Italy pulls out of Iraq?
 

What do you think, are they going to stay or pull on us now after this. This story doesn't give too much info yet since this just happened but it may be a bit ugly later today when we find out the facts.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=540&ncid=716

Yeh, 6 Italian peacekeepers were just blown up this morning.

I'm telling you the only way to end this is for Bush to wake up to the fucking fact that they ended the hardcore pounding prematurely. All these fucking financiers paying for the bombings are centered up in Tikrit. The people all support Saddam in this area too.

Fuck them. Start pounding the whole region up there day and night with B-52's. That's the only way you send a message they'll understand.

It will be horrible, but war is always horrible.

Agreed!

I agree

well put!

Nah, they will probablly end up going in to Syria with the US. Afterall, that is where all these terrorists are coming from. :helpme

Either way, Ill still fuck Italy hard with my dialer.
Jesus doesnt like Countries that bail out of Iraq.

U.S.A - The United States of Arabia. :2 cents:

CIA Reports that things will get much worse In Iraq + hasty Bremer visit to Washington = America Is Fucked

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...cia/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) November 12, 2003 -- A recent CIA assessment of Iraq warns the security situation will worsen across the country, not just in Baghdad but in the north and south as well, a senior administration source told CNN Tuesday.

The report is a much more dire and ominous assessment of the situation than has previously been forwarded through official channels, this source said. It was sent to Washington Monday by the CIA station chief in Iraq.

It was not immediately clear if the assessment was what prompted the hastily arranged trip to Washington by Iraq civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer, who met Tuesday at the White House with President Bush and senior national security officials.

The report was discussed during the high-level meetings, sources said.

The senior administration source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Bremer agreed with the CIA assessment and added his personal comments to the station chief's memo.

In his Veterans Day speech Tuesday, Bush referred to "recent reporting" of cooperation between Saddam loyalists and terrorist elements from outside Iraq.

"Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists may have different long-term goals, but they share a near-term strategy: to terrorize Iraqis and to intimidate America and our allies," Bush told the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"In the last few months, the adversary has changed its composition and method, and our coalition is adapting accordingly."

Another senior administration official said those points in the speech were based on a U.S. intelligence report about the security situation. ...

A bit more " liberation" in other words...

Maybe this time you will get flowers.

upwards of 70% of the residents of bahgdad want us there, and theres not much of any problems in the north and south.


Its guys like you directfiesta who are directly responible for pol pot killing hundreds of thoussands.

i pulled out early, don't worry.

Rush Limbaugh back from rehab early? :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Iraq needs more ground troups, and work on securing the borders, and trying to help the citizens resume a somewhat normal life.

More ground troops will definitely cause more casualities, and it is why Bush and Rumsfield wanted to fight a war from the skies, and send in tons of Brown and Root support in the first place.

They wanted to make the war in Iraq look "efficeint."

However, the problem remains there are miles and miles of unsecured area/desert in Arabia.

Those terrorists are coming into the Iraqi cities via unmanned entry sections and setting up shop, while blending in with the local population.

That is the same as the terrorists in Saudi (and Canada?)...they can just come in via open space.

How would carpet bombing stop this?

in other news, some american schools are moving to a 4 day school week due to lack of funding.

story

i'm glad america has it's priorities in order.

You really are of the map today.

But blanket bombing with B-52, as suggested in this thread, is perfectly OK and no ressemblance to mass killing....

You are like a kid that got caught hands in the cookie jar and still is saying:

" Me? I didn't touch the cookies"...

:1orglaugh


PS: No Turkish troops, Japan has "postponed" any troops, and yes Italy and Spain will pull out in the near future. Brittain, who knows.

Hey dude, wtf are you talking about?

Bush supports vouchers so public school kids have a fair shot at getting into 30k private schools like Phillips Andover.

Usually you make sense, but this is just an intensely stupid idea.

Bombing a country you are already occupying will convince the inhabitants of that country that you are against them. Right now there are still many Iraqi's who aren't against the US. Bombing would change that. It would unite most Iraqi's in a common goal: driving the American murderers out of their country by any means necessary.
If something like that was done it would also lead to international outrage, diminishing chances of troops from other countries ever coming over to help out. So, you'd have massive resistance, no help from other countries... in short, thousands upon thousands of dead American soldiers in the next few decades.

Ofcourse, there's also the moral dimension. Liberating Iraq only to slaughter it's inhabitants?! It would mean that a country which didn't pose any threat whatsoever would have been invaded for the sole reason of killing off the people who live there. Hell, even I would side with the terrorists then.

Then annex it and give it to Israel, with a big fence around it...

this is the kind of response you get when people shut off their minds and start running their mouths.

this war is already lost, but people's egos won't allow them to accept it.

95% of the time the american troops are hiding in fortified bunkers and when they come out of hiding you read about it in the papers the next day.

the way things are going with the US killing shiite leaders and generally pissing off the friendly iraqis this will escalate into something that the american "planners" never dreamed of.

the attack on the italians happened outside of the geographical rectangle called the "sunni triangle," so it's obvious this situation is already spiraling out of control.

Sure> Any source for your " facts"???

Here is another evaluation ( CIA ):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/s...378904,00.html


PS: change your nick to another close family member: PARROT

its a war freaking land out there. foreigners there can just consider moving some place out of Iraq, everywhere, there's a hostile file for white people. :BangBang:

all the polls are out there and have been posted many times. I think you just choose not to see them. search google for bahgdad 70% gallup poll

LOL... same place as the WMD and the Flowers...

Very convincing.

Excellent point about the U.S. moral obligation; however, in the era of modern publication that has been cast asside.

Can you remember there is a certain term for civilian casualties in war?

The whole idea that you avoid civilan casualities at any cost, regardless of their affiliation.

Well, with the advent of fast publication (going from never hearing about it weeks later, newspapers to TV to instant updates on the net) etc...

Countries only care about the casualities of their soldiers, because the political cost those losses will cause them with Willy and Wilhemina Smith back home watching on the evening news.

That whole term of engagement has been throw aside.

Politicians know there is a Large REAL cost politically, for each dead American soldier or support staff. However, Iraqi civilian deaths mean very little.

I think this is true of any war in this era, not just this one.

The war was won.

Reconstruction was always going to be the problem given the massive instability within the region.

Terrorists can simply move back and forth through miles of unsecured area.

They have been doing this for _YEARS_ in Saudi, Kuwait and other areas.

Couples that with Bush & Co. unwilling or unable to commit more ground forces and you have a world of shit.

If you read about the generals asking for more troops to solidify and guard _warehouses_ of small arms the U.S. forces over took while the invasion was taking place.

They had to leave shit like that behind, rather than being able to secure it. There were not enough ground forces.

Bush had a noble goal that I could agree with (I don't agree with the pretext of the invasion the whole WMD bit was a farce).

That area is a terrorist hotbed--as people are seeing now. Iraq has just become the latest target.

Before it was American workers, diplomats etc. in various countries.

However, it was extremely naive, if not negligent to refuse to send adequate forces to ensure a successful reconstruction period.

The administration just needs to swallow some pride, regroup and finish the job--rather than worry about the latest bullshit poll.