Updated: 4:20 p.m. CT April 22, 2007
BAGHDAD - Gunmen in northern Iraq stopped a bus filled with Christians and members of a tiny Kurdish religious sect, police said, separating out the groups and taking 23 of the passengers away to be shot.
The attack came on a violent day in Baghdad, with at least 20 people killed in car bombings, most in a double suicide strike against a police station in a religiously mixed neighborhood.
Yep, we are using the strategy the prez has implied they would in the end have the only democracy on the face of the earth.
China is sending representatives to Cuba?
We are recycling our home guard.
More incidents as unexplainable corruption among our elected leaders.
51% of the females that produce the soldiers of tomorrow chose to be single
The Third Reich scientifically bred their scientist.
We abort ours but we will prevail unless we run out of natives over there.
We have won lets get out of there and concentrate on our ills.
Just because bad things happen doesn't mean we should give up. If that were the case, this city would have been burned down years ago.
Gee, Cubs, I didn't know that all of Tulsa's buildings were constructed from kindling.
Apr 23, 10:04 AM EDT
Suicide bombings around Iraq kill 46
BAGHDAD (AP) -- A suicide car bomb struck a restaurant in Iraq on Monday, killing at least 19 people and wounding 35, police said.
The attack occurred on a highway near Ramadi, a city that is 70 miles west of Baghdad, a policeman said on condition of anonymity out of concern for his own safety.
Three suicide bombers launched attacks in different parts of Iraq on Monday, killing at least 27 people and wounding nearly 60 on Monday, police and politicians said.
A parked car bomb also exploded outside the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, killing one civilian, and a drive-by shooting wounded two guards at Tunisia's Embassy in the capital, police said.
Monday's first suicide car bomb attack occurred near the northern city of Mosul at 10:10 a.m. when a suicide attacker detonated his car in front of an office of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Massoud Barzani, leader of the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq, an official with the group said. At least 10 people were killed and 20 wounded in the attack in Tal Uskuf, a town 9 miles north of Mosul, said Abdul-Ghani Ali, a KDP official.
Its a very tough order to secure oil infrastructure and keep the population under control when the people over there are so backward.
This would be like a group of armed gunmen pulling over a bus, separating all the Assembly of God attendees from the Baptists, and executing one side. [:(!]
The people over in Iraq doing this are still living in the 12th century. I say we just call it, and bring our guys home.
The only other option would be to kill 85% of their population, but the age of empire is over, so that is not an option.
I'm curious to hear from all the "let's just bring em home" crew.
What do you think will happen if we immediately and unconditionally withdraw from the region? I'm betting most of you haven't even bothered to consider the ramifications of that decision.
Or does it even matter to you?
What difference are we making? We aren't stopping them from killing. 30,000 more troops is a joke in a nation of 25,000,000 in a civil war. We are supporting a government filled with our enemies that is heavily influenced by our enemy Iran and training police that often become death squads.
I say we pull back to the north creating a new nation there for the Kurds. We leave some troop presence to protect the Kurds (and keep them from hitting Turkey) and call it a day. When both sides hate you in a civil war you have no business standing in the middle. The Iraqi people overwhelmingly want us to leave, we should do as they ask. Hold a vote if you must on our going so we can save face.
We started the war, and we should not have, but it's not our war anymore.
quote:
I say we pull back to the north creating a new nation there for the Kurds. We leave some troop presence to protect the Kurds (and keep them from hitting Turkey) and call it a day. When both sides hate you in a civil war you have no business standing in the middle. The Iraqi people overwhelmingly want us to leave, we should do as they ask. Hold a vote if you must on our going so we can save face.
The Kurds aren't interested in that; they've stated as much already. The current president of Iraq is Talabani, a Kurd, said he's not interested in an independent Kurdistan any longer.
So, the question is, are you prepared to have another Taliban type regime in charge of a major ME country? More oil resources than they could ever have imagined in Afghanistan...and the only way to keep that oil away from the militant freaks is to have a secularized democracy in that country.
Do you mind a Taliban-like power taking over Iraq?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I say we pull back to the north creating a new nation there for the Kurds. We leave some troop presence to protect the Kurds (and keep them from hitting Turkey) and call it a day. When both sides hate you in a civil war you have no business standing in the middle. The Iraqi people overwhelmingly want us to leave, we should do as they ask. Hold a vote if you must on our going so we can save face.
The Kurds aren't interested in that; they've stated as much already. The current president of Iraq is Talabani, a Kurd, said he's not interested in an independent Kurdistan any longer.
So, the question is, are you prepared to have another Taliban type regime in charge of a major ME country? More oil resources than they could ever have imagined in Afghanistan...and the only way to keep that oil away from the militant freaks is to have a secularized democracy in that country.
Do you mind a Taliban-like power taking over Iraq?
The Taliban's style of Islam has no pull in Iraq, and the Sunnis (which is what the Taliban are a sect of) are NOT in control anyway.
Iran is far scarier than the Taliban and we already have served Iraq up on a platter to them. The government of Iraq might as well have been chosen by the Ayatollahs, in some ways they were.
Better Iran has to fight the Sunni insurgents than us doing it for them.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What do you think will happen if we immediately and unconditionally withdraw from the region? I'm betting most of you haven't even bothered to consider the ramifications of that decision.
^
Oh more of the same....!
A parked car bomb also exploded outside the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, killing one civilian, and a drive-by shooting wounded two guards at Tunisia’s Embassy, the A.P. said, citing police.
On Sunday, Sunni Arabs in Mosul executed 23 members of a small religious sect, known as Yezidis.
The Yezidis, who are most numerous in the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq, practice an offshoot of Islam that combines some Muslim teachings with those of ancient Persian religion.
At least 60 people died Sunday in Iraq, with 18 killed by car bombs in Baghdad. Eleven bodies were found in the capital and five in the city of Kut, to the south.
But the most chilling attack was the one in Mosul. It followed the marriage in early April of a Sunni Arab man and a woman from the Yezidi faith, the police said.
The police said that when the woman married, she converted to Islam, which angered some of the Yezidis. She was kidnapped and as she was being brought back to her tribe, a crowd gathered and stoned her to death, said Brig. Gen. Muhammad al-Waqa of the Mosul police.
The Surge is [Not] Working?
Tell that to this soldier:
http://drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
Let's not take his word for it though. I think we need more opinions from back seat drivers on foreign policy and military affairs.
quote:
The Taliban's style of Islam has no pull in Iraq, and the Sunnis (which is what the Taliban are a sect of) are NOT in control anyway.
Thanks for the primer on islamic sectarianism. Maybe I should have underlined the word Taliban-
like. Personally I don't care for either flavor. What makes you think the Sunni brand of islam, which by the way is what has been in power for the last 40 years, is somehow unpopular in Iraq? I think Saudi Arabia would disagree with you...
The Shia majority ran by Sadr would be as friendly, if not more so, to terrorist elements in the region as Saddam was. A balance of power is the only viable solution for long-term stability.
The only way to
guarantee a balance of power NEVER exists is to withdraw.
quote:
Iran is far scarier than the Taliban and we already have served Iraq up on a platter to them. The government of Iraq might as well have been chosen by the Ayatollahs, in some ways they were.
So since you've acknowledged that, are you're willing to let them take it? I can assure you that any regime ran by Iran will be as equally detestable as any Taliban regime ever was...
quote:
yeah and i got a qoute for that dude harry reid. these families need us here.
Beautiful!
In an recent ABC poll of Iraqis, 78% want us out. Over half support attacks on US troops.
The American people want us out, the Iraqi people want us out. We've already installed a government this is at least very friendly to Iran and at worst is just a puppet of Iran.
The damage is already done. We broke the egg and can't put it back together again. Saddam was valuable to us as a counter weight to Iran even as he was our enemy. And being in Iraq only serves to make the shaky Iranian government stronger by scaring the Iranian population and playing into the conservatives hands there. If we had not invaded Iraq it is likely that the hardliners would no longer be in control in Iran.
quote:
In an recent ABC poll of Iraqis, 78% want us out. Over half support attacks on US troops.
President Jalal Talabani said coalition troops should remain in the country until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."
The Iraqi people are caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. WE abandoned them after GWI and let Saddam murder 50,000 Shia in the south. They are inherently distrusting of the US, in that they have been burned before.
These people get fed nonsense from local clerics, and people like Sadr on a daily basis, so your implicit assumption that they think they are somehow better able to control the siutation once we are gone is a foolish. They regurgitate the nonsense they are fed.
The thugs who want control of that country want us out, and for good reason.
quote:
The American people want us out, the Iraqi people want us out. We've already installed a government this is at least very friendly to Iran and at worst is just a puppet of Iran.
Oh, we "installed" them...funny, I remember them being voted in...
quote:
The damage is already done. We broke the egg and can't put it back together again. Saddam was valuable to us as a counter weight to Iran even as he was our enemy.
What counter weight. He didn't have WMDs remember, and his army was a joke?
And how revolting that you would allow the people of Iraq to be kept under the thumb of a madman just so you can keep Iran at a distance. The man gassed thousands of innocent people, murdered hundreds of thousands, funding and protecting terrorists, and was still amassing banned weapons, and you're willing to let him continue just to keep Iran in check, which he wasn't able to do anymore... Simply disgusting.
quote:
And being in Iraq only serves to make the shaky Iranian government stronger by scaring the Iranian population and playing into the conservatives hands there.
Nice opinion, but do you have anything to back this up? Even with the invasion, the young people are still pro-American, so I don't see where you're getting this.
quote:
If we had not invaded Iraq it is likely that the hardliners would no longer be in control in Iran.
Do you have ANYTHING to back this up? Please don't bother linking to the Dailykos or Olbermann.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
Do you mind a Taliban-like power taking over Iraq?
The fact that they--a Taliban-like power--could take over Iraq just goes to show how completely ignorant, backward, helpless the region is. There's nothing we can do for them.
We are there to secure oil, and to try and prop up a democratic government that will provide less uncertaintity in the oil markets.
It isn't working.
If we leave, then yes, things will get worse over there. But if we stay, we simply continue to bleed money and lives.
I don't have all the answers, but I wish we could get out, but I know there is a bigger picture here concerning energy reserves.
Iplaw translation: "The current policy is a failure, but I want to keep doing it anyway."
With advice like that, who needs enemies?
Sheesh.
quote:
The fact that they--a Taliban-like power--could take over Iraq just goes to show how completely ignorant, backward, helpless the region is. There's nothing we can do for them.
Then how do you explain the Kurdish people? They seemed to create a working democracy even in the midst of the Saddam regime. They have religious elements within their ranks, yet they've figured it out somehow.
quote:
We are there to secure oil, and to try and prop up a democratic government that will provide less uncertaintity in the oil markets.
QuoteThis certainly is not the main reason, but nontheless as strong corollary reason. Do you think it's not a justifiable reason?
Quote
If we leave, then yes, things will get worse over there. But if we stay, we simply continue to bleed money and lives.
I don't have all the answers, but I wish we could get out, but I know there is a bigger picture here concerning energy reserves.
Well, those are two distinct issues, and both are important. Pulling out seems to be the most reprehensible choice given the outcome that is certain, and that you even acknowledge.
Just because it's easy or good for the pocket book doesn't make it right, in fact, it makes it quite selfish.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Iplaw translation: "The current policy is a failure, but I want to keep doing it anyway."
With advice like that, who needs enemies?
Sheesh.
Reading comprehension not your bag? You're right, that's just what I said. Nice drive-by bomb. Typical.
Iplaw, you've pretty much shown that you're a zombie to the failure that is the current administration and, because of that, you have no credibility.
Time to stop being in denial.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Iplaw, you've pretty much shown that you're a zombie to the failure that is the current administration and, because of that, you have no credibility.
Time to stop being in denial.
So says the bomb thrower who doesn't engage in debate...Time for you to stop towing the moveon.org and Cindy Sheehan propaganda line.
B-b-b-b-but...saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11...but....but...but. No war for oil, free Tibet.
I've never said anything about war for oil. I can't even remember the last time I've been on moveon.org. I don't care about Cindy Sheehan.
Don't lie about me.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I've never said anything about war for oil. I can't even remember the last time I've been on moveon.org. I don't care about Cindy Sheehan.
Don't lie about me.
Oh come on. I know you want some of that anti-war, hate-bush action...[;)]
And whether you realize it or not you parrot them as if you were getting the dailykos delivered to your email daily...
I expected a real discussion, and I get news clippings of bad things happening in Iraq?
33 people in Virginia a few days ago. I suppose we should stop funding their police.
Such examples are worthless. If you want to [complain], try to come up with a better way of doing things.
[edit]removed female dog[\edit]
That's a onetime thing in VT. That kind of crap happens in Iraq EVERY DANGED DAY and then some.
Yes, I understand that. I did not argue that the current situation is a peach in Iraq. I simply said that anecdotal posting of random events do not clarify the situation. Are these events worse and more frequent than before? Is life worse for the average Iraqi? Have the asshats had to chose softer targets? Is the violence moving to areas not covered by the plan? Is there a plan anticipating whatever is happening and a way to solve it?
No important question is answered by such stories. Think of the headline on any given day in WWII: American Soldiers Die Again Today. It could have been the day we crossed the Rhine or won Iwo. Who knows. The story by itself, while true, does not necessarily give the big picture. And the big picture is usually more important than a single event.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
That's a onetime thing in VT. That kind of crap happens in Iraq EVERY DANGED DAY and then some.
Any car bombs gone off here in the states the last four or five years? Thank a soldier for that and your president for there being soldiers making sure it doesn't happen in the future.
Would you say we will ever be able to walk down the streets of Iraq when our solders kill the 14 year old girls family, raped her, then killed her.
Punishment would never be justified in the Iraqis eyes.
We have entered into a holy civil war that has gone on for centuries and the longer we remain there the more hatred they will have for us. They are intelligent people who have only one thing in mind. "Kill the infidels" It is time to leave as the policing of their country should have never happened by us.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Would you say we will ever be able to walk down the streets of Iraq when our solders kill the 14 year old girls family, raped her, then killed her.
Punishment would never be justified in the Iraqis eyes.
We have entered into a holy civil war that has gone on for centuries and the longer we remain there the more hatred they will have for us. They are intelligent people who have only one thing in mind. "Kill the infidels" It is time to leave as the policing of their country should have never happened by us.
Per usual, I can't tell what the hell you're saying.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Yes, I understand that. I did not argue that the current situation is a peach in Iraq. I simply said that anecdotal posting of random events do not clarify the situation. Are these events worse and more frequent than before? Is life worse for the average Iraqi? Have the asshats had to chose softer targets? Is the violence moving to areas not covered by the plan? Is there a plan anticipating whatever is happening and a way to solve it?
No important question is answered by such stories. Think of the headline on any given day in WWII: American Soldiers Die Again Today. It could have been the day we crossed the Rhine or won Iwo. Who knows. The story by itself, while true, does not necessarily give the big picture. And the big picture is usually more important than a single event.
Well stated, questioning the war, the motives of W, it's connection to the WOT, none of these are germaine to the discussion of where to go from here. I have a couple of things to add.
The only pertinant question that remains, seeing as how we are already involved, is: Are we prepared to live with the aftermath once we abandon Iraq?
I say that if you give a damn about the Iraqi people you can't abandon them to the bloodbath awaiting our departure. Simply pretending that we can discard Iraq and abandon them as we did in GWI is foolish. If there is one ABSOLUTE way to guarantee that Iraqis NEVER trust the Americans again it's to abondon them again, and the only way to guarantee that a secular democracy NEVER takes root is to walk away right now.
Can anyone explain to me how walking away DOESN'T guarantee totalitarian/sectarian leadership, and how can walking away possibly keep oil out of the hands of our enemies?
These two questions MUST be addressed, and not flippantly, before we talk about leaving.
Thats the only way they win...If we walk away.....The only thing that will work is a long term occupation....Coupled with training and turning over security to local government entities...With the US there to help when problems arise....It all starts with educating the children.....
quote:
They are intelligent people who have only one thing in mind. "Kill the infidels"
That is a minority and extremist view throughout the Middle East. Most people want to wake up, grab some coffee, go to work, come home and see their wife and kids. They want their children to live a better life than they did. They want to go on vacation from time to time. They want to worship as they see fit. In short, they want to be happy.
Most people arent all that different. Iraqi's (and Iranians for that matter) are no different. Extremists amongst them are winning the day and the situation is breeding more extremists. The best chance to break this spiral was to stop it before it started immediately after that war. We didnt. Where do we go now?
Immediately withdrawal will placate our masses by leave the people that just want to be happy to suffer for it.
quote:
Immediately withdrawal will placate our masses by leave the people that just want to be happy to suffer for it.
Couldn't have said it better.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Yes, I understand that. I did not argue that the current situation is a peach in Iraq. I simply said that anecdotal posting of random events do not clarify the situation. Are these events worse and more frequent than before? Is life worse for the average Iraqi? Have the asshats had to chose softer targets? Is the violence moving to areas not covered by the plan? Is there a plan anticipating whatever is happening and a way to solve it?
No important question is answered by such stories. Think of the headline on any given day in WWII: American Soldiers Die Again Today. It could have been the day we crossed the Rhine or won Iwo. Who knows. The story by itself, while true, does not necessarily give the big picture. And the big picture is usually more important than a single event.
Well stated, questioning the war, the motives of W, it's connection to the WOT, none of these are germaine to the discussion of where to go from here. I have a couple of things to add.
The only pertinant question that remains, seeing as how we are already involved, is: Are we prepared to live with the aftermath once we abandon Iraq?
I say that if you give a damn about the Iraqi people you can't abandon them to the bloodbath awaiting our departure. Simply pretending that we can discard Iraq and abandon them as we did in GWI is foolish. If there is one ABSOLUTE way to guarantee that Iraqis NEVER trust the Americans again it's to abondon them again, and the only way to guarantee that a secular democracy NEVER takes root is to walk away right now.
Can anyone explain to me how walking away DOESN'T guarantee totalitarian/sectarian leadership, and how can walking away possibly keep oil out of the hands of our enemies?
These two questions MUST be addressed, and not flippantly, before we talk about leaving.
Senator Law... Maybe a little off the beaten path of this wonderful Q and A...
Are you of an age to have been around say in 1969? To have heard the arguments and so forth for not leaving Viet Nam.?
Have you ever been in a Guerilla warfars situation?
We are in denial if we don't think there is a civil war occurring. I supported the war initially, but I had no idea the incompetence and stubborness of Rumsfield. His Shock and Awe will go down as one of the biggest mistakes. Enough troops to topple the regime, not enough troops to occupy a country. I'd much rather have adhered to Powell's doctrine of overwhelming force. Because of the incompetence exhibited by Rumsfield and the arrogance of this administration, we failed to protect the Iraqi people and now they don't trust us enough to side with us against the insurgents. Enough troops and Sadr wouldn't have been able to go into the slums of Baghdad and create havoc and he wouldn't have the power he has today.
We can't stop a civil war. And we certainly don't need to be in the middle of it. One option may be to pull back to Kurdistan and let the civil war happen without us being a target. We'll have to wait this civil war out until passion has died down and rational thoughts and steps can be taken. Establish bases outside of the cities so that we are close enough to strike when we see Al Qaeda but not insert ourselves in their civil war. Until then, all we can do it be close enough to fight if we see Al Qaeda come out of the shadows. We can't leave the ME now, but we can't be in the middle of this civil war either.
quote:
Senator Law... Maybe a little off the beaten path of this wonderful Q and A...
Are you of an age to have been around say in 1969? To have heard the arguments and so forth for not leaving Viet Nam.?
Have you ever been in a Guerilla warfars situation?
[/size=2]
Neither of those questions are of any import to this discussion. Now, if you want to start a thread which attempts to compare Iraq to Vietnam, feel free, and I will be more than happy to discuss it there. If not, please stay on topic.
