# If combat operations are over in Iraq



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

Why are our troops still having patrols? Why hasn't the main stream media reported it?

NASSIRIYA - A roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. military patrol, wounding seven civilians, including one child, in southern Nassiriya, 300 km (185 miles) southeast of Baghdad, provincial police chief Sabah al-Fatlawi said.

Reuters AlertNet - FACTBOX-Security developments in Iraq, Sept 21


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Why are our troops still having patrols? Why hasn't the main stream media reported it?
> 
> NASSIRIYA - A roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. military patrol, wounding seven civilians, including one child, in southern Nassiriya, 300 km (185 miles) southeast of Baghdad, provincial police chief Sabah al-Fatlawi said.
> 
> Reuters AlertNet - FACTBOX-Security developments in Iraq, Sept 21



One more time.

What about all these "Mainstream media" sources that reported it?
Four Iraqi soldiers among six killed ... - Google News


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Why are our troops still having patrols? Why hasn't the main stream media reported it?
> ...



Wrong story this is a differant one then the one you used.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Sep 22, 2010)

You're right.

But you know that Reuter's is part of the "Mainstream media", right?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Why are our troops still having patrols? Why hasn't the main stream media reported it?
> ...



I suggest you read before you post nothing in my new release said anything about Iraqi soldiers being killed just civilians.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> You're right.
> 
> But you know that Reuter's is part of the "Mainstream media", right?



Rueters is like the AP which is a group of reporters they report it and it's up to the mainstream media if they decide to report it to the public.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

You still have to maintain a perimeter, which means patrols.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> You still have to maintain a perimeter, which means patrols.



So there still are U.S. Comabt operation in Iraq. But securing things in I raq was supposed to be Iraqs job we are there to train remember?


----------



## iggy pop (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Why are our troops still having patrols? Why hasn't the main stream media reported it?
> 
> NASSIRIYA - A roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. military patrol, wounding seven civilians, including one child, in southern Nassiriya, 300 km (185 miles) southeast of Baghdad, provincial police chief Sabah al-Fatlawi said.
> 
> Reuters AlertNet - FACTBOX-Security developments in Iraq, Sept 21



I'm sure the troops, I mean trainers just sat back and took no action.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

iggy pop said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Why are our troops still having patrols? Why hasn't the main stream media reported it?
> ...



They are not supposed to be patroling they are supposed to be training. Why are they wasting my money doing something they are not supposed to be doing?


----------



## iggy pop (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Because Obama is just trying for any positive press he can get to keep at least a few democrats in office.  It's all a pack of lies. He figures we can't see what's really going on over there.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > You still have to maintain a perimeter, which means patrols.
> ...



I doubt if the combat troops are going to let Iraqis do the perimeter work around US positions.  We want them securing the country, not us.  Military posts in the US have patrols.  You certainly wouldn't classify those as combat operations.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Take it up with the guys who sent them there in the first place, and built permanent bases there.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > iggy pop said:
> ...



NO I am taking it up with the ass wipe in the white house who lied andd no one has called his lying ass on this.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



True but most areas we have are not in combat areas. Those troops are not wear combat gear.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

My point is your hair spliting and I think most rational people are goingot understand that the enemy still considers us targets.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> My point is your hair spliting and I think most rational people are goingot understand that the enemy still considers us targets.



No, he's not splitting hairs. He's just spinning it into a "I hate Obama" rant.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> My point is your hair spliting and I think most rational people are goingot understand that the enemy still considers us targets.



Spliting hairs? I do not think so I wasn't the one that lied and said we have no combat troops in Iraq. obama did.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > My point is your hair spliting and I think most rational people are goingot understand that the enemy still considers us targets.
> ...



Defend that lying son of a bitch all you want.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



There's a difference between defending Obama and pointing out nonsense attacks. Seriously, there are much more important issues in Iraq than you splitting hairs about semantics. Did you make these same comments when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Oh, believe me, this is akward.  Still, the facts remain that 50,000 combat troops are out and 50,000 support troop remain.  They still have to defend themselves on occasion.  It is complicated by the fact this training group IS a combat group.  I think you are arguing a technical point.

My answer to your original question would be, indeed, why are US troop dying in Iraq.  Bring them all home now.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Oh, believe me, this is akward.  Still, the facts remain that 50,000 combat troops are out and 50,000 support troop remain.  They still have to defend themselves on occasion.  It is complicated by the fact this training group IS a combat group.  I think you are arguing a technical point.
> 
> My answer to your original question would be, indeed, why are US troop dying in Iraq.  Bring them all home now.



