Who Are The Real Terrorists In Iraq?

• Clear Evidence British special forces are recruiting, training terrorists to heighten ethnic tensions


• Elite SAS wing with bloody past operates with immunity, provides advanced explosives


• Some attacks being blamed on Iranians

http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/050207FRU.htm


Top globalist warns Congress of provocation or terrorist attack inside U.S.
Former National Security Advisor and founding member of the Trilateral Commission Zbigniew Brzezinski tacitly warned a Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that an attack on Iran could be launched following a staged provocation in Iraq or a false flag terror attack within the U.S.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/060207falseflag.htm

before reading the websites in your post....
this is not new for the intelligence services in the west.
(white men guiltiness again?
ha!
okay, a joke out of place)

just to put things on a background: in the late 60's the FBI trained more radical Negroes separatist groups in the U.S. to blame the Black Panthers for the actions of those radical groups.
One of th leaders of those groups , trained by the FBI is currently a professor in a california university.
Needless to say, one of the most notorious Black Panthers leaders was just executed by a crime he supoddssely commited 30 something years ago. His guiltiness was never 100% probed, but the elements against him were considered enough to give him the death sentence. For many people aggravating the case, was his prominent role in the Black Panters.

I don't even remember his name.....mokkie? cookkie? some cheesy name.
Anyways. The most radical group , created and trained by the FBI just dissapeard after the Black Panthers were either sent to jail, killed or fell in disgrace, happened to have its members doing pretty good afterwards, to the extent that at least one of its leaders is a Chair in a west coast university , as i mentioned above.

for more on this, check on the morning editions files in npr.org. They mentioned the professor about 3 weeks ago. i heard the news and i couldn;t help but remembering how famous the cases of Fifth Columnist were duting the Spanish Civil war (mid 1930's)...

Going back to you post about the briton intelligence service.... it would not surprise me at all.
if they used such a tactics during peace periods in order to destroy legitimate Civil Rigths aspirations, -regardless of how flamboyant the Black Panthers were-; what would deter the western intelligence services to use the same tactics to combat an antagonistic culture??

given the stakes, would you use such tactics?
what else would you do different?
(for starting, i would go after the madrassas, what the heck are they doing in those "schools" ?.... but probably that's a different discussion)

leo;s profile wrote:
I don't even remember his name.....mokkie? cookkie? some cheesy name.

Tookie Williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIvdHzD-G3w

.:J:.

actually none of it really surprises me

BTW, in case anyone thinks that bulletin was serious, I was being sarcastic.

Just came across this comment and I feel compelled to comment, which is the intent of forums I suppose.

I for one despise war and feel that all efforts must be made to avoid it. However, the reality is, there are those that do not understand the concept of peaceful coexistent and are intent on forcing their views on others by any means necessary. No I am not talking about Bush and Blair.

It may be hip and cool to bash those in charge. Down with the man, evil imperialistic white men, etc. But let's not lose sight of what the current conflict is all about and what has happened that led to the current situation. Over 3000 dead on September 11, 2001. Who's to blame? If you side with the jihadists point of view that those innocent lives deserve it because of U.S. foreign policy, then you have lost touch with civility. There have been mistakes made with regards to U.S. foreign policy. Regardless of how much you disagree wiith U.S. foreign policy, there is no excuse to resort to murdering 3000 innocent civilians. I am from NY and I saw the mass murder firsthand. I know personally knew one person who died in the towers.

Muslim extremists like to justify their actions through a very organized propoganda campaign that touts the evil and corrupt west. It's a shame that most of you in this group are too ignorant or blinded to realize that this is what they want. It's one thing to disagree or challenge the current establishment, after all that's what makes this country great and unique. But challenge with reason and logic and let's not jump on the bandwagon just because it's cool to be part of the counterculture.

The common trend among the left wingers is to criticize while offering no alternatives. So please explain to me how Bush and Blair were supposed to respond to 9/11?

CyberSpace Man Whore wrote:

The common trend among the left wingers is to criticize while offering no alternatives. So please explain to me how Bush and Blair were supposed to respond to 9/11?

