After the US election there will be a blood-bath

[Moonlight_Graham]

Was watching 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' last night, and he was talking about the news and such. He also had on Richard Clarke. Someone was saying (not a joke) that the Bush admin has a military operation in Iraq they want to do (probably invading some city w/ high resistance) but they expect this operation to have a very high US casualities, so they are waiting until after the election to start this operation (obviously because this would affect Bush's approval rating).

 

Now, i'm not sure if the military would do this operation even if Kerry gets in, and are just waiting it out so it doesn't become political and screw with the election, or that this is something that the Bush admin wants to do and Kerry likely wouldn't.

 

I'm not sure on the specifics but its something y'all can look into if u want.

[RetardedHotdog]

sorry to go off topic abit.

 

the one thing i don't understand about the war and politics is what will happen to war? In The canadian charter or rights and freedoms they have a clause in which if we were to go to war with a country, then they can take away our right to vote and have an election, until the wars over.

Doesn't the states have a clause like this?

Anyhow, i hope that they are waiting for kerry, so it hopefully wont happen.

[therethere]

what you described sounds a lot like martial law. I don't think they'll impose that just yet. But if Bush wins, ;)

[X-Rated Truffle Pig]

when is it exactly...to lazy to search.

[HoboFactory]

I would think it'd be a pretty transparent scheme if it went down that way, but then I've thought that about alot of Bush's actions, so I'm not sure what to think.

[juanpe]

again, it doesnt surprise me... Bush will do whatever he wants in order to show hiw "power" to the rest of the world...

 

in any case, that idea of invading a city/controlling it is something the american troops are doing right now every single day in Iraq, that's not something new

[HoboFactory]

http://www.comcast.net/News/GENERAL//XML/1...c589440180.html

 

WASHINGTON - Denying he has painted too rosy a picture about Iraq, President Bush said Thursday he would consider sending more troops if asked, but Iraq's interim leader firmly said they weren't needed. With violence spreading, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld suggested parts of Iraq might have to be excluded from elections in January.

 

Bush and Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, standing in the Rose Garden under a bright sun, agreed that Iraq is making steady progress despite bombings, beheadings and violence that has claimed the lives of more than 1,000 Americans.

 

"On television sets around the world we see acts of violence yet in most of Iraq, children are about to go back to school, parents are going back to work and new businesses are being opened," Bush said. Allawi said 14 or 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces "are completely safe."

 

Rumsfeld, at a Senate committee, was asked how elections could be held if Fallujah and other restive cities remained in revolt in when U.N.-supervised elections are to be held nationwide.

 

"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country _ in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said. "So be it. Nothing's perfect in life. You have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."

 

Asked later by reporters to elaborate, Rumsfeld said: "Is it dangerous? You bet. Will there be elections? I think so. Might there be some portion of the country where the terrorists decide they're going to mess things up? Possibly. Does that mean that there won't be elections? No."

 

Asked if it would better to hold a partial election than to delay it, Rumsfeld said, "Sure, in my view." Ultimately, he said, it's up to the Iraqi government.

 

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, said Rumsfeld's comments were at odds with Bush's own upbeat remarks earlier in the day. "For a White House that likes to condemn mixed signals, it certainly is sending out a few of its own," Singer said.

 

The Bush-Allawi joint news conference, in the midst of the presidential campaign, echoed Bush's campaign speeches and the themes of his attacks against Kerry. Six weeks before the election, Allawi strongly supported Bush's policy. On his first official visit to Washington, the prime minister told a joint meeting of Congress that "the values of liberty and democracy" are taking hold in Iraq despite setbacks. He offered a simple, "Thank you, America" for driving Saddam Hussein from power.

 

Kerry contends Bush has been dishonest about the war's rationale and cost and lacks an effective strategy to end the crisis. While Kerry urges a start of troop withdrawals within six months and complete pullout in four years, Bush and Allawi said the United States must stand and fight.

 

"If we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations," the president said, linking Iraq with the more politically popular war on terror. "To retreat now would betray our mission, our word and our friends. ... America will keep its commitments."

 

Without mentioning Kerry by name, Bush and Allawi suggested his criticism was undercutting Iraq and the United States. "You can embolden an enemy by sending mixed messages," Bush said.

 

Allawi said: "When political leaders sound the sirens of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence."