Al-Qaida group claims killing of 9 GIs in Iraq
Worst attack on ground forces in Iraq in more than a year
Associated Press
Updated: 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web statement Tuesday claiming responsibility for a suicide car bombing that killed nine U.S. paratroopers and wounded 20 in the worst attack on American ground forces in Iraq in more than a year.
The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group of Sunni militants that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, said it was behind Monday's attack on a U.S. patrol base in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad — an area that has seen a spike in violence since American troops surged into the capital to halt violence there.
quote:
I supported the war initially, but I had no idea the incompetence and stubborness of Rumsfield. His Shock and Awe will go down as one of the biggest mistakes. Enough troops to topple the regime, not enough troops to occupy a country. I'd much rather have adhered to Powell's doctrine of overwhelming force. Because of the incompetence exhibited by Rumsfield and the arrogance of this administration...
Again, interesting take, but of no importance to the discussion.
quote:
we failed to protect the Iraqi people and now they don't trust us enough to side with us against the insurgents. Enough troops and Sadr wouldn't have been able to go into the slums of Baghdad and create havoc and he wouldn't have the power he has today.
I partially agree with you here, though I don't agree that they are siding with the insurgents, especially not because we didn't drop a big enough hammer.
quote:
We can't stop a civil war. And we certainly don't need to be in the middle of it.
Depends on whether you think innocents in Iraq are worth protecting...
quote:
One option may be to pull back to Kurdistan and let the civil war happen without us being a target. We'll have to wait this civil war out until passion has died down and rational thoughts and steps can be taken. Establish bases outside of the cities so that we are close enough to strike when we see Al Qaeda but not insert ourselves in their civil war. Until then, all we can do it be close enough to fight if we see Al Qaeda come out of the shadows. We can't leave the ME now, but we can't be in the middle of this civil war either.
I hate to disagree, but this simply isn't a civil war. Far too few are involved for it to be a civil war. Outside forces are fighting for control of Iraq, for both its oil and its land. The sectarian violence is being driven by Al Qaeda on one side, and Sadr and the Shia on the other.
Sectarian violence is being used as a ruse by Al Qaeda to get us out of the picture because they know it's the only way to get us out.
Stabilizing Iraq would mean adding at least half a million US Troops, getting rid of the democratically elected government, sealing the borders and really occupying a hostile Iraqi populace and doing it for a decade or more until real social structures and institutions are built. In the process we will alienate the Iraqi people and the entire region if not world. It would cost tens of thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Al-Qaida group claims killing of 9 GIs in Iraq
Worst attack on ground forces in Iraq in more than a year
Associated Press
Updated: 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web statement Tuesday claiming responsibility for a suicide car bombing that killed nine U.S. paratroopers and wounded 20 in the worst attack on American ground forces in Iraq in more than a year.
The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group of Sunni militants that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, said it was behind Monday's attack on a U.S. patrol base in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad — an area that has seen a spike in violence since American troops surged into the capital to halt violence there.
Let me quote CF:
I simply said that anecdotal posting of random events do not clarify the situation.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Al-Qaida group claims killing of 9 GIs in Iraq
Worst attack on ground forces in Iraq in more than a year
Associated Press
Updated: 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web statement Tuesday claiming responsibility for a suicide car bombing that killed nine U.S. paratroopers and wounded 20 in the worst attack on American ground forces in Iraq in more than a year.
The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group of Sunni militants that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, said it was behind Monday's attack on a U.S. patrol base in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad — an area that has seen a spike in violence since American troops surged into the capital to halt violence there.
Let me quote CF:
I simply said that anecdotal posting of random events do not clarify the situation.
And I think nine American dead soldiers in the worst attack in a year should not be ignored as "anecdotal". In fact, to say that is simply offensive.
quote:
Stabilizing Iraq would mean adding at least half a million US Troops
Says who?
quote:
getting rid of the democratically elected government
Why?
quote:
sealing the borders
Agreed.
quote:
and really occupying a hostile Iraqi populace and doing it for a decade or more until real social structures and institutions are built.
The Iraqi populace is NOT HOSTILE. I don't know where you get your information from, but the Iraqi people aren't the ones who are blowing up civilans and the US/Iraqi military, it's the militant extremists that are infiltrating from other areas, and the remaining Baathist elements.
quote:
In the process we will alienate the Iraqi people and the entire region if not world.
And you think leaving them to be slaughtered via genocide and sectarian violence will endear them to us. You must be joking...
quote:
It would cost tens of thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars.
So did WWII, and it was worth it was it not?
quote:
And I think nine American dead soldiers in the worst attack in a year should not be ignored as "anecdotal". In fact, to say that is simply offensive.
No one is saying that it isn't a tragedy nor that it should be ignored. Take your "outrage" somewhere else.
Anecdotal: refers to evidence based on reports of specific individual cases rather than a broader spectrum of research such as controlled, clinical studies or prolonged inquiry.
A single attack or a day of attacks that kills American soldiers (or anyone else) is, while tragic, the definition of anecdotal evidence to the current state of affairs in Iraq. The English language is wide ranging and varied because it has evolved to allow an individual to speak with a great degree of specificity in meaning. If you are part of the grumbling mass that chooses to ignore that fact and instead assign obscure meanings to all words; have at it. But please do not attempt to say I am somehow callus towards our troops because of your ignorance.
This would segway nicely into a discussion of how not everyone that dies is a 'hero,' but I digress...
Cut the crap, iplaw. The anecdotes are relevant because it makes clear that the "surge," or whatever you call it, isn't working. Just because you "say" they're not relevant doesn't make it so. Instead, you don't want to face up to the reality that the occupation is a failure. Instead, you want to stay the course on what's a failure and keep digging for a pony.
Again, you're ignoring that genocide and a civil war are already happening in Iraq, and have been for some time. And that's with us there.
I swear, you're like Baghdad Bob -- sticking to your empty slogans even when reality is on your doorstep.
I really don't get where loss of American soldiers equates to us losing the war.
I would never discount the value of a single soldier's life, but every single person who enlists in the U.S. Armed Forces realizes, they may have to make the ultimate sacrifice someday protecting people in a foreign land or carrying out our own national security.
Virtually every war victory in human history has come with a loss of life to the victor.
Trying to compare Iraq to Viet Nam is ludicrous, but that is the only war that the present Democratic leadership can remember, and most of them were protestors of that conflict as well when they were pot-smoking hippies in the 1960's.
The troops in Viet Nam were largely reluctant draftee's. The troops in Iraq have volunteered their time and lives.
As far as troops killed in Iraq vs. Viet Nam, the numbers speak for themselves.
You can shrug off the notion that taking the war to the ME keeps terrorists busy there instead of plotting attacks on U.S. soil, but the plan seems to have worked so far.
The administration screwed up by not listening to the generals before we went in as to how many troops we needed to make this a successful mission. Why not let those trained in military leadership determine what is needed there and what constitutes a victory instead of Harry Reid.
<Conan wrote:
Why not let those trained in military leadership determine what is needed there and what constitutes a victory instead of Harry Reid.
<end clip>
Patreaus (don't remember how to spell his name) pretty much is the only one who thought anything is remotely salvagable, and even he has toned down his optimism in recent weeks. The other generals won't take charge because the administration can't or won't commit to the number of troops to do the job, or the generals think it's a lost cause.
As far as saying that only peaceniks are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, that's not true. Look at this report, with video from CNN:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/23/a_soldier_in_iraq_says_war_cant_be_won_his_comrades_call_it_our_vietnam
quote:
Cut the crap, iplaw. The anecdotes are relevant because it makes clear that the "surge," or whatever you call it, isn't working. Just because you "say" they're not relevant doesn't make it so. Instead, you don't want to face up to the reality that the occupation is a failure. Instead, you want to stay the course on what's a failure and keep digging for a pony.
You couldn't be more wrong, surprise, surprise...What really counts is what the troops on the gound are saying first and foremost, secondly a solid statistical analysis of the situation but such a comprehensive evaluation will be difficult to obtain as the surge is in its infancy relatively speaking.
Yahoos like you were ready to call the surge a failure before boots hit the ground, and I can recycle your posts if you'd like to read your own words.
You're doing nothing more than using these stories and thereby the troops as political footballs.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<Conan wrote:
Why not let those trained in military leadership determine what is needed there and what constitutes a victory instead of Harry Reid.
<end clip>
Patreaus (don't remember how to spell his name) pretty much is the only one who thought anything is remotely salvagable, and even he has toned down his optimism in recent weeks. The other generals won't take charge because the administration can't or won't commit to the number of troops to do the job, or the generals think it's a lost cause.
As far as saying that only peaceniks are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, that's not true. Look at this report, with video from CNN:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/23/a_soldier_in_iraq_says_war_cant_be_won_his_comrades_call_it_our_vietnam
Lol...CNN you make me laugh.....
Also, comparisons to Vietnam are absurd and uneducated, no matter who makes them. I don't recall him giving any analysis as to why he thinks that it's true. If you'd like to give us your argument as to why you think it's like Vietnam, go ahead, as I said before, we can have a discussion on the Iraq/Vietnam issue, but please start another thread.
More to the point, I could post 10 links to stories of soldiers that would disagree with this guy. So what? Does that prove anything? Not damn thing. It simply shows that soldiers, like everyone else, have opinions. They are NOT machines that operate in the world of automata.
For every story you or swake post, someone else can post one that discredits it. Where is that going to get us? Nowhere.
This is exactly what CF was getting at. These stories are just that, stories and opinion. But to treat these as gospel truth just because the story or the soldier happens to agree with you is ignorant.
I didn't treat it as gospel truth; it's just another anecdote to add to the discussion.
And, again, name-calling shows that you've lost the argument.
RW, some liberal blogger's interpretation of the comments is hardly swaying me.
One Sgt. and his unit out of how many troops? Wonder if he's comparing it to Viet Nam because of a bunch of less-educated people on the matters of war and national security back home are spitting on what accomplishments they have made?
Doubts if we can win it? Let's hear that from a high ranking officer not an enlisted man.
What about these comments:
"In fairness, he does say that we are the "buffer" right now and that he fears a pullout may be disastrous. But he also adds that in the event of withdrawal...
The people that were against us, and they're the majority, they're gonna I believe ultimately win. And that's unfortunate"
And here's another diff. Viet Nam never sent operatives to destroy American buildings and kill American people on our turf. Extremist Muslims did. Who are we fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Extremist Muslims.
Yep. Booo hooo, I'm a big meanie-poopoo head...I get it already...
And did I call you a name?
Even if I did, if I was to tell you 2+2=4 and called you a moron for thinking 2+2=5, would I still be wrong? Just think about it.
That's not all:
Good friends of ours have a son who is seving in Iraq. Fortunately, he is okay so far and will be coming home in a few months. Through the miracle of modern communications he talks to his parents a couple of times a week. Here is what his parents say their son and other soldiers think about the extension of tours of duty recently foisted upon them by the Bush Administration.
"No one knows why we are here, we're not doing any good."
"How can we win when the Iraqi people don't seem to care."
and my favorite,
"We are ready to lynch Republicans."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/83414/5303
One last question. It is now indisputable that Al-Qaeda elements from Afghanistan are working inside Iraq, as they have claimed responsibilty for the 9 death yesterday.
Those who say that we are abdicating our duty to go after those who perpetrated 9/11 also say that Iraq was a distraction from fighting Al-Qaeda.
Now that Al-Qaeda is clearly in Iraq, as it was immediately following the war in Afghanistan as Saddam accepted Taliban rejects with open arms, should we not be fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Would we not be abdicating our duty to fight those who perpetrated 9/11 yet again by leaving Al-Qaeda uncontested in Iraq?
From the "Daily Show"
George W. Bush, January 2006: "There's progress. And it's important progress and it's an important part of our strategy to win in Iraq."
Bush, November 2005: "Iraq is making incredible political progress."
Bush, October 2005: "Iraqis are making inspiring progress."
Bush, September 2005: "Iraq has made incredible political progress."
Bush, April 2005: "I believe we're making good progress in Iraq."
Bush, March 2005: "We're making progress."
Bush, September 2004: "We're making steady progress."
Bush, July 2003: "We're making progress. It's slowly but surely making progress."
Actually, y'know what I think the president's problem is? Perhaps his definition of the word "progress." I have the reference book he uses when he doesn't know what a word means: Mistaken P. Wrongingston's Diktionary of English. Let's see...ah, here we are. "Progress: Chaos caused by one's own incompetence that's portrayed as the result of others' malfeasance."
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
That's not all:
Good friends of ours have a son who is seving in Iraq. Fortunately, he is okay so far and will be coming home in a few months. Through the miracle of modern communications he talks to his parents a couple of times a week. Here is what his parents say their son and other soldiers think about the extension of tours of duty recently foisted upon them by the Bush Administration.
"No one knows why we are here, we're not doing any good."
"How can we win when the Iraqi people don't seem to care."
and my favorite,
"We are ready to lynch Republicans."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/83414/5303
OMG, you can't possibly be this
DENSE. How many more stories are you going to post dear Rwarn?
Also, I thought you didn't read the dailykos?
Oh boy, and the Daily Show too!! You're too much!
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I didn't treat it as gospel truth; it's just another anecdote to add to the discussion.
And, again, name-calling shows that you've lost the argument.
Your starting to sound like Alt...Any relation there....
Answer to iplaw's question:
You can fight al-Qaida with quick-strike attacks, plus Iraqis in general don't like al-Qaida very much. Most of the violence in Iraq is sectarian, not terrorist.
Besides, starting a war that didn't have anything to do with 9/11 *helped* al-Qaida at a time when it was reeling.
I didn't say anything about DailyKos, iplaw. Check with the post. Don't lie again.
I also read Batesline and Andrew Sullivan, which aren't exactly what you would call liberal blogs.
quote:
You can fight al-Qaida with quick-strike attacks, plus Iraqis in general don't like al-Qaida very much. Most of the violence in Iraq is sectarian, not terrorist.
What brand of crack are you smoking. Al-Qaeda IS the SUNNI part of the sectarian violence happening right now.
quote:
Besides, starting a war that didn't have anything to do with 9/11 *helped* al-Qaida at a time when it was reeling.
Really? By attacking a country that was giving safe harbor to Al-Qaeda fugitives.
What the hell is this then:
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
That's not all:
Good friends of ours have a son who is seving in Iraq. Fortunately, he is okay so far and will be coming home in a few months. Through the miracle of modern communications he talks to his parents a couple of times a week. Here is what his parents say their son and other soldiers think about the extension of tours of duty recently foisted upon them by the Bush Administration.
"No one knows why we are here, we're not doing any good."
"How can we win when the Iraqi people don't seem to care."
and my favorite,
"We are ready to lynch Republicans."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/83414/5303
You mentioned DailyKos after I already responded to something else. I didn't mention it, not did I deny it. You're making it sound like I denied it.
Stop lying.
Stop embarassing yourself by linking to the dailykos. I didn't make you link to that, nor did I make you read it and think it worth posting.
I'm not embarrassed by it. It's a good story.
I'd be a lot more embarrassed, frankly, by continually defending a disastrous foreign policy.
People in this country dislike the war by a wide margin. You're the one who's out of touch.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I'm not embarrassed by it. It's a good story.
I'd be a lot more embarrassed, frankly, by continually defending a disastrous foreign policy.
People in this country dislike the war by a wide margin. You're the one who's out of touch.
Keep quoting the dailykos and keep embarassing yourself. Linking to loony-left propaganda sites will get you no credibility with anyone.
Now if you'd like to continue discussing the topic at hand, please carry on. If not, stop flaming and move on.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Stop embarassing yourself by linking to the dailykos. I didn't make you link to that, nor did I make you read it and think it worth posting.
so types the man that demands sources, yet provides none of his own.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Stop embarassing yourself by linking to the dailykos. I didn't make you link to that, nor did I make you read it and think it worth posting.
so types the man that demands sources, yet provides none of his own.
What would you like a source on? I'll be more than happy to provide a source for anything you want.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by guido11The Surge is [Not] Working?
Tell that to this soldier:
http://drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
Let's not take his word for it though. I think we need more opinions from back seat drivers on foreign policy and military affairs.
Originally posted by iplaw
More to the point, I could post 10 links to stories of soldiers that would disagree with this guy. So what? Does that prove anything? Not damn thing. It simply shows that soldiers, like everyone else, have opinions. They are NOT machines that operate in the world of automata.
You need to give that information to guido... That guy posts more messages from soldiers trying to goad people on here more than anyone else.
Yeah, you're right. The "I can find a soldier" pissing contest needs to stop...
quote:
The Kurds aren't interested in that; they've stated as much already. The current president of Iraq is Talabani, a Kurd, said he's not interested in an independent Kurdistan any longer.
So, the question is, are you prepared to have another Taliban type regime in charge of a major ME country? More oil resources than they could ever have imagined in Afghanistan...and the only way to keep that oil away from the militant freaks is to have a secularized democracy in that country.
Do you mind a Taliban-like power taking over Iraq?
fallacious argument.
quote:
Thanks for the primer on islamic sectarianism. Maybe I should have underlined the word Taliban-like. Personally I don't care for either flavor. What makes you think the Sunni brand of islam, which by the way is what has been in power for the last 40 years, is somehow unpopular in Iraq? I think Saudi Arabia would disagree with you...
The Shia majority ran by Sadr would be as friendly, if not more so, to terrorist elements in the region as Saddam was. A balance of power is the only viable solution for long-term stability.
The only way to guarantee a balance of power NEVER exists is to withdraw.
So since you've acknowledged that, are you're willing to let them take it? I can assure you that any regime ran by Iran will be as equally detestable as any Taliban regime ever was...
see above.
quote:
President Jalal Talabani said coalition troops should remain in the country until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."
The Iraqi people are caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. WE abandoned them after GWI and let Saddam murder 50,000 Shia in the south. They are inherently distrusting of the US, in that they have been burned before.
These people get fed nonsense from local clerics, and people like Sadr on a daily basis, so your implicit assumption that they think they are somehow better able to control the siutation once we are gone is a foolish. They regurgitate the nonsense they are fed.
The thugs who want control of that country want us out, and for good reason.
Oh, we "installed" them...funny, I remember them being voted in...
What counter weight. He didn't have WMDs remember, and his army was a joke?
And how revolting that you would allow the people of Iraq to be kept under the thumb of a madman just so you can keep Iran at a distance. The man gassed thousands of innocent people, murdered hundreds of thousands, funding and protecting terrorists, and was still amassing banned weapons, and you're willing to let him continue just to keep Iran in check, which he wasn't able to do anymore... Simply disgusting.
Nice opinion, but do you have anything to back this up? Even with the invasion, the young people are still pro-American, so I don't see where you're getting this.
Do you have ANYTHING to back this up? Please don't bother linking to the Dailykos or Olbermann.
yet more fallacious arguments. providing sources for the quotes in bold, please.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
That's not all:
Good friends of ours have a son who is seving in Iraq. Fortunately, he is okay so far and will be coming home in a few months. Through the miracle of modern communications he talks to his parents a couple of times a week. Here is what his parents say their son and other soldiers think about the extension of tours of duty recently foisted upon them by the Bush Administration.
"No one knows why we are here, we're not doing any good."
"How can we win when the Iraqi people don't seem to care."
and my favorite,
"We are ready to lynch Republicans."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/83414/5303
Oh, for a second there, I thought you were posting a first-hand anecdote about the war, not something made up by a blogger named "angry democrat."
Sorry to dog you, but it's just not very compelling.
I believe this is going nowhere. I have cousins, friends, and classmates that are, were and will be in Afghanistan/Iraqi theaters. I'm proud to say that.
I'm also proud that they all have various opinions on the war. Every person who has served that I have talked to has made one point: things are not going well, but they are going better than the media portrays it. Schools are being built, roads repaired, and power plants reopened. After 2 months of good days some asshat comes along and blows up all the progress and a few people while he is at it.
