Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Lt_Ripley

McCain making up history and CBS admits

58 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

questionmark
I dunno, the 900 US deaths in that area suggest otherwise...

Well, as we see they did not change much until the military started getting the Sheiks on their side. That is the whole point. Politicians wasted 900 lives because they thought they could control the region without the aid of the inhabitants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
If Obama had it his way, the UN would still be warning the world about Saddam's WMD, Hans Blix would still be going in circles around Iraq looking for WMD, we would be now on UN Resolution 30 warning Saddam for the 30th time and doing nothing, Oil for Food corruption well concealed and Kofi's son making millions out of it while continuing the cash flow to support Saddams regime, The embargoes continues on and sanctions and no fly zone while the world wonders on and who knows how many new mass graves would there have been.

That is the Obama's way, continue on doing what was deterioating.

you have no real clue do you ?

no wmd's found . Blix was almost to the conclusion and about to write his final report stating there were no wmds' but if bush allowed him to finish bush wouldn't have been able to invade with the excuse he made up. that's why bush ushered out blix ahead of time and blix did acknowledge no wmds and the war illegal as did the UN.

oil for food . yes quite the scandel . that America had a hand with as well ........... why do you think it just disappeared out of American headlines ? aside from the American business that were on the take .... we were supposed to be guarding that hen house , but turned a blind eye.

wonder how many mass graves there are now because of bush. for nothing. how many other terrible dictators did bush go after ? none. but the others like in N, Korea and with their mass graves don't have oil.

bush's way - if it ain't broke break it.

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
Thats funny, the democrats have had about 9 years in power since the threat began vs 20 years for the republicans, and the most severe terrorist attack on the US occured during republican rule. I don't think Al Qaeda wants to rule the USA, they'd rather destroy it.

9 months after a democrat left office. And did everything he could to hide or destroy any evidence of anything going to happen. But lets count, during bush attack on 9-11. during clinton attack on towers, attack on cole, attack on embassies, oh and Iraq was taking shots at our fighters. What did clinton do he said we were sorry. What did bush do he stopped them from doing it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
you have no real clue do you ?

no wmd's found . Blix was almost to the conclusion and about to write his final report stating there were no wmds' but if bush allowed him to finish bush wouldn't have been able to invade with the excuse he made up. that's why bush ushered out blix ahead of time and blix did acknowledge no wmds and the war illegal as did the UN.oil for food . yes quite the scandel . that America had a hand with as well ........... why do you think it just disappeared out of American headlines ? aside from the American business that were on the take .... we were supposed to be guarding that hen house , but turned a blind eye.

wonder how many mass graves there are now because of bush. for nothing. how many other terrible dictators did bush go after ? none. but the others like in N, Korea and with their mass graves don't have oil.

bush's way - if it ain't broke break it.

Saddam didn't just have us confused. He had his own government confused. When we were building up to attack Iraq threatened to use those wmd's on our troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__
Good, show me any pre-surge evidence of support in the Sunni triangle.... there was none, cause it was deemed unimportant...no oil you know. And where could al-Qaeda build comfortable nests? right...

Now, yes there was support in Baghdad and the major oil areas ... but that is another story.

In November 2005, American commanders held a breakthrough meeting with top Sunni chiefs in Ramadi, hoping to lure them away from the insurgents' fold. The sheiks responded positively, promising cooperation and men for a police force that was then virtually nonexistent.

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Saddam didn't just have us confused. He had his own government confused. When we were building up to attack Iraq threatened to use those wmd's on our troops.

yes and empty threat ......

Here Feb. 2001 powell and rice in July 2001 - both say saddam was not a threat and has no capability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN5yvoIsnnE

here powell admitted he was 'misled' ( lied) about wmds. to the UN and to the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley

See DOZENS more examples of FOX NEWS BIAS at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...

When Republican presidential candidate John McCain got in a fight with the New York Times editorial page this week, Fox News was right there to stick to the McCain campaign talking points even when confronted with contradicting facts. To show you what I mean, I put together the several clips in this video.

spin fox spin

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
See DOZENS more examples of FOX NEWS BIAS at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...

When Republican presidential candidate John McCain got in a fight with the New York Times editorial page this week, Fox News was right there to stick to the McCain campaign talking points even when confronted with contradicting facts. To show you what I mean, I put together the several clips in this video.

spin fox spin

What other time table do they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oderint
Got that? If you think 2006 came before 2007, you’re somehow showing disrespect for the troops.

