that the surge has failed in terms of Iraqi political reconciliation and will have no lasting benefits.
so you will believe what criminals say? ok, stay blind dude. One day you'll see you were the crazy one.
Seriously dude, stop trolling the board with all your useless comments (see above) and crackpot conspiracy theories.
My first link goes directly to the report written by the Department of Defense, it's simply hosted at ABC news because the Pentagon refused to host it themselves.
The Washington Post article is about an interview Gen. Petraeus had recently in which he admits that the surge has failed in terms of Iraqi political reconciliation and will have no lasting benefits.
You think the department of defense has any credibility??? Your blind faith in government is what's killing this country.
__________________ The Kings 2008-2009 season: A LA CHINGADA!!!
Dispelling Iraq War Myths 
DRice
Mouth of Empty Praise!!! 