I am well acquainted with the soldiers perspective, from personal accounts of people I have known for years, people I barely know, and stories I have read like the ones you posted. All together they give many different accounts and insights in to the goings on. However, those that have served more than one tour will tell you parts of Baghdad are like being in Compton in a bad movie while Kurdistan "is almost civilized." Different tours, different soldiers, and different season all bring different experiences. Any one, or any one side, fails to present the entire picture.
Google Fight says there is nearly twice as much good news as bad.
None of that means anything. In spite of my repeated pleas no one has provided a viable alternative or even their views on it. You just keep posting link after link. Dont make IP spam stories from:
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
or
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/02/the_good_news_from_iraq_is_not_fit_to_print/
Everyone knows bad things happen in Iraq. We know that. No one is arguing that point. We want to know how to STOP those things from happening or if you think it isnt worth stopping.
quote:
fallacious argument.
You know. You don't get any points for saying "fallacious argument," you actually have to explain WHY it's fallacious.quote:
see above.
I suggest you do the same.I will address each point with original source material:
What makes you think the Sunni brand of islam, which by the way is what has been in power for the last 40 years, is somehow unpopular in Iraq? I think Saudi Arabia would disagree with you...I really don't know what your concern with this quote is. The Baath party is, and has always been Sunni.
But a key feature should be to split up the Sunni Arab insurgency. This insurgency is already deeply divided between secular (nationalist, Baathist) and religious elements and--within the latter--between Islamists focused on Iraq and hardcore utopian revolutionaries (Salafists like Al Qaeda) who see a U.S. defeat in Iraq as the first step in a global jihadist war. -- Larry Diamond (//%22http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061127&s=diamond112706%22) The Shia majority ran by Sadr would be as friendly, if not more so, to terrorist elements in the region as Saddam was.Again, what is it you object to? The Shia majority is clearly run by Al-Sadr. Al-Sadr is a mouthpiece of the Iranian regime.
An Iraqi Muslim cleric who leads a major Shiite militia pledged to come to the defense of neighboring Iran if it were attacked, aides to the cleric, Moqtada Sadr, said Monday.
The commitment, made Sunday in Tehran during a visit by Sadr, came in response to a senior Iranian official's query about what the cleric would do in the event of an attack on Iran. It marked the first open indication that Iraq's Shiite neighbor is preparing for a military response if attacked in a showdown with the West over its nuclear program.-- Washington Post (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301701.html%22)
Or is it that you think Sadr would not be friendly to terrorists? This would deny that he's actually supported by terrorist regimes which is utter nonsense.
Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, the fiery Iraqi Shi'ite cleric who ordered his fanatical militia to attack coalition troops, is being supported by Iran and its terror surrogate Hezbollah, according to military sources with access to recent intelligence reports. -- Washington Times (//%22http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040407-124311-9361r.htm%22) The only way to guarantee a balance of power NEVER exists is to withdraw.This one is personal opinion, but I've yet have anyone explain how that outcome is anything but certainty. Would you like to give it a shot?
By default, in a civil war, sectarian violence situation, what have you, there can be only ONE winner. That's common sense, and ONE winner != a balance of power.I can assure you that any regime ran by Iran will be as equally detestable as any Taliban regime ever was...Please. You're not actually this dumb are you, to think that Iran is somehow a magical place where it's sunshine and gumdrops for all??
Respect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, deteriorated in 2006. The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents, including through prolonged solitary confinement. The Judiciary, which is accountable to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is responsible for many serious human rights violations.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's cabinet is dominated by former intelligence and security officials, some of whom have been implicated in serious human rights violations, such as the assassination of dissident intellectuals. Under his administration, the Ministry of Information, which essentially performs intelligence functions, has substantially increased its surveillance of dissidents, civil society activists, and journalists.
Iranian authorities systematically suppress freedom of expression and opinion by closing newspapers and imprisoning journalists and editors. The few independent dailies that remain heavily self-censor. Many writers and intellectuals have left the country, are in prison, or have ceased to be critical.
The Ahmadinejad government, in a pronounced shift from the policy under former president Mohammed Khatami, has shown no tolerance for peaceful protests and gatherings. -- Human Rights Watch (//%22http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/iran14703.htm%22)the young people are still pro-AmericanIranian officials are worried. Worried of the American presence next to their doors, on the East as well as to the West, worried of the invasion of Iraq "with so little popular resistance", worried of the fast fall of the Baghdad regime, worried of the sidelining of the UN, worried of the total disillusion of the Iranian people that, since the beginning of the Iraqi crisis, has resulted in a fierce pro-Americanism of the population... but, especially, worried of the vox populi, that asks for "a change of the regime with the help of the American marines", the daily "Le Monde" wrote. -- Iran Press Service (//%22http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2003/Apr-2003/iranian_proamericanism_25403.htm%22) Any other brain busters?
Some people just don't have what it takes to do what's right...
Take Harry Ried, for example, who's masculinity can be measured as only slightly less than Nancy Palosi's, for which no fight is worth fighting (probably got picked upon when he was a kid).
One thing for sure, the stronger one's convictions, the more those without any will hate you.
slippery slope.
strawman.
ad hom.
right off the top of my head.
Post date 11.20.06 | Issue date 11.27.06 - New Republic
By Ellen Knickmeyer and Omar Fekeiki
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page A13
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040407-124311-9361r.htm
april 07, 2004
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/iran14703.htm
12-31-06
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2003/Apr-2003/iranian_proamericanism_25403.htm
april 2003
so at best, your citations are nearly 5 months old, at worst well over 4+ years ago.
Lamp.
Sofa.
T-Shirt.
Plasma TV in my living room.
Saying those words doesn't get you anything. You have to SUBSTANTIATE your complaint or I have nothing to work with.
As to my citations, do you have something against books that were written before last week as well? Did you complain in school to your teacher for making you read Plato and Aristotle because they were too old? Please dispute the information contained and why it is incorrect.
It's rapidly becoming clear that you're full of it. Come on Altruism, debate or go home.
ive already pointed out your ad hom attacks.
quote:
So, the question is, are you prepared to have another Taliban type regime in charge of a major ME country? More oil resources than they could ever have imagined in Afghanistan...and the only way to keep that oil away from the militant freaks is to have a secularized democracy in that country.
Do you mind a Taliban-like power taking over Iraq?
slippery slope fallacy. Just b/c it happened in the past or somewhere else, doesnt mean it will happen in Iraq.
quote:
And how revolting that you would allow the people of Iraq to be kept under the thumb of a madman just so you can keep Iran at a distance. The man gassed thousands of innocent people, murdered hundreds of thousands, funding and protecting terrorists, and was still amassing banned weapons, and you're willing to let him continue just to keep Iran in check, which he wasn't able to do anymore... Simply disgusting.
this is a strawman. i like how you mention to take your ''outrage' somewhere else' later in this thread...
i bring up the date of these articles you cite as sources b/c its becoming rapidly apparent to me that youre extremely out of touch when it comes to your views on this situation in iraq.
some books that still say the USSR is a country. so yes, due to the age, a source can be incorrect. specifically your claim that the 'youth are pro-american' ... 4 years ago?!
bear in mind this was before the pictures and stories from abu ghraib, hadifa...
the realities are that its 2007. iraq is embroiled in a civil war that we & iran have fostered along and now we have been caught in the middle. IMHO (& to paraphrase your favorite 'dude')we're screwed.
quote:
slippery slope fallacy. Just b/c it happened in the past or somewhere else, doesnt mean it will happen in Iraq.
No genius. A slippery slope argument goes as follows: You can't ban partial birth abortion because Roe v Wade will eventually be overturned. Also, you MUST explain why the argument is defective. Simply stating "slippery slope" is insufficient.
Please read the above example and re-read it again until you understand the concept.
The fact that you don't understand what a "slippery slope" argument is, should be proof enough to everyone that you're not to be taken seriously.
quote:
this is a strawman. i like how you mention to take your ''outrage' somewhere else' later in this thread...
Please outline the elements of this strawman. Saying "that's a strawman" without telling us why is no better than yelling "fallacious argument."
quote:
i bring up the date of these articles you cite as sources b/c its becoming rapidly apparent to me that youre extremely out of touch when it comes to your views on this situation in iraq.
Again, please dispute the articles on their merit. Your personal opinion of my beliefs are IRRELEVANT.
quote:
some books that still say the USSR is a country. so yes, due to the age, a source can be incorrect. specifically your claim that the 'youth are pro-american' ... 4 years ago?!
bear in mind this was before the pictures and stories from abu ghraib, hadifa...
Very well, how about this one, it's post Abu Ghraib(April 2004): and Haditha(Summer 2005):
Iranians don't hate America. On the contrary, many of them envy Americans to an unrealistic degree and think of the US as a paradise, a land where no problems exist. -- Christian Science Monitor 2007 (//%22http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0119/p09s02-coop.html%22)Librarian of Congress James Billington, just back from Tehran, speaks of a thriving underground press, almost 100,000 bloggers in Iran alone, and about the only country in the world with a pro-American youth fed up with decaying theocracy. -- Washington Times 2005 (//%22http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/11390%22)You're about 0 for 5 now. Care to continue?
Strawman!
Fallacious!
Ad Hoc!
Chicken Soup!
Dirty Diaper!
quote:
Your personal opinion of my beliefs are IRRELEVANT
that's rich. hello pot, this is kettle.
You had purposely misrepresented what Swake had typed and took off on this tangent about Sadaam's atrocities. As that lended some credibility to your argument, Sadaam's history is not in dispute or even on topic in this thread. I dont understand what point you were trying to make w/ that.
You had posed the question
quote:
Do you mind a Taliban-like power taking over Iraq?
if we were to withdraw what evidence do you have that this will invariably happen? Afghanistan & Iraq are very different countries.
I'll take that as a punt on the Iranian youth issue...
quote:
that's rich. hello pot, this is kettle.
You had purposely misrepresented what Swake had typed and took off on this tangent about Sadaam's atrocities.
It's been so long ago, please show me what I "mirepresented."
quote:
As that lended some credibility to your argument, Sadaam's history is not in dispute or even on topic in this thread. I dont understand what point you were trying to make w/ that.
I would agree that you are very confused, but that isn't my fault. I suspect it has something to do with your inability to analyze and present an argument.
quote:
if we were to withdraw what evidence do you have that this will invariably happen? Afghanistan & Iraq are very different countries.
Let me break it down VERY slowly and I'll try and use
SMALL words. There is a fight going on right now between Sunni Al-Qaeda (AKA Wahhabism and Salafism) and Shia led forces back by Iran and mainly led by Al-Sadr.
The US is standing between the Iraqi people and these two factions.
If we leave there will be genocide, and either the Sunni faction or the Shia faction will emerge victorious. Either you will have a Shia led government mirroring Iran that opresses the people or you will have a Sunni led government that will mirror the Taliban that opresses the people.
Boy, that's a nice option.
Basically, the country's in far worse shape than it was four-plus years ago.
Remind me why we invaded again.
per the Youth in Iran:
Most interviews I have seen, the people I know that have travel to Iran, and the people I know FROM Iran all say the general population is not as rapidly anti-American as is often portrayed. Hell, even when Ted Koppel was over there with the discovery channel teenagers openly talked about admiration for all things American.
The Iranian people are not too different from American's, in that our government does not always speak for us. I don't hate all Iranians nor North Koreans in spite of our governments disdain for those countries. For that matter I dont think Castro is the evil man our country has portrayed for decades (misguided - yes). Iranians have some legitimate gripes (support for Iraq, the whole farce government thing, etc.) but most Iranians have no real daily issue with the USA according the sources I am familiar with.
I was watching some deal on Military Channel. It was some kind of Iraq Diary, where regular enlisted guys had recorded all of this stuff, and they made a documentary out of it. I was amazed at how often I heard the acronym KBR (Halliburton). Whether it was mentioning KBR and their poor treatment of 3rd Party contractors, or simply that the war was about oil and KBR. One guy, I believe he was a Sergeant, made no bones about it. He said roughly "the war is about oil and that's plenty of justification to be in Iraq. We came here for oil, and we damn well better get it."
I don't like politicizing the Military, it shouldn't be done. The Military does it's job, that's all. However, if politicians continue to paint this picture that "the troops" believe that this is about "terrorism" or "democracy in Iraq", it should come with the caveat that "the troops" also believe this about oil.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Boy, that's a nice option.
Basically, the country's in far worse shape than it was four-plus years ago.
Remind me why we invaded again.
Why? You've been told a thousand times already. What makes you think you'd get it this time?
I won't bother (//%22http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031004-123026-1690r.htm%22) repeating (//%22http://www.husseinandterror.com/%22) myself (//%22http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm%22).
Baby Bush promised daddy he would get the bad guy?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I was watching some deal on Military Channel. It was some kind of Iraq Diary, where regular enlisted guys had recorded all of this stuff, and they made a documentary out of it. I was amazed at how often I heard the acronym KBR (Halliburton). Whether it was mentioning KBR and their poor treatment of 3rd Party contractors, or simply that the war was about oil and KBR. One guy, I believe he was a Sergeant, made no bones about it. He said roughly "the war is about oil and that's plenty of justification to be in Iraq. We came here for oil, and we damn well better get it."
I don't like politicizing the Military, it shouldn't be done. The Military does it's job, that's all. However, if politicians continue to paint this picture that "the troops" believe that this is about "terrorism" or "democracy in Iraq", it should come with the caveat that "the troops" also believe this about oil.
War for oil profits and war to protect oil from being seized by Iran and Iraq's other neighbors are two different things. Which are you talking about? It's important to make the distinction.
It is impossible for the US to steal the oil from the Iraqi people. There are already laws and royalty sharing agreements in place that prevent the US from taking anything. We can't even use proceeds from their oil to fund reconstruction.
Also, as CF has pointed out ad nauseam, KBR and Haliburton are the ONLY companies equiped to do the work necessary in the region. There is a French company that can do SOME of the work, but France abdicated their right when they participated in the oil-for-food scandal.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Baby Bush promised daddy he would get the bad guy?
That has to be the dumbest of all the pre-war theories...
"Royalty Sharing" is not the same as Iraq nationalizing it's oil. Far less profitable to "share" than to nationalize in Iraq.
In 1951, Iran nationalized it's oil. Even though the west placed an embargo on Iranian oil, and Iran sold less oil, Iran's profits rose. That's why we toppled their gov't in 1953, so British and American Oil companies could slice up the profits.
Maybe you didn't hear, but Iraq has already nationalized their oil resources by revivingINOC (//%22http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/03/9d033277-ae99-4ad3-b470-4008aa0040b8.html%22). And also see (//%22http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/15479%22).
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Boy, that's a nice option.
Basically, the country's in far worse shape than it was four-plus years ago.
Remind me why we invaded again.
Why? You've been told a thousand times already. What makes you think you'd get it this time?
I won't bother (//%22http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031004-123026-1690r.htm%22) repeating (//%22http://www.husseinandterror.com/%22) myself (//%22http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm%22).
You do realize one of your links is to the Moonie newspaper, right?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Maybe you didn't hear, but Iraq has already nationalized their oil resources by revivingINOC (//%22http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/03/9d033277-ae99-4ad3-b470-4008aa0040b8.html%22).
From the article you site.
quote:
Petroleum Revenues
According to the constitution, the Council of Ministers must submit to parliament a draft federal law regulating matters pertaining to the distribution of oil and gas revenues.
Oil revenues include all government revenues from oil and gas, royalties, signing awards, and production awards from petroleum contracts with foreign or local companies.
Revenues must be deposited into an Iraqi Central Bank account labeled "Oil Revenue Treasury" and managed by the Council of Ministers and the Treasury Ministry.
The Oil Revenue Treasury must be administered by an independent entity headed by a person holding the rank of minister. This entity must include representatives of the federal government, regional governments, and governorates, as well as a number of independent consultants. The entity must be associated with the Council of Ministers and must be formed immediately.
The government's revenues, including oil revenues, must be distributed in a fair and just way in adherence to the constitution.
Another treasury must be created, called the "Future Treasury," to hold a percentage of oil revenue.
Exploration-And-Production Contracts
The holder of an exploration-and-production contract will have the exclusive right to conduct petroleum exploration and production in the contract area, as well as the right of transportation.
The holder will have exclusive exploration-and-production rights for a maximum of four years; but may be granted an additional two years to complete the work. A third period of exploration may be granted for a period of two years, provided the extension is justified by "the quality and substance of the work program."
Should a discovery be made, the exclusive exploration-and-production right may be retained by the holder for the purposes of completing the operations initiated within a specified area to assess or determine the commercial value of the discovery for an additional two-year period or, in the case of a nonassociated natural-gas discovery, for an additional period not to exceed four years.
The INOC and other holders of an exploration-and-production contract may retain the exclusive right to develop and produce petroleum within the limits of a development and production area for a period to be determined by the Oil and Gas Council, but not exceeding 20 years from the date of the approval of the field-development plan. In cases where technical and economic considerations justify a longer production period, the Council of Ministers may grant an extension not to exceed five years.
That definitely is not Nationalization. No nationalized production, revenues, and production contracts for corporations.
You skipped the entire section on INOC:
The INOC's scope of operations includes managing and operating existing production fields, including the operations of the North Oil Company and South Oil Company. It will also participate in the development and production of discovered but undeveloped fields and carrying out exploration and production operations in new areas by applying for exploration and production rights based on competition. It shall own, operate, and manage the oil and gas pipeline networks, as well as export terminals. However, after two years, the federal Oil and Gas Council will decide the entity responsible for operating the pipeline network and terminal operations based on a proposal submitted by the Oil Ministry in consultation with the INOC. Such a proposal will need the approval of the Council of Ministers.
Revenues are going to be discussed in Dubai (//%22http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16783%22).
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Boy, that's a nice option.
Basically, the country's in far worse shape than it was four-plus years ago.
Remind me why we invaded again.
Why? You've been told a thousand times already. What makes you think you'd get it this time?
I won't bother (//%22http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031004-123026-1690r.htm%22) repeating (//%22http://www.husseinandterror.com/%22) myself (//%22http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm%22).
You do realize one of your links is to the Moonie newspaper, right?
I can give you 15 others citations from other sources if you want.
That does not explain 20-year production contracts with corporations. It is not, anywhere in the neighborhood, of Nationalization of Iraqi Oil.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
That does not explain 20-year production contracts with corporations. It is not, anywhere in the neighborhood, of Nationalization of Iraqi Oil.
What contracts are you talking about?
Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia. -- CNN Money (//%22http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm%22)
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What contracts are you talking about?
Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia. -- CNN Money (//%22http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm%22)
You answered you're own question. You tried to prove "Nationalization", obviously that's not anywhere close to being factual.
What contracts are you talking about? I'm really interested in hearing where you heard about these contracts that appear not to exist...
And the oil reserves can most certainly be considered nationalized even if production is contracted out. Just because Iraq doesn't want to produce the oil doesn't mean its reserves aren't nationalized assets.
Would you prefer them to just sit on the oil?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Boy, that's a nice option.
Basically, the country's in far worse shape than it was four-plus years ago.
Remind me why we invaded again.
Why? You've been told a thousand times already. What makes you think you'd get it this time?
I won't bother (//%22http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031004-123026-1690r.htm%22) repeating (//%22http://www.husseinandterror.com/%22) myself (//%22http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm%22).
You do realize one of your links is to the Moonie newspaper, right?
I can give you 15 others citations from other sources if you want.
Then do so and make it from more reputable sources than you have been. You call others on biased sources, well, yours are terrible and The Rev Moon's Washington Times is among the worst.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What contracts are you talking about? I'm really interested in hearing where you heard about these contracts that appear not to exist...
And the oil reserves can most certainly be nationalized even if production is contracted out. Just because Iraq doesn't want to produce the oil doesn't mean it's reserves aren't nationalized.
It's back up there in that INOC article. No one said anything about US contracts in Iraq, except for you.