Those 50,000 support troops were combat troops on Aug 31 turned into support troops on Sept 1
This is obama's mission accomplished


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



Bigger issues then our troops? Bush Did not declear the mission was over and combat troops were out of Iraq. obama did this for political points, near election time


----------



## Valerie (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > iggy pop said:
> ...



fuck off bitch


----------



## Valerie (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





I don't think so.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



yes I think so fuck off


----------



## Valerie (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





You obviously don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Really? I think I am more knowlegable in this area then most here.


----------



## Valerie (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...






 Obviously.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, believe me, this is akward.  Still, the facts remain that 50,000 combat troops are out and 50,000 support troop remain.  They still have to defend themselves on occasion.  It is complicated by the fact this training group IS a combat group.  I think you are arguing a technical point.
> ...



Like I said, a technical point.  It stinks, I agree.  Bring them home now.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Edit after I read your reply


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



There is no gray area here, that is when American lives are at stake. no technical point. obama did this for one reason for political points


----------



## Valerie (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





Thank you for admitting it.  



Seriously, you need to get past your anti Obama campaign and think of the big picture here, that's all I'm saying.  Recognize the military mode _has _changed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

Valerie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


This is what I said after I edited my reply

Really? I think I am more knowlegable in this area then most here.
When obama stops lying I may liughten up on his lying ass.


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

*Not too bright. Must be a toy soldier* ​


bigrebnc1775 said:


> Why are our troops still having patrols? Why hasn't the main stream media reported it?
> 
> NASSIRIYA - A roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. military patrol, wounding seven civilians, including one child, in southern Nassiriya, 300 km (185 miles) southeast of Baghdad, provincial police chief Sabah al-Fatlawi said.
> 
> Reuters AlertNet - FACTBOX-Security developments in Iraq, Sept 21



Dear dopey, the main stream media has reported it. 

I guess you have issues with the brave men and women in our military command who declared combat operations to be over. 

*September 22, 2010

On August 30, a convoy of combat troops from the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, drove across the Iraq-Kuwait border, marking the official end of combat operations in Iraq.

The troop pullout, however, does not mean the end of a U.S. military presence in Iraq. About 50,000 troops will stay behind until at least December 31 of next year.* The Fresh Air Interview: Journalist Anthony Shadid - 'What Happens To Iraq Now?' : NPR


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I think I am more knowlegable in this area then most here.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> *Not too bright. Must be a toy soldier* ​
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Who are you calling dopey stupid? your link has nothing to do with the link I posted. go away stupid.


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


It's official. Combat operations in Iraq are over.

get people to name one combat operation that continues.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> *Not too bright. Must be a toy soldier* ​
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Someone with a higher power ratinmg needs to neg your ass for being stupid for neging me for posting the link I used.


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > *Not too bright. Must be a toy soldier* ​
> ...



should be reported, but I don't play...

btw, name a continuing combat operation?




friggin' rep pussy


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I think I am more knowlegable in this area then most here.



saveliberty has pointed out that bigred can't spelt.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I'm just saying you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. Hell you don't even know what the discussion is about. take your shit back to your mothers basement.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Why are our troops still having patrols? Why hasn't the main stream media reported it?
> 
> NASSIRIYA - A roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. military patrol, wounding seven civilians, including one child, in southern Nassiriya, 300 km (185 miles) southeast of Baghdad, provincial police chief Sabah al-Fatlawi said.
> 
> Reuters AlertNet - FACTBOX-Security developments in Iraq, Sept 21



Apparently you do not understand the Military's new mission in Iraq.
Unfortunately we do not control everyone in Iraq.

Which has been the problem all along.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


At least I know a little bit about a thread before I post something that does not have anything to do with the thread and think I posted something good.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Why are our troops still having patrols? Why hasn't the main stream media reported it?
> ...



So what is the mission ?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Iraq mission:

To turn a failed mission into dignified retreat.

To keep a power imbalance in the Middle East.

To not increase the umemployed in the US by retasking combat troops.

To create a politically acceptable clean war.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



U.S. Mission Facts & Figures


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 23, 2010)

Dante said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Sorry reb, my bitch stalker ran in here looking for me.  Probably will happen from time to time.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 23, 2010)

U.S. Combat in Iraq is Not Over - HUMAN EVENTS


----------



## Spoonman (Sep 24, 2010)

So I guess they are really not over.

