| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq-Jordan | ||
| Muqtada al-Sadr will be brought to justice: US | ||
| 2004-04-11 | ||
The United States has said that it is determined to defeat the militants in Iraq, and Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose militia is currently fighting the US-led forces, will be brought to justice. "The militant Shiite cleric, who has been indicted on charges of murder, will not stop Coalition or Iraqi Governing Council efforts... and he will be brought to justice in due course," Secretary of State Colin Powell said in an interview to ABC television.
| ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #8 Actually, you are all making an excellent argument for having some grizzled Marine Master Gunny with a glass eye, 14 Purple Fuckers, and 10-20 missing teeth take over the CENTCOM briefings. There IS a political component, whether we like it or not. The Military DOES have the benefit of a Leader vs Manager as Prez. You're both right. Now if we had some nasty-assed old hardcase get up give the daily brief - brief would, indeed, be the operative word as he dissed the fucktard Press mooks. I can't wait for the Military to start issuing a packaged daily brief directly and cut out this "I'm Important! I'm a Star Reporter! I tripped up Kimmet!" mentality that pervades and twists the "news" they report. These stories we comment on are the "product" they crank out, after editorial seasoning. Tripe - and it's hurting us more than informing us. .com Report Card... Plays well with others: F (lol!) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-11 5:52:37 PM |
| #7 Rafael, I think you're full of it. Bush isn't directing this war, the military is. Yeak ok. You're the one full of it if you think Bush (and his team) isn't giving some direction in an election year. He doesn't micromanage, true. But c'mon, it's a delicate balancing act: kill the jihadis, but at the same time don't give the impression that everything is going to hell. And the latter is a political matter. Secondly, I don't see Bush's re-election in November as a sure bet. I hope he wins, because a half-assed job in Iraq at this juncture in the WoT isn't good, to put it mildly. see only doom, defeat and socialism. That's low badanov :-) I escaped socialism 25 years ago (though sometimes I wonder) and I don't intend to go back. As far as defeatism...how many here say that the ceasefires are a missed opportunity? A half-assed job is defeat in my opinion. Either see it through to completion, or don't bother. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-11 5:35:25 PM |
| #6 Rafael, I think you're full of it. Bush isn't directing this war, the military is. Unlike some previous occupants of the White House (think "Democrats"), Bush doesn't micromanage the military; he gives them clear goals and gets out of their way so they can do their jobs. Amen to that. The choice in November is a stark one: A republican who loves freedom or a socialist who hates it. Pretty clear choice. You gotta forgive Rafael. He is apprently wearing the same filtering goggles the leftist press wears and see only doom, defeat and socialism. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-04-11 12:55:03 PM |
| #5 Well said barbara. |
| Posted by: smokeysinse 2004-04-11 11:48:29 AM |
| #4 "Brought to justice" works for me, as long as "justice" means "deader than a doornail." Rafael, I think you're full of it. Bush isn't directing this war, the military is. Unlike some previous occupants of the White House (think "Democrats"), Bush doesn't micromanage the military; he gives them clear goals and gets out of their way so they can do their jobs. Notice how information (good or bad) about Iraq comes from the commanders in Iraq, not from the White House - even when Saddam was captured (by any calculations, a political as well as military victory). Now imagine the same scenario, except Clinton in the White House. The annoucement would have come from Clinton himself, so he could grab all the glory. (Yeah, yeah, I know we wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place if Clinton - or Gore - were in the White House; they'd be too busy kissing the UN's and Frawnce's asses to do anything to defend the US. I said imagine.) Sadr and his minions are thugs trained and sent by Iran; they're fighting Iran's proxy war with America, joined by Baathists who can no longer torture and kill Iraqis at will and for pleasure, and who are pissed off by their loss of absolute power. The majority of Iraqis want freedom and democracy; they emphatically do not want a theocracy, or another thugocracy. I think we'll stay the course not because of the impending elections, but because it's (1) the right thing to do and (2) we'd rather fight and kill islamic fanatics there than here. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-04-11 11:18:54 AM |
| #3 I think the talks of 'ceasefire' is to try to keep the ICG engaged to the extent possible. We need them for the 6/30 handover. So far they are acting like petulent children instead of future leaders of a new government in a complex, violent region. From what I can tell, we're still fighting in Fallujah as we discuss ceasefires and truces. |
| Posted by: JAB 2004-04-11 11:07:41 AM |
| #2 Dubya stays on topic, on track, and on target. I wish it were so. Unfortunately, the only way Bush will win in November is if he gets some positive results in Iraq, and soon. Positive results meaning as little body bags as possible. It won't even be good for Bush if progress is made while the fight continues. The name of the game is to keep things calm until the election, and hope for the best. That's why we have talks of truce, cease-fires etc.. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-11 7:41:12 AM |
| #1 Stay the course. Negotiate with an indicted murderer and seditionist leading an armed uprising? Negotiate with scum who murder and desecrate the dead? Not fuckin' likely. You're not facing Clinton, cheesedicks. Dubya stays on topic, on track, and on target. You're toast. IGC - take a powder. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-11 2:10:35 AM |