Ok, This Is Bull****. Rebels Attack; Int'l Groups Bolt Baghdad

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Can someone please tell me why Bush ignored everyone on his staff who had military experience and listened to a brown noiser with no military experience? It's a military campaign so when the military says it would be better to have three times as many troops so they can provide better security and that portable generaters would be needed to restore power after the fighting then maybe he should have listened?

Well, the predictions of how many troops would be required in Iraq meant that the operation was impossible to carry out if those predictions were honored due to a serious lack of troops on the part of the U.S. So the choice was do it anyway and hope for the best, or not do it at all. Bush made his decision based upon his analysis of the available data. Now we live with that decision.

[Q Classic]

I am just glad that these Red cross types were not around for WW1, WW2, Korea or Rwanda...

actually, the red cross was in korea.
-http://www.nyredcross.org/news/2002/020425_koreanwar.asp
-http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/redcrint.shtml
-http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/amer-red-cross.shtml
-http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_312_220,00.html

not only that, they were critical in repatriating numerous pows.

===

as for the rest:
ww1:
-http://www.ku.edu/carrie/specoll/medical/Arc/ARCintro.htm

ww2:
-http://www.redcross.org.uk/index.asp?id=105

rwanda:
-http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/rwanda?OpenDocument
-http://www.ifrc.org/where/country/cn6.asp?countryid=143
-http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/3e6f28fc05b3194dc12563e9005404ac?OpenDocument

next time, do us a favor and do a five-minute google before you make a BFA.

[Q Classic]

fez actually has some backing to his claims (for once) about the increased support for bush

http://www.dailytrojan.com/article.do?issue=/V150/N46&id=08-study.46c.html

then again, that's also not the whole picture.

http://y.thekansascitychannel.com/html.ng/section=education&richmedia=yes&station=kc1&subsection=default&style=378x150&position=displayad&state=mo&affiliate=abc&owner=hearst&contentid=2574334&widget=1701297&pagetype=detail

that said, i myself will not vote for bush. i don't know who i'm going to vote for, but i don't just want to vote against him.

why do i not support him? i favor realism coupled with international organizations, not this neoconservative rubbish. i also don't appreciate his policy for nkorea: far too erratic, which hasn't helped us at all in our dealings.
there's also a generalized disgust with washington politics, with politicians like him and clinton, two sides of the same coin, and i don't much appreciate him for making spending increases that his generation won't have to pay.

[Sava]

I can't say I don't blame them... militant Islam has declared a jihad. It won't end. The only way it will stop is when all "foreigners" are purged from Baghdad. And without the ironfist of the US military, it will turn into an Islamic state.

[SlowwHand]

Killing relief workers is a sure way to make Non-Muslims anti-Muslims, Sava.
And we ALL want that, don't we ?

Put your straightjacket back on and go back to isolation.

[Ramo]

This specific attack most likely has nothing to do with militant Islam, rather the culprits were moved to do this by Arab nationalism (see my posts on this thread http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=2).

The aim of the attack seems to me to trigger reductions in freedom for the Shia, thus estranging them from the Americans and leaving us without any popular support left.

[Sava]

Just curious Ramo... how can you know the motives of their attacks?

[Ramo]

Assuming I'm right in that it is the Ba'athists, the motive seems obvious (there are naturally other motives, such as attacking popular and international support for the occupation, but I think this is the primary one). They've committed acts of terrorism before in the hopes of pinning it on the Shia (and they've been successful).