Good question CyberSpace Man Whore,

As two supposed christian led nations perhaps it would have been more ethical to pursue a legal route to bringing those responsible to justice rather than adopting an "eye for an eye" approach through an aerial bombing campaign targeting indiscriminantly with medium-sized missiles to cruise missiles to bunker-busting 2, 000 lb bombs, then to B52 carpet-bombs and 'daisy cutter' bombs that destroy everything in a 600-yard radius - actually killing vastly more innocent civilians than they did! 3125 to 3620 Afghans were killed from direct bombing and 10, 000 - 20, 000 indirectly as a result of the bombing.

Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford University has argued that global support could have been sustined for a rigorous political and legal process of undermining support for Al Qaida around the world. He argues that 'intelligence and security cooperation would have been unpralleled. An appropriate international court could have been established under UN supervision. The existing UN conventions on terrorism would have been hugeley strengthened.' Rogers also argues that what makes this route even more attractive 'is the nagging suspicion that the perpetrators of 9/11 expected a strong US military rection and counted on it as increasing long-term support for their cause'.

But of course the legal route wasn't taken because the administration wanted to invade. If you knew about the national security plans of the time such as the Wolfowitz doctrine and the Project for the New American Century then you would understand why they did what the did.
This documentary will tell you more

Lincoln

You definitely give the appearance of intelligence through your rhetoric but it is only that, rhetoric and baseless in facts and reality.

First off, the U.S. Air Force did not target "indiscriminately" as you have claimed. The truth is that every target is painstainkingly analyzed to minimize collateral damage. The U.S. military makes such a tremendous effort to minimize this that, at times, the lives of U.S. servicemembers at stake just to ensure that innocent civilians are spared. How do I know this? I was am a military member and I was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the current conflict in Iraq. Of course, war is war, and innocents do unfortunately get caught in the crossfire. It is not planned as you insinuate. Your B-52 carpet bombing comment shows either your ignorance or deception concerning military matters. Have you ever heard of smart bombs? The U.S. has spent vast amounts of money to use these precision guided weapons rather than the vastly cheaper dumb bombs. The fact is, if our intentions were to kill innocent civilians, we could have easily wiped the entire region off the face of the Earth with our nukes and save our soldier's lives. Why didn't we do this? The strategists realizes that it is not in the best interest to kill civilians. We are in what we call "unconventional warfare" and the winner is not who racks up the highest body count as in a conventional war, but who wins the hearts and minds of the people.

Your reasoning for using only legal and political means to bring Al Quaeda to justice is unrealistic and idealistic. What do you thing we were trying to do before 9/11? Al Quaeda already caught the interest of the U.S. after the African embassy and U.S.S. Cole bombings. A legal and diplomatic approach was made in those pre-9/11 days and it failed. Did you even read the 9/11 report? Diplomacy should be attempted at all costs but 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back. There comes a point where you have to admit that diplomacy has failed.

Global support is a joke just as much as the UN is a joke. Russia, China, and France didn't want us to invade Iraq because those countries had substantial monetary interests in that country in direct violation of the UN embargo. This proves UN incompetence and ineffectiveness. Further proof is the UN Oil for Food corruption scandal.

Given all these facts, the U.S. had no choice but to address this in a military manner. We can talk and talk all we want about peace while the Jihadists kill U.S. citizens or we can take action and try to put a stop to it. If a person hits you because he plain doesn't like you, then what would you do? Normal people would defend themselves to make him stop hitting you. You may even ask why are you doing this to me? If he stops, then you may have a chance of talking it out and resolving whatever issue he has with you. But what do you do if he doesn't stop and doesn't want to talk? This is the point that we have reached with Muslim extremists. Their views are non-negotiable and they have a "it's either my way or the highway" mentality. Infidels must either convert and follow the Sharia or die. I tell you what; Since you are against violence and a big proponent of a non-violent solution, why don't you find the closest mosque that preaches extremism and try to work things out with a radical cleric. But I know that you are smarter than that and would prefer to keep your head.

Again, you criticize and accuse but you fail to concentrate on what the real problem is or who the real villians are. You hide your arguments behind a veil of conspiracy theories and fancy talk. But the reality is that you could care less about U.S. innocent civilians dying. This is apparent in the fact that you criticize and condemn the U.S and I have yet to hear you condemn the Islamic terrorists. What is interesting is that despite your fellow European liberal policies that seeks to appease the Islamists, you guys are still getting hit with bombs and plots. You guys can try to talk all you want but I'm glad that we in the U.S. are taking action.

