Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 113

It is truly sad that these soldiers committed such a horrible crime. Being a proponent of the death penalty, even though this guy is working with the prosecution and is testifying against his co-conspirators, I still think that he is getting a fortunate break in his sentence. This guy will be eligible for parole in 10years as part of his working with the prosecution and guilty plea. I think there are 2 or 3 others (one was the shooter) that will not fair so well during their trial. These soldiers are actually very lucky that the coalition government was not in full swing when these crimes were found out, as Iraq has no issue with the death penalty and would freely hand that verdict out in a case like this one. I read the article and this guys appology to what is left of that family was for lack of a better term pathetic.

On the other note, I totally salute Harry's upcoming entry into the war. While he wont have the "normal" experience of all the soldiers in Iraq, I think it is great that he will fight along with his country. This is pretty refreshing considering that some of our recent US presidents have either garnered some cushy desk jobs while serving or dodged the system all together. Also, England isn't leaving Iraq completely by years end. Even with the quantity of soldiers that they are planning to pull out of Iraq by years end, there will still be about 50% of the current amount remaining. So basically, there will still be some Brittish troops in Iraq for all of Harry's tour.

Iraq War Post

Well, it seems like Blair has seen an end to British involvement now that Bush's plans for increasing troops has failed. It is too bad that Blair only acts based on outcomes / decisions of the US. I wonder if necessary would the US be such a great ally?

JB, while I agree that Blair has in the past been reactive to a lot of the US policy in Iraq in this instance he has bowed down to public pressure. It is getting close to the UK election and the Labour Party has a real fight on their hands. Blair is stepping down so I believe it was a party decision to remove troops just before the election. There will still be a British presence in Iraq but it will just be significantly scaled back.

I also agree it is great that Prince Harry does go over there. He has displayed the sort of courage as a young man that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and most of the other clowns in the US administration couldn't. As Cheney, who got out of national service four times said it, "I just had other priorities at that time." Now that cowardly fat old man used other American lives as cannon fodder for his evil and futile invasion.

Vincenzo, I agree with your thoughts entirely. These soldiers got off way too lightly as did those other cowards who tortured innocent Iraqi men at Abu Grahib. War is no excuse to rape or murder people innocent people. Why these idiots are not trialed in a civilian court is beyond me.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

IRAQ INSURGENT GROUPS VOW REVENGE FOR ALLEGED RAPES

Two Iraqi insurgent groups, one linked to al Qaeda, have vowed to step up attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces to avenge the alleged rapes of women by members of the security force, according to Web statements purportedly posted by the organizations on Thursday.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/22/...e.ap/index.html

Page 113 Iraq War Post

I wonder which war was more of a disappointment for the US people: Vietnam or Iraq? It seems that Bush will get 10% of what he asked for... is it a way of insulting him?

Iraq War Post

I am not sure if I understand this, they approved to send more troops? I was almost convinced they won't approve such a thing! But I guess they had no choice based on the current situation over there.

Post War Iraq

The best way I can phrase this is that the democrats realized that if they did succeed in stopping the sending of more troops, that they would actually begin to take responsibility for what is going on over there. That is definitely not in the best interest for the election in about a year and a half, as this will be one of their key points to getting elected. However, they can easily begin to hold back monies to support this level of troops...but I am not sure they want to do that either, because it then does make them partly responsible for what is going on over there in that case.

Edited: Vincenzo on 8th Mar, 2007 - 3:29pm

Post War Iraq - Page 113

Hold up a second here... we are talking about 2,200 military police here - what can they do in a country the size of Iraq? If the Democrats are using this to save face then they are doing an awful job.

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 113

Remember what the Democrats said as soon as they took that slim majority..."NO more troop in Iraq". They realize that they really cannot stop troops from being sent there, but they can stop the money from flowing to keep them there. However, the key thing in this is that they have been challenged to come up with a plan for Iraq if they elect not to fund the additional troops. They really don't want to answer this challenge now. They would much rather answer it after they take the presidency. It is their #1 card in the election. There will be more troops sent to Iraq...just watch as you see a slow fragmented reporting of a few more troops here and a few more troops there... Remember, that number is already 10% of what Bush was intending to send over there for the short term increase. So they are not actually saving face, but rather allowing Bush to continue a unpopular strategy that they hope will payoff later. It is so easy to say "we told him not to send more troops over, but look at what the Republican president did".