It should be obvious to anyone that Iraq recieving "royalities" is opposed to the concept of Iraq "nationalization". Only a percentage of Iraqi Oil, perhaps a large percentage, goes back into Iraq. Certainly not all of it, that would be Nationalization.
Really?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
That does not explain 20-year production contracts with corporations. It is not, anywhere in the neighborhood, of Nationalization of Iraqi Oil.
What contracts are you talking about?
quote:
It should be obvious to anyone that Iraq recieving "royalities" is opposed to the concept of Iraq "nationalization". Only a percentage of Iraqi Oil, perhaps a large percentage, goes back into Iraq. Certainly not all of it, that would be Nationalization.
No concept of nationalization requires what you're saying. Nationalization only requires that the "nation" have
control over the resource and not private entities. INOC and the Ministry of Oil decide who gets the contracts, the national organization is in complete control. There are no private entities that can award contracts for production.
Iraq simply has no interest in refining or production, just like Iran.
Swake:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/01/1070127352268.html
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005252.php
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2003/ea_nkorea_10_27.html
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998/s980625-dprk.htm
If you don't like those I have more.
When one is reading the posts in order for them to understand why we are in an undeclared war in violation of our obligations to the ME and the world. We are bombing the women and children telling them they are our enemies.
We should be looking to 20 years from now when we will face the same conduct by other armies.
51% of the females are not married.
The are getting the higher percentages of collage degrees.
On the moral scale they have taken over the obligations that once was restricted to marriage.
They have the pill.
Abortion on demand.
Immigrants are having babies and filling our schools.
In twenty years the US army will have passed with the days of the Gentiles.
Can we loose face if we get out of the ME and start now to prepare the phantom army to defend our own homeland? It is easy like when the Roman army left England.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Can we loose face if we get out of the ME and start now to prepare the phantom army to defend our own homeland? It is easy like when the Roman army left England.
That's exactly what the various terrorist cells are expecting us to do. If we tuck tail and run, it will only be a matter of time before this crap comes back to our own doorstep.
It was a little different back in the Roman Empire. They didn't have things like cruise missles, nuclear warheads, and jet-fuel laden Boeing 767's. Back in those days you could go home and hide behind your wall until the enemy got bored or tired of having hot oil poured on them and they went away.
With the type of enemy we face these days, the only sane approach is a pro-active one. If it weren't for us invading Iraq, terrorists would invent some other justification for being bent on our destruction.
Or maybe not:
Doubts About Doomsday
The president is suggesting that a troop withdrawal would turn Iraq into a battleground between regional powers. Not so, says a senior administration official.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18316590/site/newsweek/
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
When one is reading the posts in order for them to understand why we are in an undeclared war in violation of our obligations to the ME and the world. We are bombing the women and children telling them they are our enemies.
We should be looking to 20 years from now when we will face the same conduct by other armies.
51% of the females are not married.
The are getting the higher percentages of collage degrees.
On the moral scale they have taken over the obligations that once was restricted to marriage.
They have the pill.
Abortion on demand.
Immigrants are having babies and filling our schools.
In twenty years the US army will have passed with the days of the Gentiles.
Can we loose face if we get out of the ME and start now to prepare the phantom army to defend our own homeland? It is easy like when the Roman army left England.
(http://www.slantmagazine.com/images/misc/screwball.jpg)
The question of a regional war is an important one, but not the only concern on the table. We also have active Al-Qaeda involvement, and they aren't going to leave of their own volition.
Several on here have claimed that Iraq was a distraction from Al-Qaeda, which it was not, but be that as it may, they are active in Iraq as we speak.
Even though the story mentions that their safe haven is Pakistan, which no one can confirm obviously, we still have letters from their leadership which we have intercepted that clearly state their opposition to both Shia led Iranian elements and their own Sunni constituency which happens not to be Sunni enough for them.
Al-Qaeda has made their intentions clear on the subject of Iraq and the further establishment of a Caliphate on Iraqi soil. The only question is will we ignore them again?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Or maybe not:
Doubts About Doomsday
The president is suggesting that a troop withdrawal would turn Iraq into a battleground between regional powers. Not so, says a senior administration official.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18316590/site/newsweek/
"One senior administration official with extensive knowledge of the region, who didn't want to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters, tells NEWSWEEK that the chances of a regional war in Iraq are low in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. When asked if a regional war would break out, the official said:
"Possibly, not probably. It's more likely that other powers would support their favorite militias, as they're doing already."'Huh?!? Sounds like chaos to me. That's typical "informing" the public with headlines. It's the perfect illustration of the frequent point I make that most people don't read beyond the headline and first paragraph of a news story, and consider themselves well-informed.[B)]
Upon closer inspection of this article, this is nothing more than an op-ed piece cloaked as a hard news story. That is how a whole lot of mis-information has been spread about this war.
Not to mention the fact that Bush is THE senior official - so what he says vs what another 'senior official' says... he wins. It is almost certain that Iraq would become a regional conflict. Not that the armies of Iran and Saud will come marching in... HOWEVER, both Iran and Saudi Arabia are already supporting various armed factions in Iraq. Certainly they would be more open and vigilant in their support in an ever escalating cycle. We call that a proxy war. It usually doesnt end well for the country (see Vietnam, Afghanistan, North Korea).
----
Shadows:
You have totally lost it. I have no idea what the war in Iraq has to do with women's graduation rate from college nor that they arent bare foot and pregnant getting me a beer. Who cares? Not to mention the marriage rate of 60% is higher than most countries and against your state rate. And what the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING? Does your religion require women to serve as baby factories?
What have you dont that is so fantastic that you posses THE right answer for life. How are you so damn righteous? I hope you are married and have at least 6 kids and refuse to use any form of birth control and dont allow your wife nor female offspring any form of education. Apparently that is what your strict form of Judaism requires so you can cast your pointy finger upon us heathen Gentiles.
Someone look to see if he posts on Saturdays.
----
Nationalization:
Iraq has nationalize its oil reserves in the same manner the USA has nationalize its offshore reserves. That is to say, the oil belongs to the state. They grant rights to the oil to a company who promises to extract the oil and pay the government for the right to try and do that.
The REVENUE SHARING agreement is between Iraqi faction (if you dont know the three, then you have no business in this thread). It is not revenue sharing with companies.
Full nationalization like Mexico would lead to a horribly inefficient operation. Mexico does not utilize their oil reserves as well as America does - they dont as great a % per well, they cannot drill as deep, they cannot drill in as deep of water, and their environmental impact is at least 5 times of any operation under US regulation. So if you want a dangerous, polluting, and less profitable oil sector you could always nationalize it.
Unless you are Iraq. IRAQ DOES NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES NOR EXPERTISE TO PRODUCE ITS OIL BY ITSELF. They dont have the tens of billions needed nor the engineers, welders, and operators required to do the work. Hell, even Saudi Arabia has mostly foreign workers in the oil fields.
Not only is pure nationalization a bad idea, in Iraq it cannot be done. Yet another attempt to blame evil doer corporations for the worlds problems. Ignoring the fact that corporations have ushered in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity not to mention unbelievable technological developments.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
...
Shadows is older than any two of you combined. He's met Abe Lincoln personally, so I cut him a lot of slack, primarily by not reading. And if I read, I don't comment. You folks may yet some day be decent enough to do that, and stop being so insulting.
And the point was not about Nationalization, or corporations anyway. You wanted to say how great it was that Iraq was going to make revenues off it's oil, and you went through making statements that were patently false to strengthen your pro-war, corporation-lust view. Fantastic.
quote:
(if you dont know the three, then you have no business in this thread).
With statements like this, you have no business being in any intelligent discussion. You want to "read me the riot act", be prepared.
Nationalization aside, I still want to know what 20 year contracts you were talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Not to mention the fact that Bush is THE senior official - so what he says vs what another 'senior official' says... he wins.
I think this is the source of my angst and maybe others. When you have a leader you don't trust, then why would you support more of the same? It's hard to support a war when you don't believe the commander-in-chief is competent.
An un-named source can be a figment of an un-ethical reporter's imagination. Hell, the un-named Sr. Admin official with knowledge of the area could be a White House custodian who has worked there for 30 years and was born in Iraq.
If a reporter can't name names, it gives us no clue as to the credibility of the source other than the opinion of the journalist.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
An un-named source can be a figment of an un-ethical reporter's imagination.
(http://wizbangblog.com/archives/ratherminister.jpg)
3rd coffee-spitting laugh... knock it off guys, my computer is about to short out [:P]
I dont care how old Shadows is, nor do I care what school he went to, how much money he has, or if his father is a senator. He continuously posts ignorant, misleading, and amazingly incoherent comments. His comments seem more fit for a religous nut screaming at student on campus. You are somehow better than I because instead of pointing this out you simply ignore him? Some might argue that is a much harsher treatment.
I tried, desperately, to discuss things rationally and with careful logic. That was me cutting some slack and it didnt work. He continues to spout forth his nonsense. If pointing out that his comments are nonsense, ignorant, usually wrong, and make him look like an idiot is somehow insulting then I guess he will have to be insulted. It is nothing more than the truth.
What else, honestly, could you expect when you post "51% of the females are not married" or
"The are getting the higher percentages of collage degrees" or "In twenty years the US army will have passed with the days of the Gentiles" completely out of nowhere? If his thought process is so deteriorated that he cannot comprehend that this is an illogical and random posting of nonsense, then someone has to point it out to him.
quote:
You wanted to say how great it was that Iraq was going to make revenues off it's oil, and you went through making statements that were patently false to strengthen your pro-war, corporation-lust view. Fantastic.
I tried to make an intelligent, educated, and well thought out point about the ongoing issues in Iraq. Somehow, you deemed this an unintelligent contribution to the discussion. I'm interested to know:
What did I say that was patently false? Where did I in any way insinuate in that comment that I thought the war was a good idea? And why would I have sexual desire for corporations? For that matter, when did I say that it was great that Iraq was going to make revenue off of its oil and why would it be bad if they did? I am happy that you think a pro-war view having a sexual desire for corporations is fantastic, but I fail to see what that has to do with me.
If you read the thread you would see that there was an ongoing discussion about what constitutes nationalization and if corporations can be a part of that. Seems that corporations were very relevant to the conversation and a minimal part of my post to boot.
And lastly, if you do not know that the Kurds, Shia (Shiite) and Sunni's are vying for control of Iraq then you are in way over your head. There is no way that someone without this base of knowledge should bother arguing about the geo political atmosphere in Iraq and whether nationalization of oil is the best course of action. It would be akin to my 7 year old arguing theoretical physics with Stephen Hawking. It was a comment made in jest assuming every literate person in the USA knows there are three groups vying for power in Iraq. I suppose if you truly didnt know this then you might be embarrassed to yourself by your own ignorance... but I'm not sure how damaging that would be.
I've never had issue with you before nor chastised anyone that didn't deserve it, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. I usually dont cower before threats over the internet, but if you consider this a 'reading of the riot act' make sure you let me know, so I can be properly prepared.
I'm reading you all the riot act:
CUM PRIVILEGIO
Anno primo GEORGE I, Statute 2, Caption 5.
PAGES 142-146
An act for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the rioters.
I. Whereas of late many rebellious riots and tumults have been in divers parts of this kingdom, to the disturbance of the publick peace, and the endangering of his Majesty's person and government, and the same are yet continued and fomented by persons disaffected to his Majesty, presuming so to do, for that the punishments provided by the laws now in being are not adequate to such heinous offences; and by such rioters his Majesty and his administration have been most maliciously and falsly traduced, with an intent to raise divisions, and to alienate the affections of the people from his Majesty therefore for the preventing and suppressing of such riots and tumults, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the offenders therein; be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and of the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That if any persons to the number of twelve or more, being unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together, to the disturbance of the publick peace, at any time after the last day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and fifteen, and being required or commanded by any one or more justice or justices of the peace, or by the sheriff of the county, or his under-sheriff, or by the mayor, bailiff or bailiffs, or other head-officer, or justice of the peace of any city or town corporate, where such assembly shall be, by proclamation to be made in the King's name, in the form herin after directed, to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, shall, to the number of twelve or more (notwithstanding such proclamation made) unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously remain or continue together by the space of one hour after such command or request made by proclamation, that then such continuing together to the number of twelve or more, after such command or request made by proclamation, shall be adjudged felony without benefit of clergy, and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in a case of felony without benefit of clergy.
II. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the order and form of the proclamation that shall be made by the authority of this act, shall be as hereafter followeth (that is to say) the justice of the peace, or other person authorized by this act to make the said proclamation shall, among the said rioters, or as near to them as he can safely come, with a loud voice command, or cause to be commanded silence to be, while proclamation is making, and after that, shall openly and with loud voice make or cause to be made proclamation in these words, or like in effect:
Our sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King.
And every such justice and justices of the peace, sheriff, under-sheriff, mayor, bailiff, and other head-officer aforesaid, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, are hereby authorized, impowered and required, on notice or knowledge of any such unlawful, riotous and tumultuous assembly, to resort to the place where such unlawful, riotous, and tumultuous assemblies shall be, of persons to the number of twelve or more, and there to make or cause to be made proclamation in manner aforesaid.
III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if such persons so unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled, or twelve or more of them, after proclamation made in manner aforesaid, shall continue together and not disperse themselves within one hour, That then it shall and may be lawful to and for every justice of the peace, sheriff, or under-sheriff of the county where such assembly shall be, and also to and for every high or petty constable, and other peace-officer within such county, and also to and for every mayor, justice of the peace, sheriff, bailiff, and other head-officer, high or petty constable, and other peace-officer of any city or town corporate where such assembly shall be, and to and for such other person and persons as shall be commanded to be assisting unto any such justice of the peace, sheriff or under-sheriff, mayor, bailiff, or other head-officer aforesaid (who are hereby authorized and impowered to command all his Majesty's subjects of age and ability to be assisting to them therein) to seize and apprehend, and they are hereby required to seize and apprehend such persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously continuing together after proclamation made, as aforesaid, and forthwith to carry the persons so apprehended before one or more of his Majesty's justices of the peace of the county or place where such persons shall be so apprehended, in order to their being proceeded against for such their offences according to law; and that if the persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, or any of them, shall happen to be killed, maimed or hurt, in the dispersing, seizing or apprehending, or endeavouring to disperse, seize or apprehend them, that then every such justice of the peace, sheriff, under-sheriff, mayor, bailiff, head-officer, high or petty constable, or other peace-officer, and all and singular persons, being aiding and assisting to them, or any of them, shall be free, discharged and indemnified, as well against the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, as against all and every other person and persons, of, for, or concerning the killing, maiming, or hurting of any such person or persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, that shall happen to be so killed, maimed or hurt, as aforesaid.
IV. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any persons unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled together, to the disturbance of the publick peace, shall unlawfully, and with force demolish or pull down, or begin to demolish or pull down any church or chapel, or any building for religious worship certified and registred according to the statute made in the first year of the reign of the late King William and Queen Mary, intituled, An act for exempting their Majesty's protestant subjects dissenting from the church of England from the penalties of certain laws, or any dwelling-house, barn, stable, or other out-house, that then every such demolishing, or pulling down, or beginning to demolish, or pull down, shall be adjudged felony without benefit of clergy, and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy.
V. Provided always, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any person or persons do, or shall, with force and arms, wilfully and knowingly oppose, obstruct, or in any manner wilfully and knowingly lett, hinder, or hurt any person or persons that shall begin to proclaim, or go to proclaim according to the proclamation hereby directed to be made, whereby such proclamation shall not be made, that then every such apposing, obstructing, letting, hindering or hurting such person or persons, so beginning or going to make such proclamation, as aforesaid, shall be adjudged felony without benefit of clergy, and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy; and that also every such person or persons so being unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, to the number of twelve, as aforesaid, or more, to whom proclamation should or ought to have been made if the same had not been hindred, as aforesaid, shall likewise, in case they or any of them, to the number of twelve or more, shall continue together, and not disperse themselves within one hour after such lett or hindrance so made, having knowledge of such lett or hindrance so made, shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy.
VI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if after the said last day of July one thousand seven hundred and fifteen, any such church or chapel, or any such building for religious worship, or any such dwelling-house, barn, stable, or other out-house, shall be demolished or pulled down wholly, or in part, by any persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, that then, in case such church, chapel, building for religious worship, dwelling-house, barn, stable, or out-house, shall be out of any city or town, that is either a county of itself, or is not within any hundred, that then the inhabitants of the hundred in which such damage shall be done, shall be liable to yield damages to the person or persons injured and damnified by such demolishing or pulling down wholly or in part; and such damages shall and may be recovered by action to be brought in any of his Majesty's courts of record at Westminster, (wherein no effoin, protection or wager of law, or any imparlance shall be allowed) by the person or persons damnified thereby, against any two or more of the inhabitants of such hundred, such action for damages to any church or chapel to be brought in the name of the rector, vicar or curate of such church or chapel that shall be so damnified, in trust for applying the damages to be recovered in rebuilding or repairing such church or chapel; and that judgment being given for the plaintiff or plaintiffs in such action, the damages so to be recovered shall, at the request of such plaintiff or plaintiffs, his or their executors or administrators, be raised and levied on the inhabitants of such hundred, and paid to such plaintiff or plaintiffs, in such manner and form, and by such ways and means, as are provided by the statute made in the seven and twentieth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, for reimbursing the person or persons on whom any money recovered against any hundred by any party robbed, shall be levied: and in case any such church, chapel, building for religious worship, dwelling-house, barn, stable, or out-house so damnified, shall be in any city or town that is either a county of itself, or is not within any hundred, that then such damages shall and may be recovered by action to be brought in manner aforesaid (where no effoin, protection or wager of law, or any imparlance shall be allowed) against two or more inhabitants of such city or town; and judgment being given for the plaintiff or plaintiffs in such action, the damages so to be recovered shall, at the request of such plaintiff or plaintiffs, his or their executors or administrators, made to the justices of the peace of such city or town at any quarter-sessions to be holden for the said city or town, be raised and levied on the inhabitants of such city or town, and paid to such plaintiff or plaintiffs, in such manner and form, and by such ways and means, as are provided by the said statute made in the seven and twentieth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, for reimbursing the person or persons on whom any money recovered against any hundred by any party robbed, shall be levied.
VII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That this act shall be openly read at every quarter-session, and at every leet or law-day.
VIII. Provided always, That no person or persons shall be prosecuted by virtue of this act, for any offence or offences committed contrary to the same, unless such prosecution be commenced within twelve months after the offence committed.
IX. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the sheriffs and their deputies, stewards and their deputies, bailies of regalities and their deputies, magistrates of royal boroughs, and all other inferior judges and magistrates, and also all high and petty constables, or other peace-officers of any county, stewartry, city or town, within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, shall have the same powers and authority for putting this present act in execution within Scotland, as the justices of the peace and other magistrates aforesaid, respectively have by virtue of this act, within and for the other parts of this kingdom; and that all and every person and persons who shall at any time be convicted of any the offences aforementioned, within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, shall for every such offence incur and suffer the pain of death, and confiscation of moveables: and also that all prosecutions for repairing the damages of any church or chapel, or any building for religious worship, or any dwelling-house, barn, stable or out-house, which shall be demolished or pulled down in whole or in part, within Scotland, by any persons unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled, shall and may be recovered by summar action, at the instance of the party aggrieved, his or her heirs or executors, against the county, stewartry, city or borough respectively, where such disorders shall happen, the magistrates being summoned in the ordinary form, and the several counties and stewartries called by edictal citation at the market-cross of the head borough of such county or stewartry respectively, and that in general, without mentioning their names and designations.