CyberSpace Man Whore wrote:
Lincoln

You definitely give the appearance of intelligence through your rhetoric but it is only that, rhetoric and baseless in facts and reality.

First off, the U.S. Air Force did not target "indiscriminately" as you have claimed. The truth is that every target is painstainkingly analyzed to minimize collateral damage. The U.S. military makes such a tremendous effort to minimize this that, at times, the lives of U.S. servicemembers at stake just to ensure that innocent civilians are spared. How do I know this? I was am a military member and I was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the current conflict in Iraq. Of course, war is war, and innocents do unfortunately get caught in the crossfire. It is not planned as you insinuate. Your B-52 carpet bombing comment shows either your ignorance or deception concerning military matters. Have you ever heard of smart bombs? The U.S. has spent vast amounts of money to use these precision guided weapons rather than the vastly cheaper dumb bombs. The fact is, if our intentions were to kill innocent civilians, we could have easily wiped the entire region off the face of the Earth with our nukes and save our soldier's lives. Why didn't we do this? The strategists realizes that it is not in the best interest to kill civilians. We are in what we call "unconventional warfare" and the winner is not who racks up the highest body count as in a conventional war, but who wins the hearts and minds of the people.

Your personal explanation of not purposefully targetting innocents is exactly the same that was stated by Tony Blair at the beginning of the war. The actual events and accounts of what happened do paint a different picture though:

Out of the 22, 000 weapons that were dropped in Afghanistan in the first six months, one in four missed their target. (Defense Committe, Second report, Session 2001-2, 12 December Richard Norton-Talyor 'A quarter of US bombs missed target in Afghan conflict'. Guardian, 10 April 2002.

The city of Kandahar was reduced to rubble by US bombing.

Maroff, aged 38, lived at his farm located about 1km from the village and told Human Rights Watch that he had witnessed the attacks, first on the Taliban military base, and then on the nearby village, from his home. When he rushed to the village the next day, he found the family compound of his relatives in ruins, and villagers digging through the rubble. Twelve bodies of his relatives were recovered from the debris of the family compound. The dead included the two sons and two daughters of his 25 year old sister Rhidi Gul, Aminullah 8, Raminullah 3, Noorjan 5 and Gulpia 4. Rhidi Gul was recovereing from serious wounds, together with her surviving 1 year old son Hamidullah, also seriously wounded in the attack. Kamno a 10 yr old sister-in-law of Rhidi Gul, also survived the attack and was recovering from serious shrapnel wounds to the face in Quetta hospital. (Human Rights Watch 26 October 2001)

The village of Chowkar-Karez in October killed between twenty-five and thirty-five civilians. There were no military targets in the vicinity, being a remote rural area of Afghanistan. 'Many of the people in the village then ran out of their homes, afraid that the bombs would fall on the homes. All witnesses stated that the aircraft then returned to the area and began firing from guns. Many of the civilians were killed from firing. The bombing and firing lasted for about one hour." Human Rights Watch 30 October 2001

At least 250 Pakistani fighters were killed in a school after trying to surrender. US warplanes hit the compound twice, after the fighters had agreed to give themselves up, devestating the main building. The Guardian wrote the Pentagon's decision to bomb the school was supported by the Uzbek warlord, Abdul Dostam, 'but opposed by other local generals, who argued it would be more humane to allow the fighters to surrender'. (Guardian 24 November '01)

A Red Cross compound and warehouses storing humanitarian supplies, food, blankets and oil in Kabul was hit twice by 27 October. The Red Cross called the attack a 'violation of international humanitarian law'. Staff on the ground had seen 'a slow and low-flying place drop two bombs on the compound, the roofs of which were painted with 3-by-3 meter red crosses on a white background.' In the second attack, food and non-food items intended for 55, 000 people in Kabul were destroyed. (Guardian 27 October and HRW Human World Report 2002)

At Qali-I-Jhangi for in Mazar-I-Sharif, hundreds of rioting prisoners were killed. SAS and US special forces took part in the operation and directed massive aerial bombardments, although full details have yet to emerge as the US and UK resist calls for a UN inquiry.