:lol: Brilliant, Quote of the Year candidate! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz
To show you what I mean, I put together the several clips in this video.

You're a stay at home dad? Now I'm confused. LiberalViewer (the one that posted the video) is a stay at home dad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
But they would still be contained mostly and tens of thousands of people would still be alive and in one piece...

key word.

Saddam was allowing 100,000+ a year to starve to death so that he could support his palaces.

Lets see civilian deaths during this war 175,000 give or take. Number of deaths if Saddam had been left in power 500,000, not including the ones he would have had killed. You decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__
key word.

Saddam was allowing 100,000+ a year to starve to death so that he could support his palaces.

Lets see civilian deaths during this war 175,000 give or take. Number of deaths if Saddam had been left in power 500,000, not including the ones he would have had killed. You decide.

Not our problem. If it was we would be all over the world stopping backwater countries from killing the masses. Though we are not. Saddam was a real butthole and I've watched his hanging a few times... The world is a slightly better place with him as a corpse.

But now it is our problem thanks to us going in there and blowing the country to pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
In November 2005, American commanders held a breakthrough meeting with top Sunni chiefs in Ramadi, hoping to lure them away from the insurgents' fold. The sheiks responded positively, promising cooperation and men for a police force that was then virtually nonexistent.

Source

You mean the guy who was barred from entry to the US a few weeks later? The same guy who did more to discourage the other Sheiks from joining the anti al-Qaeda campaign? And who, buy joining the coalition made the best CIA asset in Iraq quit (Harith al Dhari), because he wanted nothing to do with a turn-coat?

Sorry, but that was no real attempt, that was a propaganda coup. And it back-fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
If the democrats had their way alquida would be ruling the usa. As long as they let the democrats stay in power.

What does that have to do with a conservative candidate so cloned to Bush that he makes the same ridiculous verbal errors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__
You mean the guy who was barred from entry to the US a few weeks later? The same guy who did more to discourage the other Sheiks from joining the anti al-Qaeda campaign? And who, buy joining the coalition made the best CIA asset in Iraq quit (Harith al Dhari), because he wanted nothing to do with a turn-coat?

Sorry, but that was no real attempt, that was a propaganda coup. And it back-fired.

What? Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi was assassinated for his fighting against Al-Qaeda.

Abdul Sattar Abu Risha (Arabic: عبد الستار أبو ريشة‎) - Sheikh Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi ad-Dulaimi الشيخ عبد الستار الريشاوي الدليمي - (born 1972 – September 13, 2007) was the leader of an alliance of Iraqi Sunni Arab tribe that opposed al-Qaeda in Iraq, and son of the chief of the 160,000 strong Albu Risha clan, a subset of the Dulaim tribe, the largest and most important tribe in Iraq. He was assassinated, shortly after becoming an ally of the Iraqi government through forming an organisation of fellow tribal chiefs called the Sahawat al-Anbar or the Anbar Awakening Council based in Anbar's provincial capital of Ramadi, some 70 miles (110 km) west of Baghdad.

Leader of the Anbar Awakening Council

During the early part of the insurgency following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as al-Qa'ida's fighters tightened their grip on Ramadi, it is reported that they became increasingly repressive and challenged the tribal leaders' power. Soon they were kidnapping and beheading innocent people as part of a campaign of extortion and intimidation.[citation needed]

"We began to see what they were actually doing in Anbar province. They were not respecting us or honouring us in any way, their tactics were not acceptable." - Shaykh Abdulsattar, March 2007

During the late summer of 2006 Shaykh Abdulsattar began enlisting his fellow shaykhs in Sahawat al-Anbar and encouraging members of his tribe to join the local police force. Since June 2006 they have contributed a reported 1,300 members to the Ramadi police[citation needed]. Many of the new newly friendly leaders are believed to have at least tacitly supported the insurgency in the past, though al-Rishawi said he never did. His movement, also known as the Anbar Awakening, now counts 41 clans from Anbar, though al-Rishawi acknowledges that some groups in the province have yet to join.[1]

Sheikh Abdulsattar Abu Risha discussed and persuade Anbar Sheikhs to Stopped fighting the American army and expel and fighting al-Qa'ida, persuaded the shaykhs of Anbar clans of Albu Nimr and Albu Fahd and Albu Mahals and Albu Assaf and Albu Issa.