X. Provided, and it is hereby declared, That this act shall extend to all places for religious worship, in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, which are tolerated by law, and where his majesty King George, the prince and princess of Wales, and their issue, are prayed for in express words.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I dont care how old Shadows is, nor do I care what school he went to,
Got it. Cannon_fodder rule #1: Be a s***head to every elderly person you come in contact with. Fair enough.
quote:
I tried to make an intelligent, educated, and well thought out point about the ongoing issues in Iraq. Somehow, you deemed this an unintelligent contribution to the discussion. I'm interested to know:
You didn't try very hard did you?
quote:
Yet another attempt to blame evil doer corporations for the worlds problems. Ignoring the fact that corporations have ushered in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity not to mention unbelievable technological developments
Hippity dippity do. Some internet guy calling me anti-corporation on the one hand, while simultaneously preaching the glorious past of corporate influence on peace. More brilliance from the same guy that thinks Shadows has "lost it", and I have no business here.
quote:
And lastly, if you do not know that the Kurds, Shia (Shiite) and Sunni's are vying for control of Iraq then you are in way over your head.
And lastly, again, I'd take the Pepsi Challenge against any of you guys, especially the trollish ones, on who knows more about Iraq.
But I just don't think we'll find out. Of the three or four people that act like you CF, you're the least offensive. And I'm beginning to simply not care whether or not you guys drive this forum towards becoming a wasteland.
Weighing in as one of the more trollish than CF [}:)], I don't think anyone on this forum would know near as much as the military leaders who are running the show in Iraq. Call them incompetent if you like, you are entitled to that opinion.
I believe they know what they are doing, that's my opinion.
The anti's can dig up articles to support their points so can the pro's.
Sitting around talking about which layman on a forum "knows" more than another about Iraq is just a big D#$% contest, unless one of them were General Petraus, that would pretty much trump all of us [;)].
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Call them incompetent if you like, you are entitled to that opinion.
No one said they're incompetent. And to say that I have that opinion, or that I would even consider that opinion, makes you a bald faced liar.
MichaelC:
(http://www.1buyvalium.com/img/valium.gif)
I suggest two before bed tonight.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Call them incompetent if you like, you are entitled to that opinion.
No one said they're incompetent. And to say that I have that opinion, or that I would even consider that opinion, makes you a bald faced liar.
Relax dude. "Call them incompetent if you like, you are entitled to that opinion." is a hypothetical. I never said you
have said that, I said you
can say it if you like. No need to resort to name-calling w/ me.
You talk about "trolls" on here but lately you have been swimming in the same pond.
I figured if anything you'd take issue with me pointing out you are trying to start a "big man" contest with your boast about knowing more about Iraq than anyone here. Unless you are employed by the government in intel, foreign policy, or at the top of the food chain in the military, your knowledge carries just as much weight as anyone else on here.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Relax dude. "Call them incompetent if you like, you are entitled to that opinion." is a hypothetical.
It's a character attack, and a bald faced lie. I've never said that, never hinted at that, at best it's a smear tactic, a lie. Making you, a liar.
quote:
I never said you have said that, I said you can say it if you like. No need to resort to name-calling w/ me.
You don't like it, you know what to do.
quote:
You talk about "trolls" on here but lately you have been swimming in the same pond.
Damn straight. You're going to smell what you're shoveling.
quote:
I figured if anything you'd take issue with me pointing out you are trying to start a "big man" contest with your boast about knowing more about Iraq than anyone here.
Why bother? You people can't get your facts straight, much less know what they mean. You're only forte is character attacks. The same three or four liars, saying the same thing, over and over.
quote:
You people can't get your facts straight
Please point out what we've gotten wrong we're all waiting...
If you're going to call someone a liar at least have the fortitude to tell us what they're lying about.[xx(]
quote:
Making you, a liar.
As far as being a liar, are you ever going to explain where your,
20 year contracts for Iraqi oil statement came from?
quote:
Damn straight. You're going to smell what you're shoveling.
[}:)]
Oh no fellas! He's teachin' us a lesson!
One thing that neither CF, Conan, nor I are the least bit concerned about is you regulatin' round here pardner.
What's that? 20 year contracts for Iraqi oil...
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Got it. Cannon_fodder rule #1: Be a s***head to every elderly person you come in contact with. Fair enough.
Not even remotely close to what I said. I said I did not care how old he was. That statement patently excludes prejudice based on age. If you hadn't told me he was old, I would not have a clue. This is a blatant misstatement based on information that you gave me after the fact.
quote:
You didnt try very hard
Yes, yes I did try hard. I explained the nationalization process in Iraq as well as problems other nations have had with stricter regimes of nationalized oil. I also explained the difficulties Iraq would have attempting to develop oil by themselves. That is useful information in this discussion.
quote:
Hippity dippity do. Some internet guy calling me anti-corporation on the one hand, while simultaneously preaching the glorious past of corporate influence on peace. More brilliance from the same guy that thinks Shadows has "lost it", and I have no business here.
I never said YOU were anti-corporation. I said that many people in this discussion have express their opinion as such. Which is a completely true statement.
The information on corporations and international trade fostering peace is not my idea, it is held in great esteem by persons far greater than I. Adam Smith began the discussion in the Wealth of Nations and economists and philosophers since have pondered that point. In fact, it still holds true that no trading democracies have ever fought a major war with each other.
Furthermore, recent studies, which I previously linked to on these forums, have concluded that thus far the 2000's are the most peaceful period in modern history. I do not make things up and I attempt to make my opinions clear from items of support.
Lastly, I never said you have no business here. For some reason you are taking everything thing I write as if it were directed at you and outside of its face value. Just like I never said I hate old people, I never said you had business being here.
I SAID people that do not know that three factions are fighting for control of Iraq have no business in this discussion and it was said in jest. I already went over this so I will simply quote myself as often as required:
quote:
I PREVIOUSLY SAID
...if you do not know that the Kurds, Shia (Shiite) and Sunni's are vying for control of Iraq then you are in way over your head. There is no way that someone without this base of knowledge should bother arguing about the geo political atmosphere in Iraq and whether nationalization of oil is the best course of action. It would be akin to my 7 year old arguing theoretical physics with Stephen Hawking. It was a comment made in jest assuming every literate person in the USA knows there are three groups vying for power in Iraq. I suppose if you truly didnt know this then you might be embarrassed to yourself by your own ignorance... but I'm not sure how damaging that would be.
quote:
And lastly, again, I'd take the Pepsi Challenge against any of you guys, especially the trollish ones, on who knows more about Iraq.
Thanks for the name calling, it is very helpful to the conversation. Not only name calling, but passive aggressive name calling. It can be useful to tell someone there statements make it appear they think they are a 'know it all' or 'makes them look like an idiot' but I cant really see a use to passively calling someone trollish.
This is yet another instance in which you apparently took my comments as if they were directed at you. The only time my comments question anyones intelligence was if someone didnt know three faction were fighting, which I have gone over several times above. If you fell into this category I'm sorry I offended you, but honestly you should get some background information before attempting to discuss in depth.
If you do not fall into this category then I did not, in any way, insinuate a lack of knowledge on your part. I do not feel the need to validate my knowledge of Iraq in a quiz show format nor any other method. I strive to know as much as is practical about a given subject and I feel that I have reached that point. There is infinitely more information that I could learn about Iraq as there is so about any country (including the one in which we live). I am not an expert, do not present myself as such, nor do i strive to become one.
If you are an expert, please share your wealth of knowledge with us and support it with sources if you believe it might be difficult for people to believe or you think others might like to know more.
quote:
But I just don't think we'll find out.
You are correct. I do not purport to be an intellectual giant on the subject of Iraq. Nor, for that matter, do I make a habit of partaking in 'I'll show you!' oriented competitions. For that matter, over the internet it would seem a bit ridiculous as the competition would be a test of researching skills as opposed to knowledge. The entire notion is a bit silly.
quote:
Of the three or four people that act like you CF, you're the least offensive. And I'm beginning to simply not care whether or not you guys drive this forum towards becoming a wasteland.
I am happy that there are 3 or 4 educated and rational people that contribute to these boards. However, I would argue that there are more than the handful that you imply. Many members contribute well thought out arguments in the political section and passionately discuss topics closer to home.
As far as your fear of wasteland is concerned, it should be noted that nearly all of my heated discussion is reserved for the political forum. If, for some reason, intense debate with referenced facts and structure argument is offensive or frustrating for you I invite you to either skip my posts or avoid the forum on politics all together. Clearly this forum was created to segregate such discussions.
- - - - -
As far as fact checking is concerned I will reiterate my point: I make every attempt to check my facts before stating them. I am willing to be that I reference more facts on this board than anyone else. And I try to differentiate between opinion and fact.
If, at any point, you think I have facts wrong. PLEASE POINT IT OUT TO ME. I enjoy being PROVEN WRONG. That is how we learn. However, simply saying "you're wrong" or "you cant get your facts straight" is not beneficial unless you tell me 1) what I am wrong about 2) what the correct answer is and 3) where I can better education myself.That is how you discuss issues and attempt to enlighten people. I welcome you to do so and hope we can engage in actual discussion as it is apparent you disagree with me on many point. If this is the case, please tell me what and how you disagree - I'm interested to know. However, if you simply do not like me or do not want to put forth the effort required to educate me - just tell me that instead of posturing.
Thanks you.
MC, your hypersensitivity to a few members here is clouding your reading skills.
Re-read my post, all I was qualifying is who, in my opinion, has the most accurate view on Iraq these days. It's not anyone here on this board, including myself.
Care to point out where I can't get my facts straight? Or do I need to stoop to your level and resort to calling you a bald-face liar?
So go ahead and blow us away with your superior knowledge of Iraq. I'm all ears.
MichaelC:
I'm not trying to triple team you. You engaged me in this discussion so I hope you don't feel like I'm accosting you. I understand it is a bit frustrating carrying on a conversation with three people and may seem like we are trying to overwhelm you. Such is not my intention.
I would be happy to communicate via PM if you would prefer.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
MichaelC:
I'm not trying to triple team you. You engaged me in this discussion so I hope you don't feel like I'm accosting you. I understand it is a bit frustrating carrying on a conversation with three people and may seem like we are trying to overwhelm you. Such is not my intention.
I would be happy to communicate via PM if you would prefer.
[:D]
Thanks for the offer.
But I don't think I have anything else to say. I believe I found everything I was looking for on this thread.
What, you can't manage to get the word liar typed out one last time?
I think I'll have a Coca-Cola.
You see, the little surge we have done is only calming the capital a little bit, and all the terrorist have to do is leave town and wait.
And do this while they are on vacation:
http://www.newsok.com/article/1434712
U.S. Announces 8 Troop Deaths in Iraq
Associated Press
BAGHDAD (AP) -- A car bomb exploded Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala as the streets were packed with people heading for evening prayers, killing at least 58 and wounding scores near some of the country's most sacred shrines. Separately, the U.S. military announced the deaths of eight American troops, including three killed Saturday in a single roadside bombing outside Baghdad.
You neocons were wrong, are wrong and have taken us on a terrible voyage with no good way home. You are completely discredited and it's time for you and yours to go. Bush has killed Reagan, good riddance.
According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007).
CBS News' survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007).
57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and "the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people" (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).
59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America's reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).
According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007).
A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the "country remains unstable" (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007).
70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that "insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq" starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
56% of Americans say, if President Bush vetoes the Democrats' plan for withdrawal, Congress should still "allow funding for the war" even if there is no timetable. Only 36% want to withhold funding. A majority of Republicans (84%) and Independents (52%) want to allow funding, while only 51% of Democrats want to withhold it (CBS News, 4/20-24, 2007).
A mid-March Bloomberg poll revealed 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).
A Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%; 3/25-27, 2007).
According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose "denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq," and opposition is up from 58% in February (3/23-25, 2007).
69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/27-28, 2007).
Public Opinion Strategies recently reported a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
63% say the debate between the President and Congress over the Iraq war is having a negative impact on troop morale, while only 19% say it is not having any impact at all (CBS News, 4/9-12, 2007).
50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq "hurts" the troops, while only 27% believe it "helps" the troops (LA Times/Bloomberg, 4/5-9, 2007).
62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007).
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007).
CBS News' survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007).
57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and "the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people" (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).
59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America's reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).
According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007).
A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the "country remains unstable" (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007).
70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that "insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq" starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
56% of Americans say, if President Bush vetoes the Democrats' plan for withdrawal, Congress should still "allow funding for the war" even if there is no timetable. Only 36% want to withhold funding. A majority of Republicans (84%) and Independents (52%) want to allow funding, while only 51% of Democrats want to withhold it (CBS News, 4/20-24, 2007).
A mid-March Bloomberg poll revealed 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).
A Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%; 3/25-27, 2007).
According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose "denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq," and opposition is up from 58% in February (3/23-25, 2007).
69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/27-28, 2007).
Public Opinion Strategies recently reported a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
63% say the debate between the President and Congress over the Iraq war is having a negative impact on troop morale, while only 19% say it is not having any impact at all (CBS News, 4/9-12, 2007).
50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq "hurts" the troops, while only 27% believe it "helps" the troops (LA Times/Bloomberg, 4/5-9, 2007).
62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007).
well, I don't want an immediate withdrawal either, but the current plan is assinine and is accomplishing nothing. It's as bad as just pulling out now.
We need a plan to pull out and we need to talk to Iran and Syria about how to do it.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
You see, the little surge we have done is only calming the capital a little bit, and all the terrorist have to do is leave town and wait.
And do this while they are on vacation:
http://www.newsok.com/article/1434712
U.S. Announces 8 Troop Deaths in Iraq
Associated Press
BAGHDAD (AP) -- A car bomb exploded Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala as the streets were packed with people heading for evening prayers, killing at least 58 and wounding scores near some of the country's most sacred shrines. Separately, the U.S. military announced the deaths of eight American troops, including three killed Saturday in a single roadside bombing outside Baghdad.
You neocons were wrong, are wrong and have taken us on a terrible voyage with no good way home. You are completely discredited and it's time for you and yours to go.
Yeah! More links to news stories. Thanks Captain Obvious! What would we do without you, other than read the news on our own...
quote:
Bush has killed Reagan, good riddance.
And to think this whole time I thought it was Alzheimers; silly me.
quote:
We need a plan to pull out and we need to talk to Iran and Syria about how to do it.
[}:)] [}:)] [}:)] I can tell you what Iran will say already, "Just leave the key under the mat, we'll take care of it for you."
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
We need a plan to pull out and we need to talk to Iran and Syria about how to do it.
[}:)] [}:)] [}:)] I can tell you what Iran will say already, "Just leave the key under the mat, we'll take care of it for you."
You really aren't paying attention.
They already were given keys with the alarm code and we signed the deed over to them awhile back but for some reason we keep paying the mortgage.
quote:
You really aren't paying attention.
They already were given keys with the alarm code and we signed the deed over to them awhile back but for some reason we keep paying the mortgage.
Yeah I know. The day you bunch of bunch bed-wetting, spineless dopes got voted into office we should have immediately stapled a white flag to your liberal a$$ and sent you over to negotiate the terms of our surrender.
The only way that Iran can win is for you to continue being you, a spineless peacenik.
Swake you ever notice that they are so gung ho until it's their turn to hit the silk....
If I could just inject a small amount of sanity into this "World Changing" conversation..
quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday said the administration did not use former CIA Director George Tenet's "slam dunk" comment as the reason to invade Iraq, disputing his complaints.
Now that I have cleared that mystery up we can continue this Republican advertisement for a new form of PTSD...
quote:
If I could just inject a small amount of sanity into this "World Changing" conversation..
Yeah, you're a real balanced voice there Rico. [|)] What would we ever do without you?
You want the best reason to leave?
Iran, Al Queda, Wahabinist, all the people that want to harm us really, really want us in Iraq. It's a great big recruiting video for them that we are paying for in dollars and lives.
If we leave the country will probably stabilize to a great extent. First, Al Queda has little reason to be there outside of us, they are not popular in Iraq and will likely leave. Second, while we are in Iraq Iran can beat on us at will by supplying by arms and training to insurgent Shias. There is no cost to Iran. But, what Iran does not want is a full-blown civil war right next door. If we leave they are going to have to reign in their proxies like Sadr. And if the civil war is not halted after we leave, the Shia in Iraq will be looking to Iran for assistance and protection. A civil war starts to cost Iran lives and money, instead of us. It makes our enemy weaker and destabilizes an already shaky Iranian government.
Our threatening to leave has great leverage with Iran's government. If an American pull-out isn't handled well and civil war continues then the nation most likely to pay the most is Iran and it very easily could topple Iran's government. That's why we negotiate with them, our staying has zero leverage, out leaving has great leverage. If we bring in Syria and Iran and leave on our terms with a more stable Iraq everyone wins. The current situation is everyone losing except our enemies, especially Iran.
quote:
You want the best reason to leave?
Goodie gumdrops; I can't wait to hear!
quote:
Iran, Al Queda, Wahabinist, all the people that want to harm us really, really want us in Iraq. It's a great big recruiting video for them that we are paying for in dollars and lives.
And I have no problem with that. I'd rather kill them over there than have to hunt them down domestically.
To your other point, those who would rally to the side of extremist muslims will never be tolerant of the US, even if we weren't in the area. They hate us for our views on Israel first and foremost.
I welcome the recruitment of these nutjobs. The faster they can be recruited, the faster we can kill them. There is no nationalism, patriotic pride nor any other noble reason why these Islamic idiots fight us. They seek our destruction because we are the only thing between them and domination of the region and further establishment of Islamic states like Afghanistan.
To think that our exodous, or even our non-engagement initally, would have somehow prevented their radicalism is just blind ignorance, and you can look no futher than East Timor for a lesson.
quote:
If we leave the country will probably stabilize to a great extent. First, Al Queda has little reason to be there outside of us, they are not popular in Iraq and will likely leave.
First, nice opinion, but do you have anything to back this up? Zarqawi, and many other Taliban refugees were in Iraq before we got there. They couldn't go back to Afghanistan, so they took the path of least resistance into Iraq.
And logically, do you want Al-Qaeda just trapsing away to take root somewhere else? I think their presence there is reason enough to stay. Do you not want to bring those people who perpetrated 9/11 to justice?
Or do you only use that line when you want to bash Bush for not "finishing the job" in Afghanistan?
quote:
Second, while we are in Iraq Iran can beat on us at will by supplying by arms and training to insurgent Shias.
Not if we seal the border between Syria and between Iran, a freat which could be accomplished. In fact, it'd be a great job for the UN.
quote:
There is no cost to Iran.
Ummm...weapons and revolutionary guard certainly aren't free items.
quote:
But, what Iran does not want is a full-blown civil war right next door.
Sure they do. They have no reason not to want it. Shia are in the majority, and it would be a reasonable bet that they would emerge victorious. Iraq's vast oil reserves in exchange for arming a few insurgents...sounds like a great deal to me.
quote:
If we leave they are going to have to reign in their proxies like Sadr.
Why?
quote:
And if the civil war is not halted after we leave, the Shia in Iraq will be looking to Iran for assistance and protection.
Too late, and they are already offering both.
quote:
A civil war starts to cost Iran lives and money, instead of us. It makes our enemy weaker and destabilizes an already shaky Iranian government.
Please explain how? A proxy Shia majority in Iraq which controls the oil output seems to me to be a sufficient enough reason for Iran to expend quite a lot of blood and expese.
quote:
If an American pull-out isn't handled well and civil war continues then the nation most likely to pay the most is Iran and it very easily could topple Iran's government.
Please explain the scenario that you are envisioning.
quote:
If we bring in Syria and Iran and leave on our terms with a more stable Iraq everyone wins. The current situation is everyone losing except our enemies, especially Iran.
You're
contradicting yourself. You just said that the situation right now, with a civil war destablizing the region, would eventually work to topple Iran's government. But in the next breath you say that the civil war is benefiting Iran.
So which is it?
Seriously,
Are you really that stupid? You fail to understand that by allowing ourselves to be shown as "the great Satan" by occupying a Muslim nation is harmful? You really don't comprehend that we are contributing to a massive "radicalization" of Muslim youth around the world? The people that are being recruited are those that in different circumstances would not become radical at all. Iraq is making it more likely that we will be attacked, not less.