U.S. troops fight on despite end to combat in Iraq

BAGHDAD (Reuters) &#8211; *Since President Barack Obama declared an end to combat operations in Iraq, U.S. troops have waged a gun battle with a suicide squad in Baghdad, dropped bombs on armed militants in Baquba and assisted Iraqi soldiers in a raid in Falluja.*

Obama's announcement on August 31 has not meant the end of fighting for some of the 50,000 U.S. military personnel remaining in Iraq 7-1/2 years after the invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.

"Our rules of engagement have not changed. Iraq does remain from time to time a dangerous place, so when our soldiers are attacked they will return fire," said Brigadier General Jeffrey Buchanan, a U.S. military spokesman.

The American role in Iraq's battle to quell a tenacious Islamist insurgency has been waning since security in cities and towns was handed over to Iraqi police and soldiers in June 2009.

Officially, U.S. forces remain in Iraq to "advise, train and assist."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68N18420100924


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You need to instruct your bitch on why they need to check the link before they make a reply.


----------



## CountofTuscany (Sep 25, 2010)

Spoonman said:


> So I guess they are really not over.
> 
> U.S. troops fight on despite end to combat in Iraq
> 
> ...





As long as there are troups there they will be forced to fight.


----------



## Dante (Sep 25, 2010)

Spoonman said:


> So I guess they are really not over.
> 
> U.S. troops fight on despite end to combat in Iraq
> 
> U.S. troops fight on despite end to combat in Iraq | Reuters


"Today, at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 4,427 American service members have died in Iraq, 3,502 of them killed in action; 34,265 have been wounded or injured," Gates said at the American Legion convention in Milwaukee.


Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Evening Buzz: Combat Mission Over in Iraq  - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 25, 2010)

Dante said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess they are really not over.
> ...



TV said it, it must be true huh Dante.  Also, take a hint form Cooper, we don't count dead soldiers from here out.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 25, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



They haven't counted since Bush left office


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 26, 2010)

CountofTuscany,  Spoonman,  _et al,_

Ground Truth, as described by Political-Military Bureaucrats, and agenda driven Diplomats, are often twisted to project the image that is most favorable to the goal and situation that best fits.

_Luckily for these folks, they don't have to answer to an Honor Court._

Yes, you're correct, the nature of the military withdraw is more to fit the drama associated with the White House and party politics, than to the actual realities of any ground truth.  Don't ask the USF-I Spokesman, the Embassy, or any OGA for the bottom line.  What you will get is a very well rehearsed set of catch phrases and explanations that will say that progress is being made.



CountofTuscany said:


> EXCERPT: Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess they are really not over.
> ...


*(BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT)*

I could write about this all day; but I believe there are two points to be made:


If the US Military (USF-I) rolls-up completely, then in all probability, the current government will deteriorate and collapse.  The GOI is not strong enough or dedicated enough to building its own civil capacity (either politically or in terms of a tangible infrastructure). 

With a collapse of the current government, and the fact that the current Constitution stipulated that Islam is the source of all legislation (Article 2); we've painted ourselves in a corner.  Legislation is the means by which Laws are made.  And this is a very useful tool to Islamic Expansionism.

There are some truths that are misleading, and here are a couple:

GEN ODIERNO:  First, there are absolutely no signs that the government of Iraq is going to pull the plug on the Sons of Iraq.  I mean, again, they have dedicated $300 million of their budget to pay them this year.
Yes:  If the US pulls out and the corruption of the GOI interrupts the $300M payments, the SOI will, in all likelihood, turn anti-Government.  The limits of the SOI patriotism is the ability to pay them.  They would return to the insurgency from which they came.  If the Iranians pay more, they will turn back to the insurgency.  And there is no telling how many, now, are patriots by day and insurgents by night; having infiltrated the ISFs (military & police).

GEN ODIERNO:  You know, this -- the Kata'ib Hezbollah specifically, we've had some significant threat warnings from them about attacks on U.S. forces for varying reasons.  I think they also, by the way, have conducted attacks against Iraqi security forces as well, and this is to create, I believe, some type of instability and lack of confidence in the government of Iraq.
Yes:  US Forces face threats from both indigenous insurgents and pro-Iranian Forces.  The Iranians believe that they can exploit Article 2 faults if they can gain a significant foothold.

GEN ODIERNO:  Operation New Dawn does not change the level of U.S. commitment to Iraq.  It changes the nature of our commitment:  one that is military-dominated to a civilian-led commitment.  As we transition to stability operations, U.S. forces will continue to train, advise, assist and equip Iraqi security forces and carry on with our partnered counterterrorism operations.  We'll support the U.S. Embassy, provincial reconstruction teams, United Nations and other nongovernmental organizations dedicated to building Iraqi civil capacity.
Yes:  Not only will US Forces provide for its own security (self protection), but will train, advise, assist and equip Iraqi security forces and carry on with our partnered counterterrorism operations.  This will be a widely interpreted phrase.  Additionally, there is the other set of components:  Supporting the Embassy, provincial reconstruction teams, United Nations and other nongovernmental organizations dedicated to building Iraqi civil capacity.