Shaykh Abdulsattar Abu Risha with 60 thousand man from his tribe, in 40 days expelled Al Qaeda from Anbar.

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
I like Macains last statement. "I would rather lose the election than lose the war."

I don't think he has much choice about either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Lets see civilian deaths during this war 175,000 give or take. Number of deaths if Saddam had been left in power 500,000, not including the ones he would have had killed. You decide.

Are you counting the 200,000 to 500,000 children under the age of five who died because of the refusal to lift the U.N. sanction on basic medical goods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
What? Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi was assassinated for his fighting against Al-Qaeda.

Abdul Sattar Abu Risha (Arabic: عبد الستار أبو ريشة‎) - Sheikh Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi ad-Dulaimi الشيخ عبد الستار الريشاوي الدليمي - (born 1972 – September 13, 2007) was the leader of an alliance of Iraqi Sunni Arab tribe that opposed al-Qaeda in Iraq, and son of the chief of the 160,000 strong Albu Risha clan, a subset of the Dulaim tribe, the largest and most important tribe in Iraq. He was assassinated, shortly after becoming an ally of the Iraqi government through forming an organisation of fellow tribal chiefs called the Sahawat al-Anbar or the Anbar Awakening Council based in Anbar's provincial capital of Ramadi, some 70 miles (110 km) west of Baghdad.

Leader of the Anbar Awakening Council

During the early part of the insurgency following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as al-Qa'ida's fighters tightened their grip on Ramadi, it is reported that they became increasingly repressive and challenged the tribal leaders' power. Soon they were kidnapping and beheading innocent people as part of a campaign of extortion and intimidation.[citation needed]

"We began to see what they were actually doing in Anbar province. They were not respecting us or honouring us in any way, their tactics were not acceptable." - Shaykh Abdulsattar, March 2007

During the late summer of 2006 Shaykh Abdulsattar began enlisting his fellow shaykhs in Sahawat al-Anbar and encouraging members of his tribe to join the local police force. Since June 2006 they have contributed a reported 1,300 members to the Ramadi police[citation needed]. Many of the new newly friendly leaders are believed to have at least tacitly supported the insurgency in the past, though al-Rishawi said he never did. His movement, also known as the Anbar Awakening, now counts 41 clans from Anbar, though al-Rishawi acknowledges that some groups in the province have yet to join.[1]

Sheikh Abdulsattar Abu Risha discussed and persuade Anbar Sheikhs to Stopped fighting the American army and expel and fighting al-Qa'ida, persuaded the shaykhs of Anbar clans of Albu Nimr and Albu Fahd and Albu Mahals and Albu Assaf and Albu Issa.

Shaykh Abdulsattar Abu Risha with 60 thousand man from his tribe, in 40 days expelled Al Qaeda from Anbar.

Source

Yeh... see his obituary in the sun

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/abdul-satt...-rishawi/62642/

That at the end, and two years after the initial attempt there was finally a breakthrough had nothing to do with the 2005 attempt. And as you show there, there were no results until 2007 ... after the surge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__
Yeh... see his obituary in the sun

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/abdul-satt...-rishawi/62642/

That at the end, and two years after the initial attempt there was finally a breakthrough had nothing to do with the 2005 attempt. And as you show there, there were no results until 2007 ... after the surge.

From the BBC:

In September 2006, angered by the killings of both his father and two brothers by al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Risha approached the US military about forming an alliance to fight the Sunni extremist group.

The US agreed to provide funding and soon began to train members of the sheikh's tribe and placed a M1 tank outside his compound to provide protection.

Source

He was moving against them long before the surge and was even fighting against them before the surge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
From the BBC:

In September 2006, angered by the killings of both his father and two brothers by al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Risha approached the US military about forming an alliance to fight the Sunni extremist group.

The US agreed to provide funding and soon began to train members of the sheikh's tribe and placed a M1 tank outside his compound to provide protection.

Source

He was moving against them long before the surge and was even fighting against them before the surge.

Yeh... and it was celebrated with big fanfare when after the surge the guy finally was convinced:

Sunni Sheiks Join Fight Vs. Insurgency

By TODD PITMAN

The Associated Press

Sunday, March 25, 2007; 3:39 PM

RAMADI, Iraq -- Not long ago it would have been unthinkable: a Sunni sheik allying himself publicly with American forces in a xenophobic city at the epicenter of Iraq's Sunni insurgency.