As for the spurious argument about "fighting us there instead of here", well, fighting Al Qaeda there does nothing to block them from fighting us here, in fact it again makes them stronger and more likely to attack here by providing a fertile recruiting environment and a more sympathetic Muslim world. We should be fighting them in Afghanistan, the surge should have been there. Iraq has always been a distraction from our unfinished work in Afghanistan.
And, I there is no real cost to Iran yet, at least nothing they admit to their own population. And whatever they are contributing today is nothing compared to what they would have to contribute to protect all the oil and all those people.
And they do enjoy a civil war there so long as we are the ones holding each side apart from one another. We are in the position of protecting a public that hates us. If we leave they will largely get stuck in our position today.
What Iran knows and what Bush never learned was some really basic principles of politics and war: The enemy of my enemy is my friend and when my enemy is weakened I am made stronger.
More fun in the nation we're supposed to be stabilizing:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070430/ts_nm/iraq_dc
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber wearing a vest packed with explosives killed 32 people when he blew himself up among mourners at a Shi'ite funeral north of Baghdad on Monday, Iraqi police said. [...]
Five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq over the weekend, raising the number killed this month to over 100 and making April one of the deadliest of the war for U.S. forces.
Then there's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901728.html?hpid=topnews
BAGHDAD, April 29 -- A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.
<end clip>
So if al-Maliki determines they're doing too good of a job, they're fired.
This is insanity.
quote:
Seriously,
Are you really that stupid?
The same question arises every time I read your posts...
quote:
You fail to understand that by allowing ourselves to be shown as "the great Satan" by occupying a Muslim nation is harmful?
Those who would become radicalized are going to do so regardless of our intervention. If not because of our actions, because of Israel. Again, study up on East Timor and tell me what caused the militancy against Australia.
You've confused reactionary militant Islam with nationalism, and they aren't interchangable.
Iraq is a great example. The vast majority of civilians are not fighting us, just radical elements within the sects.
I'm afraid you're the uninformed party dear swake.
quote:
You really don't comprehend that we are contributing to a massive "radicalization" of Muslim youth around the world?
Again, more of the same. The cause of militant Islam is our resistance to it, so we should just stick a flag in the sand and tell them to take what they want. We played that game before and it ended with 3,000 dead Americans.
quote:
The people that are being recruited are those that in different circumstances would not become radical at all. Iraq is making it more likely that we will be attacked, not less.
Complete bullsh!t! Unless you're willing to concede that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, and that they are all just waiting for a chance to become radicalized...
There are no pretenses of nationalism that drive the violence in Iraq.
THE IRAQI PEOPLE ARE NOT FIGHTIING US.quote:
As for the spurious argument about "fighting us there instead of here", well, fighting Al Qaeda there does nothing to block them from fighting us here in fact it again makes them stronger and more likely to attack here by providing a fertile recruiting environment and a more sympathetic Muslim world.
Recycled. Re-read above.
quote:
We should be fighting them in Afghanistan, the surge should have been there. Iraq has always been a distraction from our unfinished work in Afghanistan.
More bullsh!t. We accomplished the goal in Afghanistan of removing the Taliban from power. Resurgency was always a possibility, but NATO is there to deal with it.
Afghanistan is a NATO responsibility now, and they have a soverign government in place. They need a robust economy and strong military, neither of which the US armed forces can provide.
The bottom line is, compared to Afghanistan, Iraq is the focal point and the locus of Al-Qaeda operations. Walking away just makes you a hypocrite for even discussing Afghanistan.
We "abandoned" our obligations in Afghanistan by not eliminating the Taliban (which is rediculous to assume we could do), and you want to do the exact same in Iraq?
quote:
And, I there is no real cost to Iran yet, at least nothing they admit to their own population. And whatever they are contributing today is nothing compared to what they would have to contribute to protect all the oil and all those people.
Does your hand smell? You had to dig pretty far up to grab that didn't you?
quote:
If we leave they will largely get stuck in our position today.
I suppose that's okay with you?
quote:
What Iran knows and what Bush never learned was some really basic principles of politics and war: The enemy of my enemy is my friend and when my enemy is weakened I am made stronger.
That line of retarded thinking is what put Saddam Hussein in power and allowed him to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The enemy of my enemy is just that, another enemy.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Seriously,
Are you really that stupid? You fail to understand that by allowing ourselves to be shown as "the great Satan" by occupying a Muslim nation is harmful? You really don't comprehend that we are contributing to a massive "radicalization" of Muslim youth around the world? The people that are being recruited are those that in different circumstances would not become radical at all. Iraq is making it more likely that we will be attacked, not less.
As for the spurious argument about "fighting us there instead of here", well, fighting Al Qaeda there does nothing to block them from fighting us here, in fact it again makes them stronger and more likely to attack here by providing a fertile recruiting environment and a more sympathetic Muslim world. We should be fighting them in Afghanistan, the surge should have been there. Iraq has always been a distraction from our unfinished work in Afghanistan.
And, I there is no real cost to Iran yet, at least nothing they admit to their own population. And whatever they are contributing today is nothing compared to what they would have to contribute to protect all the oil and all those people.
And they do enjoy a civil war there so long as we are the ones holding each side apart from one another. We are in the position of protecting a public that hates us. If we leave they will largely get stuck in our position today.
What Iran knows and what Bush never learned was some really basic principles of politics and war: The enemy of my enemy is my friend and when my enemy is weakened I am made stronger.
Really Swake? We were referred to as the "Great Satan" long before we occupied Iraq. The first time I remember hearing that was not long after Khomeini took power in Iran. I fail to see that the occupation of Iraq has given any more rise to anti-American sentiment amongst terrorist nut-jobs than there ever has been. They have been trying to bait us into a war for decades.
How spurrious is it that there has not been ONE SINGLE Al-Qaeda attack within the United States in over five years? The only attacks within our borders are coming from liberal Al-Qaeda sympathisers.
If we were to pull out prematurely, and attacks start up over here, I'm sure it would all become Bush's fault "if we hadn't have gone in there in the first place".
So a radical Muslim is born, not made huh? Can we find that gene?
Your path of thinking is what got us into this mess. Blind ideology with no regard to world events, history, facts on the ground or even any understanding of human nature. Your kind said we would be welcomed with open arms and loved for getting rid of a tyrant, said the mission was accomplished and said many, many times that the insurgency was about done and that we are "making progress".
Your point of view has been proven wrong so many times in this conflict it's mind-boggling that you still hold so true to the Bush party line.
And, if we have finished the job in Afghanistan so well, just which prison are Omar and Bin Laden in awaiting trial?
The best line and most ridiculous is that there are no Iraqis killing Americans. Good stuff. Keep it coming.
quote:
So a radical Muslim is born, not made huh? Can we find that gene?
That's the wrong question.
Please explain for me what policy of the US started the Barbary Wars? What policy of Australia's warranted the attack of its civilians for encouraging the freedom of East Timor from Indonesia? What policy of the innocent Hindus in India prompted OBL to create Al-Qaeda expressly for the extermination of Hindus? What policy of the Christians in Darfur caused their mass genocide at the hands of Islamic nutjobs?
Pretending that OUR actions have created these forces of reaction is just laughable.
quote:
Your path of thinking is what got us into this mess. Blind ideology with no regard to world events, history, facts on the ground or even any understanding of human nature.
Hello Kettle.
quote:
Your kind said we would be welcomed with open arms and loved for getting rid of a tyrant, said the mission was accomplished and said many, many times that the insurgency was about done and that we are "making progress".
And you're lying for saying it didn't happen.
"No. I was there. I saw it myself. American soldiers and British soldiers were greeted by hundreds of thousands of people with real joy. I saw it myself. I can't believe people say it didn't happen." -- Christopher Hitchens (//%22http://billmillan.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-saw-our-soldiers-greeted-as.html%22)The ensuing sectarian violence is a separate issue, and Hitchen's quote reinforces my assertion that the Iraqi people are NOT FIGHTING us and have never been interested in fighting us.
quote:
Your point of view has been proven wrong so many times in this conflict it's mind-boggling that you still hold so true to the Bush party line.
What POV are you even speaking of? Talk in generalities much?
quote:
And, if we have finished the job in Afghanistan so well, just which prison are Omar and Bin Laden in awaiting trial?
I didn't realize that was our mark of completion. Seems like nothing more than a cop-out for you. If we had captured OBL you'd be *****ing because of the poppies, or because it's too hot there, or too sandy.
Afghanistan is a NATO responsibility now, and it's rightly in the hands of the intl' community.
quote:
The best line and most ridiculous is that there are no Iraqis killing Americans. Good stuff. Keep it coming.
Militant radicals are killing US soldiers, not civilians. The vast majority of Iraqi citizens are just scared to death and want a normal life.
If the Iraqi people were the ones killing our soldiers we'd have far more deaths than we're seeing.
Does your brain only work on slow and stop?
quote:
The best line and most ridiculous is that there are no Iraqis killing Americans. Good stuff. Keep it coming.
Militant radicals are killing US soldiers, not civilians. The vast majority of Iraqi citizens are just scared to death and want a normal life.
If the Iraqi people were the ones killing our soldiers we'd have far more deaths than we're seeing.
<end clip>
So I guess the militant radicals aren't Iraqi people? I didn't know they had renounced their citizenship.
Keep stepping in it, iplaw. [}:)]
quote:
So I guess the militant radicals aren't Iraqi people? I didn't know they had renounced their citizenship.
Keep stepping in it, iplaw. [}:)]
You can't possibly be this dense, well, yes you can, and you are.
Who are the foregin fighters in Iraq? (//%22http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/%22)
More foreign fighters entering Iraq. (//%22http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1332344.htm%22)
US nabs foreign fighters in Iraq (//%22http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97074,00.html%22)
Syria controlling the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. (//%22http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177591148386&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull%22)
Insurgents, by all accounts, comprise 50,000 fighters both Sunni and Shia. The population of Baghdad is roughly 5.5 million people, which translates to about .009% of the population.
Keep telling yourself the
Iraqi people are fighting us...
The majority of Iraqi people support attacks on American troops (54% USA Today last month) and the vast majority (78% USA Today last month) want the US out NOW.
And while we are not the reason for radical Islam, they use us well as villainous puppets and for our actions to dovetail into their goals is stupidity.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the constructs of our friends the Saudis and the Pakistani Secret Service respectively. And the infrastructure that led to the creation of both still exists, even flourishes and we have done nearly nothing to deal with either the Saudis or Pakistan.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
So I guess the militant radicals aren't Iraqi people? I didn't know they had renounced their citizenship.
Keep stepping in it, iplaw. [}:)]
You can't possibly be this dense, well, yes you can, and you are.
Who are the foregin fighters in Iraq? (//%22http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/%22)
More foreign fighters entering Iraq. (//%22http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1332344.htm%22)
US nabs foreign fighters in Iraq (//%22http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97074,00.html%22)
Syria controlling the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. (//%22http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177591148386&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull%22)
Insurgents, by all accounts, comprise 50,000 fighters both Sunni and Shia. The population of Baghdad is roughly 5.5 million people, which translates to about .009% of the population.
Keep telling yourself the Iraqi people are fighting us...
So, no American troops have died at the hand of Sadr and his followers? None at the hands of the Sunni insurgents?
I never said that there are not foreign influences and fighters in Iraq. But it's a long way from showing that foreign fighters exist to you saying that Americans aren't being killed by Iraqis. A great deal of the foreign fighters are Iranian or Iranian trained, which really goes back to my point about Iran, now doesn't it.
quote:
The majority of Iraqi people support attacks on American troops (54% USA Today last month) and the vast majority (78% USA Today last month) want the US out NOW.
Most people in Iraq regurgitate the nonsense they hear from fat little potentates like Sadr, so I don't put much stock in those polls.
quote:
And while we are not the reason for radical Islam, they use us well as villainous puppets and for our actions to dovetail into their goals is stupidity.
And my point about the Barbary wars et al, was that they will find a way to be pissed off at us. They are not interested in a truce or common peace.
The most important line from that poll was this:
"Last week, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani told the United Nations that coalition forces should remain in Iraq until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."He understands the pressure and hardship the people are going through, but also understands the consequence if we leave.
quote:
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the constructs of our friends the Saudis and the Pakistani Secret Service respectively. And the infrastructure that led to the creation of both still exists, even flourishes and we have done nearly nothing to deal with either the Saudis or Pakistan.
I can't believe I agree with you about something. I think our confrontation of Pakistan especially, is long over due.
The whole area, save Dubai and Israel is a rat's nest.
quote:
So, no American troops have died at the hand of Sadr and his followers? None at the hands of the Sunni insurgents?
No one said that either. What I take exception to is the idea that the populous of Iraq is rising up against the US. It's a handful of nutjobs. If the "Iraqi people" were killing US servicemen, there would be far more dead than we see, just in terms of sheer numbers.
quote:
A great deal of the foreign fighters are Iranian or Iranian trained, which really goes back to my point about Iran, now doesn't it.
Not really, but you've made so many contradictory statements about Iran today I can't remember.
This is where it all begins....You stop these idiots before they really get started...Like we do here in the states.....It's going to be a long process but eventually you depend on local govenments to stop them early on.....I figure at least another 10 years in Iraq....Afghanastan...and some time in Iran....
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/antigovernment_.html
Can you imagine what groups like this could do in the U.S. if they were left un-checked.....Well your seeing it in the Middle-East....
Suffered through this thread only to wind up where I started, that anyone still supporting the Bush adm. is in need of a brain-washing.
Waste of time.
Two Thumbs down.
jdb
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
Suffered through this thread only to wind up where I started, that anyone still supporting the Bush adm. is in need of a brain-washing.
Waste of time.
Two Thumbs down.
jdb
Typical. Nothing to offer, just drive-by-bomb throwing with no substance. It's amazing that people like you actually evolved opposable thumbs.
Thanks for crapping the thread. Good day.
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
Suffered through this thread only to wind up where I started, that anyone still supporting the Bush adm. is in need of a brain-washing.
Waste of time.
Two Thumbs down.
jdb
To say that anyone supporting the Bush admin. is in need of a brain-washing would tend to indicate that those not in support have themselves already been the recipients of a good brain-washing..
Freudian slip?
Talk about "typical"?
Any opinon that doesn't jive with yours being treated to a snide crack, at best.
It's an opinon maybe it sucks but in my opinon not as much as yours.
Well, guess I lied. I did walk away with one other thing....a sense of dissapppointment that there wasn't any new hot air in here that hasn't been talked to death in print or TV, for ages now.
No doubt I could use a scrub, but there is no Victory, only saving face.
Last crack I heard was..."the dems are slow bleeding the troops". Not even good spin.
Looks like things have to get a hellva lot worse before we as a Nation finally wake up.
Sucks too, jdb
I don't think anyone in here is going to change anyone's opinion, at all. I'm a conservative, and I disagree with much about how this war has been prosecuted (don't think pulling out is the answer though).
My gripes mostly have to do with not letting the troops actually do their job - and that falls flat on the commander in chief for being to big of a wimp to stand up to his detractors. People have died and are dying as a result.
Do you know how many steps a soldier or marine has to go through these days before even being able to make the decision on firing a weapon?
Way too many.. It's called "rules of engagement" and all of that crap falls directly on the shoulders of the commander in chief. I don't agree with Bush on tons of issues so please don't paint me as a kool-aid drinking Republican.
Many of the more liberal leaning people on this forum are just as guilty of that as are conservatives.
..........And then there is this little gem of wisdom....
Originally spoken by Madame Rice..quote:
"Look, not everything went right," Rice said. "This is a very difficult circumstance. There were some things that went right and some things that went wrong. And you know what? We will have a chance to look at that in history. And I will have a chance to reflect on that when I have a chance to write my book."
Well, Madame Secretary, you may one day be able to sit and reflect upon what went right and what went wrong.... But unfortunately the men and women of our Military that died yesterday, today, and will die tomorrow will not have that luxury....
as for us here in Tulsa we are stuck listening to a deranged lawyer tell us that throwing rocks at an avalanche will somehow make us all safer. but then you have George....
I think anyone with an IQ over 75 knows that we did the wrong thing at the start of this war.... We are fighting them on their terms... a friendlier more warm and fuzzy kind of warfare...
Nothing more fun than trying to whip a Gorilla with one arm tied behind you....
One thing that I most certainly agree with you on, Madame Secretary, history will put all things and all people in perspective as it has done with other wars.
quote:
Any opinon that doesn't jive with yours being treated to a snide crack, at best. It's an opinon maybe it sucks but in my opinon not as much as yours.
A snide crack for snide comment, I suppose. Had you actually offered a thought or comment rather than sniped, I wouldn't have returned the favor by sniping you back.
quote:
Well, Madame Secretary, you may one day be able to sit and reflect upon what went right and what went wrong.... But unfortunately the men and women of our Military that died yesterday, today, and will die tomorrow will not have that luxury....
As they always do in war...
quote:
as for us here in Tulsa we are stuck listening to a deranged lawyer tell us that throwing rocks at an avalanche will somehow make us all safer. but then you have George....
As they say, if you don't like it, click another thread. No one forces you to read my posts.
quote:
I think anyone with an IQ over 75 knows that we did the wrong thing at the start of this war.... We are fighting them on their terms... a friendlier more warm and fuzzy kind of warfare...
Only those with one lower than that can fail to see the significance of leaving.
" think anyone with an IQ over 75 knows that we did the wrong thing at the start of this war.... We are fighting them on their terms... a friendlier more warm and fuzzy kind of warfare...
Nothing more fun than trying to whip a Gorilla with one arm tied behind you...."
How is taking the fight to their doorstep fighting it on their terms? Their terms were sneaking in the backdoor of our country and hi-jacking our aircraft to use as weapons.
There is not near as much honor to these nut-jobs in killing U.S. service men and women who know it could be a reality of their job. They get their glory in killing innocent civilians, not military personnel.
The people who are fighting this war to keep the rest of the world safe volunteered to do this and know they could pay a high price to do it. No one held a gun to their head and told them to join the military.
Democrats need to quit playing games and trying to tie one arm behind the backs of our troops.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
" think anyone with an IQ over 75 knows that we did the wrong thing at the start of this war.... We are fighting them on their terms... a friendlier more warm and fuzzy kind of warfare...
Nothing more fun than trying to whip a Gorilla with one arm tied behind you...."
How is taking the fight to their doorstep fighting it on their terms? Their terms were sneaking in the backdoor of our country and hi-jacking our aircraft to use as weapons.
How many Iraqis participated again and what did Saddam do to help?
None and nothing.
By what you are saying we should be at war in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not Iraq.
Morons.
quote:
How many Iraqis participated again and what did Saddam do to help?
None and nothing.
By what you are saying we should be at war in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not Iraq.
Morons.
Speaking of morons, I don't know anyone who could read what he said and conjure up a non-sequitor the way you did. It's like you've got the reading comprehension and problem solving skills of a 5 year old.
Seems like you and Rwarn the only ones that can't understand that while 9/11 and Iraq are both independent issues, they both fall under the umbrella of the WOT. It is not the War on Al-Qaeda, it's the War on Terror. By your thinking we should ignore NK because they didn't attack us on 9/11.[xx(]
You don't ignore North Korea, but you don't invade without 1) considering the consequences; or 2) without good planning, either.
Bush did neither when the U.S. invaded Iraq. That is beyond dispute. That's why we're in this mess today.
If you have a War on Terror, or whatever buzzword Washington is using this week, perhaps it would have been better to go after the 9/11 kingpins first before taking on more ambitious plans. That's common sense and proper priorities.
Hell, why don't we invade Pakistan? That country is lousy with al-Qaida and Taliban nutballs. Oh, that's right. It's because the consequences of a full-scale invasion would destabilize a huge area and place the U.S. military in a big quagmire.
Sound familiar?
quote:
You don't ignore North Korea, but you don't invade without 1) considering the consequences; or 2) without good planning, either.
Bush did neither when the U.S. invaded Iraq. That is beyond dispute. That's why we're in this mess today.
