Iraq vows to crush terrorists after 99 killed
February 2nd, 2008 . by TexasFredBAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq’s prime minister vowed on Saturday that improved security would not be derailed after two female bombers killed 99 people in the deadliest attacks in Baghdad since last April.
Nuri al-Maliki said Friday’s bombings at popular pet markets in the capital would not herald a return to the savage violence that took Iraq to the brink of all-out sectarian civil war. The U.S. military blamed al Qaeda in Iraq for the attacks.
“I swear on the blood (of the victims), we will achieve all our goals in securing a stable Iraq. We will continue to … crush the terrorists and target their strongholds,” Maliki said in a statement.
But as grieving relatives buried those killed, angry residents said the government should do more to protect them.
Full Story Here:
Iraq vows to “crush terrorists” after 99 killed
“I swear on the blood (of the victims), we will achieve all our goals in securing a stable Iraq.” said al-Maliki, and I applaud that bravado from him, but I want to know, HOW are you going to achieve your goal of a secure Iraq??
Are you going to take out ALL of the insurgents?? Are you going to kill them or deport them?? If you kill them, then you are doing the job, if you deport them, they will quickly come back because the borders of Iraq are more porous than the borders of the U.S., those that we deport are back in the USA before the Border Patrol bus that carried them out is…
“The security forces failed to secure this place and haven’t found any solution for big Baghdad markets,” said Abu Jasim, 42, who sells colorful fish at the Ghazil pet market in central Baghdad, where 62 people were killed and 88 wounded.
Security forces can only do so much, and unless you want a return to the tactics of Saddam, what would YOU suggest the security forces actually DO to improve security??
Metal detectors perhaps?? X-ray all who enter the market?? Certainly a thorough body search would be out of the question, I am guessing that would violate some Muslim law or infuriate the Islamic sensitivity, would it not??
How much security do the Iraqis really want?? No level of security can stop things like this from happening in a world where religious dictatorship is the order of the day, can you imagine going to the mall and being subjected to a body search before being allowed in??
Well, I seriously doubt that the Iraqis would subject themselves to one either, but much like everyone else now a days, when the ship hits the sand, they want MORE security, more protection, but don’t infringe on MY personal freedom when you give me that protection…
You can’t have it both ways, ultimate protection brings many constraints to daily living, freedom is not about constraints, remove the threat and you remove much of the danger but as FREE people we will always be faced with at least some danger from the animals that commit these atrocious and inhumane acts…
The attacks raise questions for the U.S. military, which has begun to reduce troop levels following a big drop in violence.
Attacks have fallen by 60 percent across Iraq since last June, when 30,000 extra U.S. troops became fully deployed.
And exactly WHY should these attacks raise questions for OUR military??
The Surge removed most of the threats from Baghdad and put the al-Qaeda fighters on the run, did it not?? We did our job, finally, The Surge was a long over due action, and one that would have never been needed if the Bush administration had conducted the Iraqi campaign properly, by putting that aside for now, once The Surge was enacted, the violence in Baghdad was noted as being substantially lessened, so, WHY is it OUR problem??
I would think that it’s now the problem of the Iraqi government, a security situation that they need to take responsibility for, we have given them training, weapons, munitions and equipment aplenty, we can’t secure their nation for them forever, there has to be a time when the Iraqis either stand on their own as a free and powerful nation or they fall to whatever their destiny may be…
Trackback URL:
http://texasfred.net/archives/970/trackback/
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Last night on, Real Time with Bill Maher, Frank Luntz said for this exact reason, Obama is leading in the polls. He said that out of the four leading candidates, Obama is the only one that would pull the troops out of Iraq, making the Iraqi Government step up to the plate, and move our troops back into the GWOT where they’re needed, Afghanistan. McCain, Clinton and Romney all want to stay for however long it takes.
He went on to say that he couldn’t believe the Conservatives that are coming over to Obama for this reason alone. He said that the candidates don’t want to talk about Iraq except Obama, but went on to say that in his poll taking among Conservatives and Liberals, Iraq is what they want to hear about and they all want us out. They don’t want to stop the GWOT, they just think our troops could be better used to fight the enemy, not to be used for pay-back against Bush’s father.
This is not an endorsement for Obama in anyway, I just found it interesting how we have lost our way, Iraq is important to the over-all voting public.
Frank Luntz is a Conservative Pollster.
Ranando, it’s OK if it IS an endorsement for Obama, I am so convinced that if it’s him or Hillary vs McCain, there’s not 2 degrees of separation in ANY of em…
McCain may be even worse in some cases…
Fred,
It’s not.
My ears just went up when I heard him say Conservatives moving over to Obama. When asked why? He said because of his stance on Iraq.
You and I have always stated our opinion on Iraq, we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, where the real fight was. Bush took us to Iraq to clean up after his daddy.
It seems that there are many other Conservatives that feel the same way, that made me feel good.
I like Frank Luntz and always enjoy his reporting, I trust him. I just found this interesting, that’s all.