Afghans civilian infrastructure was targeted, on 15 October US bombs destroyed Kabul's main telephone exchange killing 12 people, late October US warplanes bombed the electrical grid in Kandahar, 31 October 7 airstrikes were launched against Afghanistan's largest hydro-electric power station, 18 November US planes bombed religious schools, 25 October a bomb hit a fully loaded city bus in Kandahar killing between 10-20 passengers, 18/19 November US planes bombed the mountain village of Gluco, located on the Khyber Pass and far away from any military facility - killing seven villagers.(Marc Herold www.medialens.org and 9/11 & the US war, beyond the curtain of smoke).

US bombing destroyed the office of Al Jazeera TV in kabul, another bomb hit a house used by the BBC a block away, the office of Radio Kabul was destroyed, (Farhad Azad of Afghanmagazine.com said the Taliban had made music illegal).

Of course nukes will not be used, that would start off a far deeper crisis which was not the intention. No it is much better to just brush the collatoral damage under the carpet, hide what really goes on to the American people because if they really saw the horrors of war they would not support it.

Your reasoning for using only legal and political means to bring Al Quaeda to justice is unrealistic and idealistic. What do you thing we were trying to do before 9/11? Al Quaeda already caught the interest of the U.S. after the African embassy and U.S.S. Cole bombings. A legal and diplomatic approach was made in those pre-9/11 days and it failed. Did you even read the 9/11 report? Diplomacy should be attempted at all costs but 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back. There comes a point where you have to admit that diplomacy has failed.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia with seemingly few connections to Afghanistan so why weren't their calls to bomb Riyadh?
Because SA is a favoured ally of the US that's why.
I've read a lot of the 9/11 whitewash, it's a propoganda piece

Global support is a joke just as much as the UN is a joke. Russia, China, and France didn't want us to invade Iraq because those countries had substantial monetary interests in that country in direct violation of the UN embargo. This proves UN incompetence and ineffectiveness. Further proof is the UN Oil for Food corruption scandal.

Given all these facts, the U.S. had no choice but to address this in a military manner. We can talk and talk all we want about peace while the Jihadists kill U.S. citizens or we can take action and try to put a stop to it. If a person hits you because he plain doesn't like you, then what would you do? Normal people would defend themselves to make him top hitting you. You may even ask why are you doing this to me? If he stops, then you may have a chance of talking it out and resolving whatever issue he has with you. But what do you do if he doesn't stop and doesn't want to talk? This is the point that we have reached with Muslim extremists. Their views are non-negotiable and they have a "it's either my way or the highway" mentality. Infidels must either convert and follow the Sharia or die. I tell you what; Since you are against violence and a big proponent of a non-violent solution, why don't you find the closest mosque that preaches extremism and try to work things out with a radical cleric. But I know that you are smarter than that and would prefer to keep your head.

Again, you criticize and accuse but you fail to concentrate on what the real problem is or who the real villians are. You hide your arguments behind a veil of conspiracy theories and fancy talk. But the reality is that you could care less about U.S. innocent civilians dying. This is apparent in the fact that you criticize and condemn the U.S and I have yet to hear you condemn the Islamic terrorists. What is interesting is that despite your fellow European liberal policies that seeks to appease the Islamists, you guys are still getting hit with bombs and plots. You guys can try to talk all you want but I'm glad that we in the U.S. are taking action.

To me Islamic terrorism is just as bad as Christian and Judaic terrorism. They are all forms of fundamentalism which believe their bible is gods word. But there is just as much bloodshed and justification for gods holy war in the Tanakh as their is in the Qu-ran. I wonder over the centuries how many muslims have been killed through the holy wars and inquisitions? Bush and Blair have both said that their decisions come from god and if you read some of the bible you'll realise that this is also about fulfilling prophecy.

Muslim extremism is something I plan to tackle, but the US and the UK are the biggest perpretrators here and through the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq they have made the world far more dangerous place than if they had not reacted in the way they did.

Did you watch the documentary I linked to?
Do you not accept that the Bush Administration already had plans to expand there?

ok some questions to man whore army man...
Do u believe that there were really WMDS in iraq? With all the american intelligence.. we all new there was no such thing even before the invasion.. so why then? to free the people.... of there lives?

Smart bombs.. can they detect bad guys?