The Iraq Operation, up to this point, has been very expensive (nearly a Trillion Dollars).  We attempted to take US Revenue to rebuild the entire nation but did not have the intellectual capacity to do it.  Consequently, our return on our investment is going to be very questionable at best and is still in extreme jeopardy.


GEN ODIERNO:Iraqi elections held in March were incredibly successful.  The Iraqi people embraced the right to vote and choose.  Challenges to the election process only further solidified the credibility and legitimacy of the election. 
Yes:  It has been more than six (6) months since Iraq held national elections, but  still appears to be little concrete progress in talks toward forming a government.

There was no clear majority out of the elections, as Iraqis split their votes a cross-sectarian secular lines.  USF-I and the Embassy are phrasing the language of the answers as if they actually are having an impact on the progress being made.  But the reality is, Prime Minister al-Maliki doesn't want to give-up power, but like America, there are times when it is the choice between the lesser of evils.


Truth, what's going on and what it all means is a matter of perception shaped by the political-miitary agenda.  The military commanders want to claim they did their job, and the diplomats want to claim they were just as successful.  But the ground truth is a very different thing.

Don't try to make any "literal sense" out of any particular pronouncement made.  It's like the claims of solid intelligence on vast amounts of WMD.  It's simply not there.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 4, 2010)

Dante said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess they are really not over.
> ...



I see Dante still can't read.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 13, 2010)

Dante said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess they are really not over.
> ...



How many civilians killed/injured?


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 14, 2010)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 15, 2010)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



No one cares...


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 17, 2010)

et al,

The question is not some much based on what the US Government has to say about where we are, it is more about what we will do?

*(REMEMBER)*



			
				NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ: said:
			
		

> *VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED*
> 
> As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:
> 
> ...



In watching the news, you will notice that Prime Minister al-Maliki is taking a three-pronged approach in an attempt to secure his unelected control over Iraq.  It is now more than 200 days since the electrion.


He is attempting to secure support from neighboring nations:
Syria
Iran
Possibly Egypt

He is attempting to secure opposition support:
Backing from anti-U.S. Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

He is attempting to secure Regional Support for his leadership.

It will be most interesting to see how the US (politically, diplomatically, and militarily) reacts in the realization that its own creation, Nouri Al Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq, will (most likely) hold onto his leadership by being supported by the Shi'ite Militia Mahdi Army - and the Iranians (Extraterritorial Operatives), who individually established a deadly insurgency directed against the Multi-National Force (MNF-I) and the Government of Iraq (GOI).   

The US Governments parameters that set the evaluation are conditions based:



> &#9251; Success in the short, medium, and long run will depend on progress in overcoming these challenges and on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Our strategy  along the political, security, and economic tracks  is establishing the conditions for victory. These conditions include:
> 
> Progress in the Iraqi political process and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to forge political compromises;
> Consolidation of gains in the training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF);
> ...



In addition to the definitions of Victory, the possibilities were set out such that we can evaluate each of the three-phases:  Short, Medium and Long.  There are several questions that must be answered at this point.

Is the political process working in Iraq?  Or, is it already corrupted?  
Will the corrupted process impact the outcome in the reliability of the ISF?  
If the government and the ISF fall under the influence the Iranians, will that impact the definition of Victory?
Does the increased interaction of Iraqs neighbors (Syria & Iran) change the outcome?
Does the reduced commitment of the International Community change the outcome (ie MNF-I to USF-I and the withdrawal)?


Can we continue to support our creation (Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki)?
Did we create another monster that will bite the hand that once fed it?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Oct 18, 2010)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Hey, really, no one gives a shit


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 18, 2010)

Urbanguerrilla,  _et al,_

I have a question?



Urbanguerrilla said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> > Urbanguerrilla said:
> ...


*(THE Q?)*

Let's say for a moment, that there are casualties within the civilian population, who's interest is it in to keep a lid on that being amplified in the news media?

*(DISCUSSION)* 

I wonder just who is killing who?  Could this be Muslim-on-Muslim --- or --- Arab-on-Arab?

And if it is some variation of Muslim or Arab internal conflict, what would this indicate?


Could this indicate that  the GOI and its ISF are not as successful as we would like after 7 years?
Could this indicate that the democratization effort isn't quite as successful as we want it to be?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------