 

Kerry said that contrary to assertions by Bush and Allawi, things are not improving in Iraq "and we need to change the course to protect our troops and to win."

 

Speaking in Columbus, Ohio, Kerry said, "The prime minister and the president are here, obviously, to put their best face on the policy. But the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story."

 

In a rare admission of error, Bush said he should not have said _ as he did Tuesday _ that the CIA was just guessing in a report this summer that gave a gloomy intelligence assessment that raised the prospect of Iraq tumbling into civil war. "I used an unfortunate word, 'guess,'" Bush said. "I should have used 'estimate.'

 

"But what's important for the American people to hear is reality," Bush said, turning toward Allawi. "And the reality's right here in the form of the prime minister."

 

Allawi said Iraq was "a country emerging finally from dark ages of tyranny, aggression and corruption." Iraq will hold elections on time in January, Allawi said, cautioning that "they may not be perfect" or be "the best elections that Iraq will ever hold."

 

Before meeting with Allawi, Bush met in the Oval Office with Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East. Abizaid said Wednesday that more troops will be needed to secure Iraq's elections, but that he expected Iraqi or international troops could do the job. "I don't foresee a need for more American troops, but we can't discount it," Abizaid said.

 

Asked about Abizaid's comment, Bush said the general did not mention to him the need for more troops. "But if he were to say that, I'd listen to him," Bush said.

 

But Allawi said bluntly: "To have more troops, we don't need." He said Iraq needs to train more of its own troops because they ultimately will have to defend their country. Iraq now has 100,000 people in the police, national guard and army forces, Allawi said.

 

While offering optimistic assessments, Bush and Allawi said Iraq faces major challenges.

 

"I believe terrorist violence may well escalate as the January elections draw near," Bush said, but added that if elections go forward, "democracy in Iraq will put down permanent roots and terrorists will suffer a dramatic defeat."

 

Allawi said Iraq is battling international terrorists. "I know it is difficult but the coalition must stand firm," he said.

 

His address to Congress was warmly received.

 

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who has criticized Bush on Iraq, said Allawi's speech was good but predictable. "Certainly the prime minister was not going to go before the Congress of the United States or the people of this country and interject any element of doubt or questioning about his government's purpose or focus or credibility or ability," Hagel said.

 

"It was optimistic.... It was very positive," said Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. However, Skelton added, "I would feel better if the Iraqi people would express their gratitude and stop harboring those insurgents. That's the way to express gratitude to America."

[juanpe]

madness, that is "madness" for me... and obsession

[Moonlight_Graham]

In my newspaper today i just read an article that describes the exact thing i brought up in this thread!

 

The article mentioned that the U.S. wants to invade (or re-invade) the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which is home to a very large insurgency. However, the US expects high US casualties and extremely high civilian casualties...so the military is delaying the invasion until after the election, and possibly until January because of important muslim holidays like Ramadan that are coming soon.

 

the article mentions that the U.S. (or Bush?) wouldn't think having pictures of dead Iraqi civilians and US soldiers all over the news would be good during election season.

 

interesting.....

[Crusader]

It's said how he won again...

[Moonlight_Graham]

Well what do you know...almost 2 months after i created this topic, the prediction is becoming a reality.

 

Only days after Bush got re-elected, there have been reports all over the news of U.S. Coalition troops ready to invade the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Expect the invasion to start within the next week. They are still saying it will be a bloodbath, and that is will be one of the biggest and most important operations of the war.

 

The funny thing is, in a press-conferance a few days ago Bush was asked about the attack on Fallujah, and Bush said that he wasn't deciding when to attack, but that it was the President of Iraq who was making the call. Yeah right...conviently 1 week after the election. total B.S.

[juanpe]

they are attacking that city along today... that's the new "Bush's disposition" he announced in his first speech after being re-elected... that's what we are gonna have in the following years

 

Americans who voted Bush for his re-election, YOU are guilty of all the horror and terror your re-elected president is gonna create in the following years to yourselves and to the rest of the world

 

You are the only ones guilty of everything that happens in the following years, you are the responsible ones of all the killings your new re-elected president will carry out... you, in the short term, are responsible of all the civil citizens who are gonna die (and are dying already) in Falluyah ;)

[guitarchick]

I recall reading something about a blood bath at http://www.johntitor.com/