Islamic terrorist.. u blame them for everything.. every documentary about alqaeda and taleban shows them as peasant looking, no armor, riding camels or horses or beat up pickups.. how could they conduct a hit like 9/11?thats pretty complicated shit ! maybe they have some top secret underground labs and hide outs.. like the x-files! again where was the us intelligence?

Is iran really a threat?. there are many countries with nuclear reactors.. and it has made its intentions clear.. the us has nuclear reactors right? and nukes? why is that? maybe cz the us is a peaceful country and it would never attack another?

Khaled wrote:
ok some questions to man whore army man...
Do u believe that there were really WMDS in iraq? With all the american intelligence.. we all new there was no such thing even before the invasion.. so why then? to free the people.... of there lives?

Smart bombs.. can they detect bad guys?

Islamic terrorist.. u blame them for everything.. every documentary about alqaeda and taleban shows them as peasant looking, no armor, riding camels or horses or beat up pickups.. how could they conduct a hit like 9/11?thats pretty complicated shit ! maybe they have some top secret underground labs and hide outs.. like the x-files! again where was the us intelligence?

Is iran really a threat?. there are many countries with nuclear reactors.. and it has made its intentions clear.. the us has nuclear reactors right? and nukes? why is that? maybe cz the us is a peaceful country and it would never attack another?

I must admit, I've been warped by American TV because I see Muslims shooting and bombing people all the time. So, I guess I'll ask you since you seem to be closer to the situation.

1. Why does the Muslim religion treat women and gays in such low regards?
2. Why is there so much hate towards Isreal?
3. What do you think will bring stability to the region?
4. Why do most people live in poverty while the sheiks live in golden palaces?
5. What do you propose the US and the UN should do now?

Lincoln

Your listing of examples of collateral damage by the U.S. military bombings is not sufficient proof that the military purposefully targets innocent civiilians. It simple lists cases where civilians were unfortunately caught in the crossfire. Listing bits of facts out of context is the usual modus operandi of conspiracy theorists. Most logical and rational people would see through this. If you really seek the truth then tell the whole story and not just half of it. However, it seems that you already have your mind set on the final outcome of this debate regardless of the facts that an actual U.S. military member gives you. So we are now caught in an endless loop of "yes it is" and "no it isn't" and we are going nowhere. I will say this a final time, It is not official U.S. military policy to kill innocent civilians. Any innocents killed are accidental. Any soldiers caught killing innocent civilians are not tolerated and brought to justice through the military justice system. There are a few soldiers doing hard time already for those that don't believe me.

The reason that we began military operations in Afghanistan is because the Taliban, who were the ruling party at the time, was harboring Al Quaeda and supporting their training camps. Many opportunities were given to them to give up Osama and his crew and stop their support for AQ. Unfortunately, they didn't listen and the U.S. exhausted all their diplomatic options. Military force was inevitable. Read the 9/11 Commission report.

There is a common argument that the U.S. made things worse by the military actions. The U.S. is caught in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I again restate that all other options were unfeasible. I already addressed the reasons why the diplomatic solutions and the UN political solutions were attempted and failed. Most critics are just that, critics. You guys don't offer any viable or realistic solutions.

Finally, I find it laughable that someone from the Britain would have such an interest in U.S. policy and politics when the London subway is being bombed, Muslim extremists preach violence with impunity in public rallies, and there is a growing rise in Islamic extremism. I don't see miltant clerics holding pro Jihadist rallies here in the U.S. You can blame the U.S. all you want but perhaps you should address your own countries liberal policies before you worry about ours.

Hello Khaled

I'm glad that there is a Middle Eastern point of view in this debate. You asked about WMDs in Iraq. The lack of WMDs have been a major criticism against the war in Iraq. I am not sure what the media in your country writes. However, I remember that before the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein actually used WMDs against the Kurds and Shiites during his Anfal campaign. He also used WMDs during the war against Iran. During the laughable and ineffective UN embargo period, he was constantly threatening the U.S. and made references and threats that he possessed and was willing to use WMDs against the U.S. and Israel. This is straight from Saddam himself. Given these facts, the perceived threat was reason enough for the U.S. to be concerned.

