Fallujah Turned Over To Saddams General

Discussion in 'Politics' started by waggie945, May 1, 2004.

  1. That was a very bad move on Bushs' part. He sent the wrong message to them.
  2. pretty Ironic isn't it?

    A year after "mission accomplished"
    ex saddam's general walks in carrying the old Iraqi flag and greeted as a liberator.

    And we, the supposed liberators and democratizers, are seen as abusers and torturers.... :(

    Exactly what are we doing down there???:confused: :confused:
  3. BSAM


    That's exactly the point I've been making. Let's see; we went in, removed the head of the Baath Party, seized power from them, now we're going to let them "ease" back into power. Superb game plan. Hmmm.....Maybe if Saddam will cooperate just a little, we'll maybe give him back, oh, three palaces doesn't sound too unreasonable does it?:confused:
  5. a more mild version of the story from CNN

    (from article)
    "Conway said some may even have fought against Marines at the beginning of the siege last month.

    There has been a basic intelligence vetting of the generals and leaders of this new force. He said, however, no one in the force is to have "blood on their hands."

    "Most of these guys may not be squeaky clean, but they're pretty clean," Conway said."
  6. The US cannot tame the country - that much is clear. It's too fractious. It's not really a country, but various groups and tribes forced together as a nation by arbitrary borders with no historic basis.

    If the military can subcontract the job of pacifying Fallujah, why not?

    At least the Bush administration is willing to attempt new approaches.

    I recall some baboon here yelling, "I say clean up this mess", but without any suggestion how.