Today, there is no mistaking whose side Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi is on. Outside his walled home, a U.S. tank is on permanent guard beside a clutch of towering date palms and a protective dirt berm.

The 36-year-old sheik is leading a growing movement of Sunni tribesmen who have turned against al-Qaida-linked insurgents in Anbar province. The dramatic shift in alliances may have done more in a few months to ease daily street battles and undercut the insurgency here than American forces have achieved in years with arms.

The American commander responsible for Ramadi, Col. John W. Charlton, said the newly friendly sheiks, combined with an aggressive counterinsurgency strategy and the presence of thousands of new Sunni police on the streets, have helped cut attacks in the city by half in recent months.

In November 2005, American commanders held a breakthrough meeting with top Sunni chiefs in Ramadi, hoping to lure them away from the insurgents' fold. The sheiks responded positively, promising cooperation and men for a police force that was then virtually nonexistent.

But in January 2006 a suicide bomber attacked a police recruiting drive, killing 70 people. Insurgents killed at least four sheiks for cooperating with the Americans, and many others fled.

The killings left the effort in limbo, until a turning point; insurgents killed a prominent sheik last year and refused to let family members bury the body for four days, enraging Sunni tribesmen, said U.S. Lt. Col. Miciotto Johnson, who heads the 1st Battalion, 77th Armored Regiment and visits al-Rishawi frequently in western Ramadi.

Al-Rishawi, whose father and three brothers were killed by al-Qaida assassins, said insurgents were "killing innocent people, anyone suspected of opposing them. They brought us nothing but destruction and we finally said, enough is enough."

Al-Rishawi founded the Anbar Salvation Council in September with dozens of Sunni tribes. Many of the new newly friendly leaders are believed to have at least tacitly supported the insurgency in the past, though al-Rishawi said he never did.

"I was always against these terrorists," al-Rishawi said in an interview inside his American-guarded compound, adjusting a pistol holstered around his waist. "They brainwashed people into thinking Americans were against them. They said foreigners wanted to occupy our land and destroy our mosques. They told us, 'We'll wage a jihad. We'll help you defeat them.'"

Source: The Washington Post

Fact is and remains that AFTER the surge DOD finally set on the Sheiks. Not BEFORE as McCain wants to make us believe. And fact is too, that the surge was as useful as tits on a bull before they set on the Sheiks.

And make no mistake, the Sheiks will as easily switch siodes if somebody else offers more money...they are only on one side: Their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__
Fact is and remains that AFTER the surge DOD finally set on the Sheiks. Not BEFORE as McCain wants to make us believe. And fact is too, that the surge was as useful as tits on a bull before they set on the Sheiks.

And make no mistake, the Sheiks will as easily switch siodes if somebody else offers more money...they are only on one side: Their own.

McCain said that the surge started the Sunni uprising, not the other way around.

In a dramatic error yesterday, John McCain told Katie Couric that it’s “just a matter of history” that Bush’s “surge” policy “began the Anbar awakening.” That, of course, is backwards.

The timeline shows that the Sunnis were ticked and fighting before the surge started along with US help in terms of training and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
McCain said that the surge started the Sunni uprising, not the other way around.

The timeline shows that the Sunnis were ticked and fighting before the surge started along with US help in terms of training and such.

Oops..looks like I had the wrong glasses on....

In any case, the surge would not have been necessary if they would have been dragged the Sheiks into the boat at the beginning. A little money alway went a long way in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__

It happens. :ph34r:

We wouldn't have even needed them really if we had just used the already Iraqi military that was only damaged instead of completely dismantling it to rebuild it that created a massive group of trained and very ticked men who needed to feed their families and themselves that were already representing their own areas. One of the biggest blunders of the war.

Edited by __Kratos__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cleomenes
It happens. :ph34r:

We wouldn't have even needed them really if we had just used the already Iraqi military that was only damaged instead of completely dismantling it to rebuild it that created a massive group of trained and very ticked men who needed to feed their families and themselves that were already representing their own areas. One of the biggest blunders of the war.

FACT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cleomenes
Obama voted against the war. remember ?

Funny, I don't remember that. Could you tell us exactly when he voted against the war? I was under the silly impression that he didn't enter the Senate until 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.