The one thing that I criticize the Bush administration for not doing effectively is to adequately explain the reason for military action in Iraq. They used the WMD reason to give an easy answer so that the common populus can digest. However, the real reason is more complex geopolitics. The fact is that the U.S. couldn't afford to ignore a belligerent nation that openly threatens the U.S. after 9/11. Saddam's Iraq was a openly threatening nation that freely shot at U.S. planes that enforced the no fly zone. If left unhindered, your beloved Jordan would be part of Iraq right now along with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

With regard to your Al Quaeda and the Taliban remarks, you state that they are merely peasants and simple people incapable of conducting the 9/11 attacks. I don't know where you got this idea from and I thought you were a smarter man than that. If it is from you local media, then I have lost all respect for it. All the evidence links AQ and their Taliban supporters to 9/11. I don't even think I am going to waste time debating that. AQ are not simple donkey riding peasants. They are a sophisticated and well financed international terror network that utilized modern technology to their advantage with the intent of spreading their extreme Islamic views. Please tell me Khaled, in your world, who really conducted the 9/11 attacks then?

As far as the Iran nuclear situation, Iran may or may not be using their nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. Unless you actually work for the Iranian government, their true intentions are unknown and open to debate. It is this ambiguity that the U.S. is concerned about. Every nation has the right to cheap energy. However, Iran has a hostile history and is openly belligerent toward the U.S. Their true intentions for the reactors are questionable and the U.S has the right to protect ourselves given these facts. They should be watched with a close eye Khaled otherwise you and your fellow Arabs will be speaking Persian soon.

Khaled, I urge you to absorb these facts with a clear mind with logic thought unclouded by your local media and rumor mills. It is through this method that you will find the truth.

In my mind i see that the us has highly sophisticated itelligence organizations and it would be hard to imagine how an operation as 9/11 could be planned and executed without the us knowing.. something like that would need years to plan..
as for our media.. we've got great news channels like for ex. aljazeera and alarabia.. you might of heard of them.. they give great coverage and there not biased, you might wanna watch, i dont know y but on american television arabs and muslims are always portraid as monsters, even when palestenians are being killed daily by the tens they seem to come out as the bad guys, do u see that on ur news?
i think 9/11 gave the us a great excuse to infiltrate the mid-east, invade iraq.. most probably for the oil, bin laden and his family had a great relationship with the us and the bushes, they were buisness associates.. why hasnt he been caught yet? The us isnt even looking for him anymore as i recall yeah? and now its looking for an excuse to attack iran.. iran has always conveyed good intentions toward arabs and muslims.. why should this change now?
ok how about North korea its armed with nuclear weapons, why does the us wanna only negotiate?
Why the blind isrealy support from the us?

Not Another Nguyen! wrote:


I must admit, I've been warped by American TV because I see Muslims shooting and bombing people all the time. So, I guess I'll ask you since you seem to be closer to the situation.

1. Why does the Muslim religion treat women and gays in such low regards?
2. Why is there so much hate towards Isreal?
3. What do you think will bring stability to the region?
4. Why do most people live in poverty while the sheiks live in golden palaces?
5. What do you propose the US and the UN should do now?

1. Women are not treated in low regard.. why would u say that? Gays r treated in low regard because homosexuality is forbidden by islamic teaching as in christian teaching i would think... u probably wouldnt c gays in arabic countries anyway its not that common at all really.. so not really an issue in the mid-east..
2.because isreal was founded by kicking the original citizens of palestine out of there land an homes and replacing them with the isrealy population which were jewish origin who came from different countries mostly from europe.. and by that millions of palestinians became refugees in many other countries.
3. Dont know really.. maybe if isreal gave back some of the land.. maybe if there was less inforcing and more negotiating.
4. U know who sheiks r? they r the equvilant of the president and congress and ruling body of the country like sultans and kings... its a hereditary thing.. not all arab countries have sheiks, mostly the gulf countries.. and theyre very rich countries i dont think they have many poor people there..
But in arabic "sheik" may refer to a religious figure like a minister or priest.. and theyre not rich or live in palaces.. its a religious title.
5. In palestine i think the UN nd us should have inspectors and troops to insure peace.. about iraq, i think the us shouldn't have invaded iraq from the begining.. but as things have already been.. I dont know.. but the chaos should be controlled and the then the us should leave..