What you see today was inevitable. There was nothing that could have been done to keep Al-Qaeda from inciting sectarian violence, other than to have removed Saddam 12 years earlier when the Taliban was non-starter.
No amount of troops could have prevented what we are seeing today as it is guerilla warfare, and troops aren't really that good at fighting that kind of war. We're there right now to keep the nutjobs from killing civilians and from raping the oil fields.
quote:
If you have a War on Terror, or whatever buzzword Washington is using this week, perhaps it would have been better to go after the 9/11 kingpins first before taking on more ambitious plans. That's common sense and proper priorities.
For Christ' sake. We did go after Al-Qaeda in the form of the Taliban. 2/3 of their leadership has been either imprisoned or killed, a number which is disputed by no one (other than you probably). Afghanistan is a NATO responsibility now, and rightly so.
quote:
Hell, why don't we invade Pakistan? That country is lousy with al-Qaida and Taliban nutballs. Oh, that's right. It's because the consequences of a full-scale invasion would destabilize a huge area and place the U.S. military in a big quagmire.
Yeah, just like the quagmire that was predicted by dingus' like you before we went into Afghanistan. That has nothing to do with why we aren't invading Pakistan, but good try.
quote:
Sound familiar?
Nope, not really.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9966084
Spate of Suicide Bombings Threatens Iraq 'Surge'
by Mike Shuster
All Things Considered, May 2, 2007 • An Iraqi military spokesman has announced that heavy vehicles will be banned from crossing most of Baghdad's bridges. The ban appears to be designed to keep the bridges safe from suicide bombers; hundreds of suicide bombers have detonated their explosives in the four years of the Iraq war.
Suicide bombings have been used in various conflicts around the world since 1980. But never has the world seen such an enormous number of such attacks as in Iraq — at least 350, and likely more, since the U.S. invasion in 2003.
On April 12, a man smuggled a suicide vest inside the building housing Iraq's parliament in the Green Zone, the most fortified and protected area in all of Iraq. There are numerous checkpoints involving frisking, bomb-sniffing dogs and electronic sensors.
But somehow the bomber managed to get inside, and he detonated his bomb, killing himself and one member of parliament.
As such attacks go, the death toll was minor. Symbolically, though, the message was clear: suicide attackers can hit anywhere.
Now, as thousands of additional U.S. troops are being deployed to Baghdad's neighborhoods as part of the "surge" strategy, there has been an epidemic of suicide attacks. The bombers use cars, trucks. They can be on foot. They get very close to their targets, and their attacks are highly lethal — far more deadly than ordinary roadside bombs.
On April 18, a string of bombings, most of them suicide attacks, cut a swath of death and mayhem across Baghdad. Nearly 200 people were killed that day, 140 of them in one huge blast at the predominantly Shiite market in Sadriya, a neighborhood of north central Baghdad.
It's fair to say that the suicide bomber is the insurgency's most devastating weapon, yet there is precious little understanding of who orchestrates the attacks and what motivates the attackers.
Many attacks have taken place in markets and bus stations, killing thousands of civilians. Most of the civilians killed have been Shiites. Most if not all of the suicide attacks have been carried out by Sunni insurgents.
Last year, NPR conducted a short interview with a would-be suicide bomber, a teenage Iraqi girl.
"My name is Noor Abid Ghezal," she said in Arabic. "I am 18 years old. I am accused of terrorism; the attempted assassination of Hussein al-Sadr, the member of the parliament from Kadhimiya."
Speaking from a jail cell, Noor told a story laced with romance and deception, at once naive and bitter, reflecting just how ruthless and manipulative those who plan these attacks can be.
"I was a student," she said. "I only had my mother at home but she died. After that I fell in love with my stepmother's friend. I loved him and he loved me. I didn't know that he was such a bastard until later on."
Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been at least 351 confirmed suicide bombings in Iraq. That number was supplied by Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Pape is the director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, which maintains perhaps the world's most extensive database on suicide attacks.
Pape's data indicate that the pace of suicide bombing in Iraq is increasing at an alarming rate.
"Before our invasion in March 2003, Iraq never experienced a suicide attack in its history," Pape said. "Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been essentially doubling in Iraq every year that we've had more or less 150,000 American combat soldiers stationed there."
Pape has looked closely at who conducts suicide bombing across the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, examining educational level and socio-economic background, among other factors. In many cases, the bombers relayed their rationale in their own words, after videotapes surfaced or their last words were posted on the Internet.
Pape concluded that suicide bombing is used primarily against forces that the attackers see as foreign occupiers or collaborators.
Many in Iraq deny that Iraqis carry out suicide attacks, pointing instead to fighters associated with al-Qaida, who come from outside Iraq.
But the record shows otherwise. The first suicide bombing against U.S. troops occurred during the invasion, on March 29, 2003, in Najaf. It was carried out by a member of the Iraqi force known as the Fedayeen Saddam. Before the war was over, U.S. Marines found a stockpile of suicide vests hidden in a school in Baghdad.
Of the 351 confirmed suicide attacks in Iraq by the end of 2006, the Chicago project has been able to identify 55 of the attackers. Thirteen were Iraqis; 16 were Saudis. Three-quarters of the attackers were Iraqi or from the Sunni-dominated states bordering Iraq.
Pape has not found one confirmed instance of a Shiite suicide bomber in the Iraq conflict.
Of the targets, more than 50 percent were military. Civilian targets accounted for more than 30 percent last year.
In the case of Noor, her boyfriend wanted her to kill a Shiite member of parliament.
"He turned out to work with a terrorist group," Noor said. "He introduced me to another group of men. They were terrorists, but I didn't realize this. They entrapped me, and here I am in prison."
In the interview with her last year, Noor did not explain why she did not go through with the bombing, or how one of her handlers was seized when she was arrested. Sometimes those who accompany the bomber actually detonate the bomb remotely, but that was not how it worked in Noor's case.
"So I was sentenced to seven years in prison," she said. "One and a half are done."
In fact, Iraq's prisons, those maintained by the Iraqi government and the detainee camps that the United States has run since 2003, may be the source of future suicide bombers.
The worst abuses — like those that occurred in Abu Ghraib — may have largely been curtailed.
But many Sunnis believe that prisoners are still abused and that makes the prisoners easy recruits for the insurgency.
"The prisons are only incubating these people," said Selim Abdullah, spokesman for the Sunni bloc in the Iraqi parliament. Speaking in Arabic, he said, "An innocent person who enters prison for three years without knowing why he is there will be an easy tool for them. When he gets released, he becomes one of those who follow the criminal path."
Hundreds of bombers have already sacrificed their lives in suicide attacks in Iraq. Yet it seems that the supply of future suicide bombers gets larger and larger all of the time.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
" think anyone with an IQ over 75 knows that we did the wrong thing at the start of this war.... We are fighting them on their terms... a friendlier more warm and fuzzy kind of warfare...
Nothing more fun than trying to whip a Gorilla with one arm tied behind you...."
How is taking the fight to their doorstep fighting it on their terms? Their terms were sneaking in the backdoor of our country and hi-jacking our aircraft to use as weapons.
There is not near as much honor to these nut-jobs in killing U.S. service men and women who know it could be a reality of their job. They get their glory in killing innocent civilians, not military personnel.
The people who are fighting this war to keep the rest of the world safe volunteered to do this and know they could pay a high price to do it. No one held a gun to their head and told them to join the military.
Democrats need to quit playing games and trying to tie one arm behind the backs of our troops.
You know what I am now becoming sick of you whimps...
Neither you or ip were in Nam and neither one of you know what prompted the individuals to go.I had more than 50 friends that went... none were drafted. They wanted to go.
We are fighting them on their terms and have been since we invaded Afghanistan.
I do not see too many F-16's driving around in Afghanistan or Iraq...
We strategically bombed portions of Afghanistan... In an effort to minimize collateral damage.
"That's what I call warm and fuzzy warfare"...
You know and I know we could have done away with OBL in roughly a few hours flight time...
but would have caused a large civilian casualty count....
tough sh#t...
These, oh ferocious Conan and ip, would have been our terms... not their terms.
Look at that in comparison to the number of civilian casualties to date......
But our Mister Rumsfeld thought we could do it on the cheap and still look like knights in shining armor. Thats what I call "fighting a Gorilla with one hand tied behind you."
To hell with the promise after Viet Nam that we would never go to war again unless it was full force...
By the way.... Iraq was incidental. Had we blown the sh#t out of the campground and OBL.... we would have had the respect and dominance on the global stage that this futile attempt in Iraq is supposed to acquire us.
Iraq is most successful as being an indoctrination tool for the terrorist.
Damn rico...the armchair bullys finally get to you or did you pause on Fox for a nano second too long?
Reading this again, looking for grounds that merited my post as crap (oh yeah, up your's ip) all I gained was a bit more respect for rwarn - so not a complete waste.
Still, IMO, the surge is going to bust: given the rising heat from the American public, the political climatic activity, and anyones best guess of when the Iraqi's can recruit, organize and operate effectively - with advisor's or not.
There is no Victory in an 11th hour, stop-gap measure, that buys a little time and might save a little face once the smoke clears: but there is one helva cost.
Another lesson we learn and vow not to repeat?
Do NOT go stomping off to War with some little man that has 75 points under his cowboy hat, a burr under his saddle, and whom can't read the night sky to find his way back.
jdb
<slanderous comments made while obviously under the influence of something illegal removed>
quote:
Originally posted by swake
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9966084
Spate of Suicide Bombings Threatens Iraq 'Surge'
by Mike Shuster
All Things Considered, May 2, 2007 • An Iraqi military spokesman has announced that heavy vehicles will be banned from crossing most of Baghdad's bridges. The ban appears to be designed to keep the bridges safe from suicide bombers; hundreds of suicide bombers have detonated their explosives in the four years of the Iraq war.
Suicide bombings have been used in various conflicts around the world since 1980. But never has the world seen such an enormous number of such attacks as in Iraq — at least 350, and likely more, since the U.S. invasion in 2003.
On April 12, a man smuggled a suicide vest inside the building housing Iraq's parliament in the Green Zone, the most fortified and protected area in all of Iraq. There are numerous checkpoints involving frisking, bomb-sniffing dogs and electronic sensors.
But somehow the bomber managed to get inside, and he detonated his bomb, killing himself and one member of parliament.
As such attacks go, the death toll was minor. Symbolically, though, the message was clear: suicide attackers can hit anywhere.
Now, as thousands of additional U.S. troops are being deployed to Baghdad's neighborhoods as part of the "surge" strategy, there has been an epidemic of suicide attacks. The bombers use cars, trucks. They can be on foot. They get very close to their targets, and their attacks are highly lethal — far more deadly than ordinary roadside bombs.
On April 18, a string of bombings, most of them suicide attacks, cut a swath of death and mayhem across Baghdad. Nearly 200 people were killed that day, 140 of them in one huge blast at the predominantly Shiite market in Sadriya, a neighborhood of north central Baghdad.
It's fair to say that the suicide bomber is the insurgency's most devastating weapon, yet there is precious little understanding of who orchestrates the attacks and what motivates the attackers.
Many attacks have taken place in markets and bus stations, killing thousands of civilians. Most of the civilians killed have been Shiites. Most if not all of the suicide attacks have been carried out by Sunni insurgents.
Last year, NPR conducted a short interview with a would-be suicide bomber, a teenage Iraqi girl.
"My name is Noor Abid Ghezal," she said in Arabic. "I am 18 years old. I am accused of terrorism; the attempted assassination of Hussein al-Sadr, the member of the parliament from Kadhimiya."
Speaking from a jail cell, Noor told a story laced with romance and deception, at once naive and bitter, reflecting just how ruthless and manipulative those who plan these attacks can be.
"I was a student," she said. "I only had my mother at home but she died. After that I fell in love with my stepmother's friend. I loved him and he loved me. I didn't know that he was such a bastard until later on."
Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been at least 351 confirmed suicide bombings in Iraq. That number was supplied by Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Pape is the director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, which maintains perhaps the world's most extensive database on suicide attacks.
Pape's data indicate that the pace of suicide bombing in Iraq is increasing at an alarming rate.
"Before our invasion in March 2003, Iraq never experienced a suicide attack in its history," Pape said. "Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been essentially doubling in Iraq every year that we've had more or less 150,000 American combat soldiers stationed there."
Pape has looked closely at who conducts suicide bombing across the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, examining educational level and socio-economic background, among other factors. In many cases, the bombers relayed their rationale in their own words, after videotapes surfaced or their last words were posted on the Internet.
Pape concluded that suicide bombing is used primarily against forces that the attackers see as foreign occupiers or collaborators.
Many in Iraq deny that Iraqis carry out suicide attacks, pointing instead to fighters associated with al-Qaida, who come from outside Iraq.
But the record shows otherwise. The first suicide bombing against U.S. troops occurred during the invasion, on March 29, 2003, in Najaf. It was carried out by a member of the Iraqi force known as the Fedayeen Saddam. Before the war was over, U.S. Marines found a stockpile of suicide vests hidden in a school in Baghdad.
Of the 351 confirmed suicide attacks in Iraq by the end of 2006, the Chicago project has been able to identify 55 of the attackers. Thirteen were Iraqis; 16 were Saudis. Three-quarters of the attackers were Iraqi or from the Sunni-dominated states bordering Iraq.
Pape has not found one confirmed instance of a Shiite suicide bomber in the Iraq conflict.
Of the targets, more than 50 percent were military. Civilian targets accounted for more than 30 percent last year.
In the case of Noor, her boyfriend wanted her to kill a Shiite member of parliament.
"He turned out to work with a terrorist group," Noor said. "He introduced me to another group of men. They were terrorists, but I didn't realize this. They entrapped me, and here I am in prison."
In the interview with her last year, Noor did not explain why she did not go through with the bombing, or how one of her handlers was seized when she was arrested. Sometimes those who accompany the bomber actually detonate the bomb remotely, but that was not how it worked in Noor's case.
"So I was sentenced to seven years in prison," she said. "One and a half are done."
In fact, Iraq's prisons, those maintained by the Iraqi government and the detainee camps that the United States has run since 2003, may be the source of future suicide bombers.
The worst abuses — like those that occurred in Abu Ghraib — may have largely been curtailed.
But many Sunnis believe that prisoners are still abused and that makes the prisoners easy recruits for the insurgency.
"The prisons are only incubating these people," said Selim Abdullah, spokesman for the Sunni bloc in the Iraqi parliament. Speaking in Arabic, he said, "An innocent person who enters prison for three years without knowing why he is there will be an easy tool for them. When he gets released, he becomes one of those who follow the criminal path."
Hundreds of bombers have already sacrificed their lives in suicide attacks in Iraq. Yet it seems that the supply of future suicide bombers gets larger and larger all of the time.
(http://aycu36.webshots.com/image/15235/2005898756233827468_rs.jpg)
quote:
You know what I am now becoming sick of you whimps...
That's okay, I tired of you long ago.
Go away. No one is forcing you to be here.
quote:
Neither you or ip were in Nam and neither one of you know what prompted the individuals to go.I had more than 50 friends that went... none were drafted. They wanted to go.
A bit off topic, but OK...
quote:
We are fighting them on their terms and have been since we invaded Afghanistan.
I do not see too many F-16's driving around in Afghanistan or Iraq...
Well, since you fly an F-16 that's a fairly obvious omission.
quote:
We strategically bombed portions of Afghanistan... In an effort to minimize collateral damage.
Yes. Because of anti-war idiots who scream bloody murder if we don't. I'm sure you'd just be chiming in right along with the administration if we would have dropped the sh&t hammer on Afghanistan. If you're trying to say that we could have killed all of the Taliban, you're on drugs. Too many places to hide, too many places (like Iraq) to flee to.
quote:
You know and I know we could have done away with OBL in roughly a few hours flight time...
but would have caused a large civilian casualty count....
Yeah. We were given the opportunity when he was vulnerable and exposed under Clinton and we chose not to take it.
quote:
Look at that in comparison to the number of civilian casualties to date......
Comparison to what? The hundreds of thousands that died at the hands of Saddam?
quote:
But our Mister Rumsfeld thought we could do it on the cheap and still look like knights in shining armor. Thats what I call "fighting a Gorilla with one hand tied behind you."
I don't think anyone here disagrees with you. I personally would have sent in as many as we did in GWI. I don't know that it would have helped but it certainly wouldn't have hurt.
quote:
By the way.... Iraq was incidental. Had we blown the sh#t out of the campground and OBL.... we would have had the respect and dominance on the global stage that this futile attempt in Iraq is supposed to acquire us.
We aren't looking for the respect or the admiration of the world, and frankly after exposing the oil-for-food scandal I think that's a justified position.
quote:
Iraq is most successful as being an indoctrination tool for the terrorist.
Anti-war morons said the same of Afhganistan. That if we killed OBL that 10,000 more would spring up in his place.
You may as well admit that the cause of terrorism is anyone's resistance to it, and just accept the fact that if you engage these loons militarily, you're going to create blowback. Tough sh#t. You saw what the alternative was on 9/11.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
You know what I am now becoming sick of you whimps...
That's okay, I tired of you long ago. Go away. No one is forcing you to be here.
quote:
Neither you or ip were in Nam and neither one of you know what prompted the individuals to go.I had more than 50 friends that went... none were drafted. They wanted to go.
A bit off topic, but OK...
quote:
We are fighting them on their terms and have been since we invaded Afghanistan.
I do not see too many F-16's driving around in Afghanistan or Iraq...
Well, since you fly an F-16 that's a fairly obvious omission.
quote:
We strategically bombed portions of Afghanistan... In an effort to minimize collateral damage.
As we did in Iraq. Do you have any proof otherwise?
quote:
You know and I know we could have done away with OBL in roughly a few hours flight time...
but would have caused a large civilian casualty count....
Yeah. We were given the opportunity when he was vulnerable and exposed under Clinton and we chose not to take it.
quote:
Look at that in comparison to the number of civilian casualties to date......
Comparison to what? The hundreds of thousands that died at the hands of Saddam?
quote:
But our Mister Rumsfeld thought we could do it on the cheap and still look like knights in shining armor. Thats what I call "fighting a Gorilla with one hand tied behind you."
I don't think anyone here disagrees with you. I personally would have sent in as many as we did in GWI. I don't know that it would have helped but it certainly wouldn't have hurt.
quote:
By the way.... Iraq was incidental. Had we blown the sh#t out of the campground and OBL.... we would have had the respect and dominance on the global stage that this futile attempt in Iraq is supposed to acquire us.
We aren't looking for the respect or the admiration of the world, and frankly after exposing the oil-for-food scandal I think that's a justified position.
quote:
Iraq is most successful as being an indoctrination tool for the terrorist.
Anti-war morons said the same of Afhganistan. That if we killed OBL that 10,000 more would spring up in his place.
You may as well admit that the cause of terrorism is anyone's resistance to it, and just accept the fact that if you engage these loons militarily, you're going to create blowback. Tough sh#t. You saw what the alternative was on 9/11.
True to form. a weak whimpish response.
You and yours carry on...
When you have a little more insight regarding, military capabilities as opposed to the "Mission Accomplished" point of view, reality may be something you can see.
But then I doubt it.
quote:
True to form. a weak whimpish response.
[}:)] Nice response. Bu-bye...
quote:
When you have a little more insight regarding, military capabilities as opposed to the "Mission Accomplished" point of view, reality may be something you can see.
General Rico, Thanks for your oh so poignant "military insights" in your posts. I'm sorry I can't comprehend or appreciate them.
Diiiisssmissed!
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
[br
You know what I am now becoming sick of you whimps...
Neither you or ip were in Nam and neither one of you know what prompted the individuals to go.I had more than 50 friends that went... none were drafted. They wanted to go.
We are fighting them on their terms and have been since we invaded Afghanistan.
I do not see too many F-16's driving around in Afghanistan or Iraq...
We strategically bombed portions of Afghanistan... In an effort to minimize collateral damage.
