Terrorist executed about 50 unarmed Iraqi soldiers coming home from training en-route to see their families before being sent out to fight. These
animals have absolutely no regard for human life, whether they be Iraqis or Americans. I guess the Kerry camp would think it perfectly fine to abandon these people and disregard their fight for democracy which is our hope for the future.

Kerry? Kerry had anything to do with the execution? I naively thought that it was Bush's fault and his illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country that caused insurgency and civil war. Thanks for opening my eyes, now I know it's all because of Kerry.

__________________
The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself. George W. Bush

Sure Ken. And if we had not gone into Iraq these terrorists would have been living productive, law-abiding lives. I guess Abu al Zarqawi would have been running a legitimate business there in Iraq!!!! Perhaps he would have been building schools.

Come back to reality,Ken. What they would be doing.....had we NOT gone in.....is training, planning and plotting against the U.S. and Israel and other nations. And I doubt very seriously if we would have gone 3 years WITHOUT A TERRORIST ATTACK ON OUR HOME SOIL.

Thank You, President Bush.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

O my god. Everything is getting out of hand, but Americans still want us to believe that things are just super. Wake up. Not a day goes by without some horrible massacre.

__________________
They know... Saddam Hussein is no threat to the US. But at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel. Gen.W.Clark

Are there TERRORISTS IN Iraq?

Today, it was reported that approximately 50 Iraqi national guardsmen have been found. Shot in the back of the heads, at close range. These guardsmen were unarmed, & just traveling home, in civilian clothes, to see their families before they were deployed to other parts of Iraq, to help secure their country.

This should be a reminder to ALL Americans, the face of the MONSTROUS enemy we fight today. THEY ARE ANIMALS. And like no other enemy, we have confronted in our entire history.

Now, it is up to us Americans. Those that have a backbone, that can take the day to day onslaught from the major news network stations, with all the negative bias. To stand up with your countrymen, Iraq, & the coalition forces to DEFEAT THESE MONSTERS once & for all. Do not vote to cut & run out of Iraq. And leave it up to our children & grandchildren to have to fight off these monsters. This is our generations challenge & responsibility, & WE NEED to live up to it.

VOTE TO RE-ELECT PRESIDENT BUSH. And send a message to these monsters, that we will not cower under be headings, mass murder or torture, liberal media bias, Michael Moore's mocumentary, NO MATTER WHAT.

Ok...this is a problem. Who are "they"? That would be nice if we could neatly round up a bunch of jerks and lock em up. We can't exactly do that...

"Defeat these monsters?" Again...nice soundbite.

The situation is unwinnable with force, at this point, it seems. I don't have any idea what a good solution is. This is such huge mess. Up until now, I haven't been in favor of pulling out, as it is our mess to fix. But, if we stay, I can't see how it could possibly get better.

Also, if we truly want democracy there, how can we prevent a radical muslim cleric for attaining power? It isn't going to happen, if you believe polls of the Iraqi population. So, we've gone from a secular "monster" to possibly a much scarier one.

Does anyone here have a feasible solution?? I don't.

__________________
God Bless America, and No Place Else

Zarqawi was running a weapons lab in northern Iraq (an area in our no-fly zone, out of Saddam's control) prior to our invasion. We knew this. We knew where he was, we knew what he was doing. Thrice, military advisors urged the Bush administration to strike. They were turned down every time. It seems that Bush didn't want to undercut one of his justifications for going to war by, you know, taking out a terrorist without the need of a full-scale invasion and occupation.

Bush's failure to act is directly responsible for Zarqawi's current ability to wreak bloody, murderous havok.

__________________
Yo, how can I get me one o' them White House press pass thingies?!

*wipes tear from eye and salutes and American flag flapping poigniantly (pointlessly?) in the wind, and mutters with steely determination "God Bless America"*

What the hell was that? Are you some kind of Bush speechwriter or something?

If you want to talk about monsters, lets look at your own side for a minute shall we? I found this article to be most enlightening;
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article...articleId=1843

Let me give a few of my favourite quotes;
Here are some facts and figures, so that when you stop reading this thread you won't feel so cold inside, because numbers make everything seem more logical and easier to handle, don't they?

At least 600 civilians died in the last siege of Fallujah. At least 200 of those were women, who cannot fight for the mujahideen, and at least 100 were children.

__________________
"I see no reason why...there should not arise a United States of Europe" Winston Churchill, 1946

we created the conditions for more terrorists instead of getting rid of terrorists.
glowdog wrote read his post I have to agree with your premise that Bush should have taken Zarqawi out without a full scale invasion, but I will pass on the vitriol.

I have said before that we should have gone after the real terrorists with special forces, CIA, mercenaries, anything that we could instead of a "full scale invasion of Iraq". After 9/11 we should have put together an anti terror integrated force with the same vigor that that we accomplished John Kennedy's plan to go to the moon. We should have fought fire with fire. Yes, used terror against terrorists when needed, assassinations when warranted, torture when we could get away with it, and eradication of specific terrorists sight no matter where they were. Iraq, Kuwait, Bekka VALLEY, Pakistan, Cuba, Syria, etc. If we stepped on toes so what. Some of those countries don't like us anyway so let them have a good reason not to like us.

Bush once said that the terrorists had no country, no foriegn minister, no capital city, no president. Yet he let the neocons talk him into invading Iraq because we could not that we should and to show Muslims that we would.

And you are correct we created the conditions for more terrorists instead of getting rid of terrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

this story makes no sense.

1) How do you kill 44 people at once, all execution style? Thats a lot of terrorists.
2) Why weren't these soldier's being defended? U.S. soldiers use armored convoys wherever they go, and these iraqi soldiers went both unarmed and unescorted?


Not only did no one come to their aid, it seems they weren't even being monitored. It shows a complete lack of leadership in iraq.

Is it that the iraqi army doesn't have the budget for it or did they really think that 44 unarmed soldiers, undefended, unmonitored soldiers wouldn't be a target?

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984