"That's what I call warm and fuzzy warfare"...
You know and I know we could have done away with OBL in roughly a few hours flight time...
but would have caused a large civilian casualty count....
tough sh#t...
These, oh ferocious Conan and ip, would have been our terms... not their terms.
Look at that in comparison to the number of civilian casualties to date......
But our Mister Rumsfeld thought we could do it on the cheap and still look like knights in shining armor. Thats what I call "fighting a Gorilla with one hand tied behind you."
To hell with the promise after Viet Nam that we would never go to war again unless it was full force...
By the way.... Iraq was incidental. Had we blown the sh#t out of the campground and OBL.... we would have had the respect and dominance on the global stage that this futile attempt in Iraq is supposed to acquire us.
Iraq is most successful as being an indoctrination tool for the terrorist.
Let's see Rico, were you in Viet Nam or just your "50 friends" who went voluntarily?
If you weren't there and you had so many friends who volunteered (which I find highly suspect- it has the smell of gross exaggeration all over it) that would make you a "whimp" as well. By your logic, IP and I are (it's wimp, btw) wimps because we weren't in Viet Nam so that would make you a wimp as well if you weren't there. Moreso for you if you were of age to be there and weren't.
Personally, I was 10 years old when the last of the troops were pulled out in 1975. I wasn't even born when we were sending in advisors. I don't know IP's age, but I don't believe he would have been of fighting age either.
So you think killing a bunch of innocent civilians is okay in warfare? So how do you feel about over 3000 innocent American civilians being killed in one day in an act of war? I want to make sure I understand you correctly, because not much in your post makes sense.
Fighting on their terms would require us to kill a bunch of innocent civilians. Our presence in the ME, is keeping them from killing American civilians which is one of their highest goals. They don't get any thrill out of killing U.S. service people other than the wimps at home who don't really have a clue why it is we are there.
We are fighting barbarians. We are not barbarians, we avoid killing civilians if at all possible. They didn't think we had the guts to go over and root them out and take the battle to their turf. They mistook Bush II for the p@$$y that Clinton was.
You are trying to make points without facts, only anecdotes about how knowing 50 people who went to Viet Nam makes you a military expert. With all due respect, sir, this is a different kind of warfare than Viet Nam.
Your arguments are falling apart so now you are having to resort to name-calling and the expert testimony of your friends who supposedly fought in a battle which ended over 30 years ago.
I don't pretend to be a military expert, that is why I favor shutting up and allowing our military to do the job they were sent to do.
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
Damn rico...the armchair bullys finally get to you or did you pause on Fox for a nano second too long?
Reading this again, looking for grounds that merited my post as crap (oh yeah, up your's ip) all I gained was a bit more respect for rwarn - so not a complete waste.
Still, IMO, the surge is going to bust: given the rising heat from the American public, the political climatic activity, and anyones best guess of when the Iraqi's can recruit, organize and operate effectively - with advisor's or not.
There is no Victory in an 11th hour, stop-gap measure, that buys a little time and might save a little face once the smoke clears: but there is one helva cost.
Another lesson we learn and vow not to repeat?
Do NOT go stomping off to War with some little man that has 75 points under his cowboy hat, a burr under his saddle, and whom can't read the night sky to find his way back.
jdb
<slanderous comments made while obviously under the influence of something illegal removed>
This has got Daily Koz, Huffpo, and moveon.org written all over it. Are you on the mailing list for liberal talking points?
FWIW, the success or failure of the surge should not be gauged by half-baked public opinion. It's not designed to win approval amongst the kumbaya crowd here in the states, but to restore order in Iraq. This is a military operation, not a popularity contest. It's ultimate success will be restoring order to the area. Is there some reason you think it's okay to jump out and leave a vacuum which will foment terrorism for years to come?
Are you on the mailing list for liberal talking points?
Lump me in with the kooks for a quick dismissal, eh? I suppose I should be greatfull I wasn't called a Dingus.
FWIW, the success or failure of the surge should not be gauged by half-baked public opinion.
Agree, it shouldn't - that is up to some certain point like genocide or torture (right?) but public opinon does have weight and Mr. J.Q. Public is stepping up on the scale as we type.
It's not designed to win approval amongst the kumbaya crowd here in the states, but to restore order in Iraq.
Agreed, but it should have - for the Surge to work it does have to win approval, particularly now, as it has to produce overnight results. Would have made a better first impression a year ago, as an exit strat, instead of now with a hand ready to pull the plug.
Nope, restoring order is/ and was the Iraqi's job. We are there to assist them accomplish this but had to take the wheel.
This is a military operation, not a popularity contest.
Wrong, it's both and a couple of other painfull things to boot.
It's ultimate success will be restoring order to the area.
Ultimate goal, you mean, which depends on the Iraqi's building up an effective force, which hasn't been happening...but as to it's success I don't see that happening. We didn't seem to take any notes during the nine year war.
Is there some reason you think it's okay to jump out and leave a vacuum which will foment terrorism for years to come?
I don't think it's okay to pull up and walk out. Haven't said that and you can't make me. But the idea that not aping the Soviet's will stop the "ferment" is wrong, as our continued presence seems to be fueling it.
Make ourselves a smaller target with a good vantage point and sieze any and all Iraqi alarm clocks with a snooze feature on the way to our perch. Might help to flood some airwaves with variations of "The little Train That Could".
Just how do you think a War on Terror has any hope of being won without public support, if it can be won in the first place. Seems to me it's a mission of futility with the best outcome being a smaller size and scope of the inevitable next attack on our own soil.
jdb
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9966084
Spate of Suicide Bombings Threatens Iraq 'Surge'
by Mike Shuster
All Things Considered, May 2, 2007 • An Iraqi military spokesman has announced that heavy vehicles will be banned from crossing most of Baghdad's bridges. The ban appears to be designed to keep the bridges safe from suicide bombers; hundreds of suicide bombers have detonated their explosives in the four years of the Iraq war.
Suicide bombings have been used in various conflicts around the world since 1980. But never has the world seen such an enormous number of such attacks as in Iraq — at least 350, and likely more, since the U.S. invasion in 2003.
On April 12, a man smuggled a suicide vest inside the building housing Iraq's parliament in the Green Zone, the most fortified and protected area in all of Iraq. There are numerous checkpoints involving frisking, bomb-sniffing dogs and electronic sensors.
But somehow the bomber managed to get inside, and he detonated his bomb, killing himself and one member of parliament.
As such attacks go, the death toll was minor. Symbolically, though, the message was clear: suicide attackers can hit anywhere.
Now, as thousands of additional U.S. troops are being deployed to Baghdad's neighborhoods as part of the "surge" strategy, there has been an epidemic of suicide attacks. The bombers use cars, trucks. They can be on foot. They get very close to their targets, and their attacks are highly lethal — far more deadly than ordinary roadside bombs.
On April 18, a string of bombings, most of them suicide attacks, cut a swath of death and mayhem across Baghdad. Nearly 200 people were killed that day, 140 of them in one huge blast at the predominantly Shiite market in Sadriya, a neighborhood of north central Baghdad.
It's fair to say that the suicide bomber is the insurgency's most devastating weapon, yet there is precious little understanding of who orchestrates the attacks and what motivates the attackers.
Many attacks have taken place in markets and bus stations, killing thousands of civilians. Most of the civilians killed have been Shiites. Most if not all of the suicide attacks have been carried out by Sunni insurgents.
Last year, NPR conducted a short interview with a would-be suicide bomber, a teenage Iraqi girl.
"My name is Noor Abid Ghezal," she said in Arabic. "I am 18 years old. I am accused of terrorism; the attempted assassination of Hussein al-Sadr, the member of the parliament from Kadhimiya."
Speaking from a jail cell, Noor told a story laced with romance and deception, at once naive and bitter, reflecting just how ruthless and manipulative those who plan these attacks can be.
"I was a student," she said. "I only had my mother at home but she died. After that I fell in love with my stepmother's friend. I loved him and he loved me. I didn't know that he was such a bastard until later on."
Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been at least 351 confirmed suicide bombings in Iraq. That number was supplied by Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Pape is the director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, which maintains perhaps the world's most extensive database on suicide attacks.
Pape's data indicate that the pace of suicide bombing in Iraq is increasing at an alarming rate.
"Before our invasion in March 2003, Iraq never experienced a suicide attack in its history," Pape said. "Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been essentially doubling in Iraq every year that we've had more or less 150,000 American combat soldiers stationed there."
Pape has looked closely at who conducts suicide bombing across the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, examining educational level and socio-economic background, among other factors. In many cases, the bombers relayed their rationale in their own words, after videotapes surfaced or their last words were posted on the Internet.
Pape concluded that suicide bombing is used primarily against forces that the attackers see as foreign occupiers or collaborators.
Many in Iraq deny that Iraqis carry out suicide attacks, pointing instead to fighters associated with al-Qaida, who come from outside Iraq.
But the record shows otherwise. The first suicide bombing against U.S. troops occurred during the invasion, on March 29, 2003, in Najaf. It was carried out by a member of the Iraqi force known as the Fedayeen Saddam. Before the war was over, U.S. Marines found a stockpile of suicide vests hidden in a school in Baghdad.
Of the 351 confirmed suicide attacks in Iraq by the end of 2006, the Chicago project has been able to identify 55 of the attackers. Thirteen were Iraqis; 16 were Saudis. Three-quarters of the attackers were Iraqi or from the Sunni-dominated states bordering Iraq.
Pape has not found one confirmed instance of a Shiite suicide bomber in the Iraq conflict.
Of the targets, more than 50 percent were military. Civilian targets accounted for more than 30 percent last year.
In the case of Noor, her boyfriend wanted her to kill a Shiite member of parliament.
"He turned out to work with a terrorist group," Noor said. "He introduced me to another group of men. They were terrorists, but I didn't realize this. They entrapped me, and here I am in prison."
In the interview with her last year, Noor did not explain why she did not go through with the bombing, or how one of her handlers was seized when she was arrested. Sometimes those who accompany the bomber actually detonate the bomb remotely, but that was not how it worked in Noor's case.
"So I was sentenced to seven years in prison," she said. "One and a half are done."
In fact, Iraq's prisons, those maintained by the Iraqi government and the detainee camps that the United States has run since 2003, may be the source of future suicide bombers.
The worst abuses — like those that occurred in Abu Ghraib — may have largely been curtailed.
But many Sunnis believe that prisoners are still abused and that makes the prisoners easy recruits for the insurgency.
"The prisons are only incubating these people," said Selim Abdullah, spokesman for the Sunni bloc in the Iraqi parliament. Speaking in Arabic, he said, "An innocent person who enters prison for three years without knowing why he is there will be an easy tool for them. When he gets released, he becomes one of those who follow the criminal path."
Hundreds of bombers have already sacrificed their lives in suicide attacks in Iraq. Yet it seems that the supply of future suicide bombers gets larger and larger all of the time.
(http://aycu36.webshots.com/image/15235/2005898756233827468_rs.jpg)
The way you are able to blindly ignore all facts that are in conflict with your twisted and fake world view reminds me of someone...
Who is it?
Altruism. You are the right's version of that fool.
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
Are you on the mailing list for liberal talking points?
Lump me in with the kooks for a quick dismissal, eh? I suppose I should be greatfull I wasn't called a Dingus.
Sorry to dissapoint you Dingus.
quote:
Agree, it shouldn't - that is up to some certain point like genocide or torture (right?) but public opinon does have weight and Mr. J.Q. Public is stepping up on the scale as we type.
Is it 4:20 yet?
quote:
Nope, restoring order is/ and was the Iraqi's job. We are there to assist them accomplish this but had to take the wheel.
Yes, and according to Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq, they still need our help as they are unprepared to take on the task of policing the country on their own.
quote:
Ultimate goal, you mean, which depends on the Iraqi's building up an effective force, which hasn't been happening...but as to it's success I don't see that happening. We didn't seem to take any notes during the nine year war.
This has absolutely no relation to the nine years war. Building an effective armed force takes time. Do you know what it takes to create an army? The time, the training, and the equipment? Maybe this is why Conan said these issues are not the pervue of the civilian, and to let the military do its job.
quote:
I don't think it's okay to pull up and walk out. Haven't said that and you can't make me. But the idea that not aping the Soviet's will stop the "ferment" is wrong, as our continued presence seems to be fueling it.
Make ourselves a smaller target with a good vantage point and sieze any and all Iraqi alarm clocks with a snooze feature on the way to our perch. Might help to flood some airwaves with variations of "The little Train That Could".
How can we both be engaged on that level, yet at an arm's length distance from the action? That type of information comes from boots on the ground and intelligence gathering in the community.
quote:
Just how do you think a War on Terror has any hope of being won without public support, if it can be won in the first place. Seems to me it's a mission of futility with the best outcome being a smaller size and scope of the inevitable next attack on our own soil.
Who's public support are you pining for?
quote:
The way you are able to blindly ignore all facts that are in conflict with your twisted and fake world view reminds me of someone...
Who is it?
Altruism. You are the right's version of that fool.
You know....if you didn't lose every debate you had with me I'd almost be inclined to agree with you.
As to being a fool, I'm not the one who's sleeping with Captain Obvious, and feels the need to post to news stories that everyone who has a search engine can read for themselves. Your posts remind me of a 4 year old who's just tied his shoes for the first time. Everyone is VERY impressed wiff your intertubes skillz.
BTW, if you're looking for a fool, just step into you bathroom and have a look in the mirror.
JDB- in the interest of brevity I'm not re-quoting your entire post. A- time and B- proper decorum to not create tedious posts.
The media looks for stories that generate viewership and readership. Blood and guts sells a lot better than success. There are two stories which can be told out of Iraq, the major media outlets are choosing to go with the negative because it's more compelling. The media really doesn't care who wins or loses a battle, they just want to make money.
That has created a negative sentiment toward the war and Democrats are gloming onto a populist view from a public which is largely ignorant of military operations and is getting only filtered information out of the battle-front. Dems are going where they think the votes are. I assure you that if 75% of the American population were in favor of our present military operations, they wouldn't be coming out against the war. The reason the polls show low approval on the war is due to a selective media campaign that isn't giving the full story and a power-hungry political climate in Washington that is willing to ignore what the experts in warfare are saying is needed. That has gone both ways. I'm glad Rummy is gone.
Democrats want a pull out, but I have not heard a single word about what happens to Iraq then. This is a window-dressing fight by Democrats to prepare for '08. In case you didn't notice, the '08 campaigns started even before the victors in the '06 mid-term were sworn into office.
I'm too young to remember, but I doubt the Tulsa World ran a daily death toll in Viet Nam, Korea, WWII or WWI. I do know though, by the statistics, the daily losses in Iraq are vastly less, yet there is a Hobbs meter running on the death toll that only feeds people who don't understand nor care what it costs to have a safe world.
I find much more security and confidence in military commanders who are saying we need to step this up and to pull out now would be a major disaster. Not the negative talking points of the DNC which have little basis in reality other than the reality of wanting to win the White House at all costs, including national and international security.
"That has created a negative sentiment toward the war..." - conan
Media will bend a story around to generate ratings, nature of the beast, and why I detest Fox, but it can't create something from nothing.
The media created WMD's?
The media told us to go stomping over the border to Iraq with out an exit plan?
The media told us we could, and I quote loosely, kick donkey in a few days and be back for New years?
The media created the War debt to date?
The media created the 47 serviceman funerals I've escorted in the last year?
War does not exist in a vaccume: political pandering, public opinon, and resource's all play vital parts.
Now if there were 200K Iraqi recruits, of courage and integrity, lining up to take the reins of their own damn Country this might not be such a house of cards waiting for us to turn our back.
jdb
Hey ip, Obviously you've shot your snot-load...so, what part of "up your's" do you not understand? Type it too fast?
quote:
Media will bend a story around to generate ratings, nature of the beast, and why I detest Fox, but it can't create something from nothing.
[}:)] Paging Dan Rather...but I supposed that the media bending stories isn;t offensive as long as it's anti-Bush. [xx(]
quote:
Hey ip, Obviously you've shot your snot-load...so, what part of "up your's" do you not understand? Type it too fast?
I've got a great idea for you big-shot. How 'bout using that Ignore User function? Nobody's forcing you to respond to me, and frankly, your obsession with me is just creepy.
Is it 4:20 yet?
Conan:
Have fun responding to the rest of that.
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
"That has created a negative sentiment toward the war..." - conan
Media will bend a story around to generate ratings, nature of the beast, and why I detest Fox, but it can't create something from nothing.
The media created WMD's?
The media told us to go stomping over the border to Iraq with out an exit plan?
The media told us we could, and I quote loosely, kick donkey in a few days and be back for New years?
The media created the War debt to date?
The media created the 47 serviceman funerals I've escorted in the last year?
War does not exist in a vaccume: political pandering, public opinon, and resource's all play vital parts.
Now if there were 200K Iraqi recruits, of courage and integrity, lining up to take the reins of their own damn Country this might not be such a house of cards waiting for us to turn our back.
jdb
Hey ip, Obviously you've shot your snot-load...so, what part of "up your's" do you not understand? Type it too fast?
One non-sequitur after another. Got anything better to offer?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
The way you are able to blindly ignore all facts that are in conflict with your twisted and fake world view reminds me of someone...
Who is it?
Altruism. You are the right's version of that fool.
You know....if you didn't lose every debate you had with me I'd almost be inclined to agree with you.
As to being a fool, I'm not the one who's sleeping with Captain Obvious, and feels the need to post to news stories that everyone who has a search engine can read for themselves. Your posts remind me of a 4 year old who's just tied his shoes for the first time. Everyone is VERY impressed wiff your intertubes skillz.
BTW, if you're looking for a fool, just step into you bathroom and have a look in the mirror.
Won every debate? All you have done here is proven yourself an easily deceived fool.
Really, all anyone would have to do to take all of your money is say "I have bridge I'd like to sell. Karl Rove and Tony Snow say it's a really great buy". Done deal.
Your posts consist of half-truths and weakly referenced facts that only somewhat support whatever discredited position you want to take and then dismissing all facts that are contrary to your point of view as lies, old news or liberal bias. The only contest you ever win is the last person talking, but only a child would assume that means you are the "winner".
Your posts have the air of a child's temper tantrum and are about as well thought out.
If the subject weren't so serious this whole thread would be funny to read.
"One non-sequitur after another." - conan
These lawmakers (some Republicans on Capitol Hill) are advocating proposals that would tie the U.S. commitment in the war to the Iraqi government's ability to demonstrate that it is working to quell the sectarian conflict. - Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook, Times Staff Writers
"Iraqi politicians said Thursday the break might not happen or may be less than two months, but said it should be of no concern to U.S. lawmakers." - ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
More manufactured Media Tripe to sell papers?
But nah, I'll sign out with the above.
I give...as evidentally were just spinning wheels here.
quote:
Won every debate? All you have done here is proven yourself an easily deceived fool.
Keep shovelin' it swake.
quote:
Your posts consist of half-truths and weakly referenced facts that only somewhat support whatever discredited position you want to take and then dismissing all facts that are contrary to your point of view as lies, old news or liberal bias. The only contest you ever win is the last person talking, but only a child would assume that means you are the "winner".
Please point out these half-truths and weakly referenced facts. In fact, I believe that I shut you up recently with some citations to stories confirming my assertion that Saddam was buying missiles from NK when you whined that I was lying.
quote:
Your posts have the air of a child's temper tantrum and are about as well thought out.
I think your re-reading your own posts dear Kettle.
Again, please point out anything I've said that you feel is untruthful and I'll gladly support my premise with the appropriate factual bases. Unlike most people around here, I research my opinons thoroughly before repeating them publicly.
While the issue at hand is important, the discussion is not civil so this thread is being locked. If someone wants to discuss the tropp withdrawal issue civily, please start a new thread.
Those who were not following the rules on this thread, do not continue your actions into other threads or face further action. The job of the forum staffers is not to babysit threads and posters.