New Iraqi Strategy

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What international ceasrefire had Pakistan violated? [/quote]

None baby, none! But last I checked, the main argument Bush put forth against Iraq was some terrorist sci-fi scenario. Pakistan is down to its neck in Al-Qaeda while Iraq had little to do with it all.

Was the war in Afghanistan over? Plenty of strategic reasons to pick Iraq over Pakistan even assuming you are correct - and reasonable people disagree.

Plenty my ass! Rationalizing a decision isn’t so hard to do. Justifying gratuitous aggression against Iraq while Pakistan actually supports terrorism, has WMDs and sells nuclear expertise to rogue states. Iraq, in comparison, is an ally against terror.

The situation in Pakistan neither proves nor disproves the validity of the Iraq war.

No. But it seriously shakes up the official motives for the invasion. A quick glance to the fact and you see that it was nothing but a big lie you all quietly swallowed.

Of course, as long as the war is half a world away, why would you even care? It’s not like you’re related to the kids who died.

Heads up - he certainly was. His risk profile was one of trafficker in WMDs - and Islamist elements certainly want to get their hands on those.

No, he wasn’t. At least, when you compare him to Pakistan.

What WMDs? Newsflash: They found none.

Saddam was “contained” and yet he was constantly in search of WMDs - especially nuclear - what exactly do you expect Saddam to do with his WMDS? Build an amusement park out of them?

Every country on Earth is constantly searching for WMDs.

If Saddam had indeed WMDs, you would have never attacked for fear of reprisal. So, it’s not about amusement parks but self-defense. He might also have used some of them on his own, or to gain more regional influence.

But, we’re digressing. There were no WMDs to start with.

Oh, and your “secularism” argument makes zero sense when considered against the ultimate fact of all: mutual and irrational hatred of Israel. Please don’t insult me that Saddam wouldn’t work with an Islamist group in an effort to harm Israel or its backers.

Irrational? You should really check in your local library more often. Try the history section.

Thank God you aren’t in the foreign policy business. Your inability to see and recognize risk plus your naive assumptions about your enemies would be a recipe for national suicide.

Saddam was not a threat to anyone else but his people.

Israel could have obliterated him at the first sign of aggression. He never constituted a threat to the US. Why do you keep asserting that he was? Are you not aware of your military superiority or are you just pretending to be fragile in order to make your point?

You miss the point - amount of power has nothing to do with the characterization. It has to do with willingness to use it to defend ourselves.

I’ve actually seen you use it when there was no need to.

[quote]Well, let’s review the record:

You said we went in for strategic control of the richest region.

So what makes it the richest region? You didn’t mean oil? [/quote]

What part of strategic control don’t you understand? You don’t try to gain strategic control over a useless piece of ice in Antarctica. There’s not much action going in there (well, maybe the bears are shaving off but that’s another issue).

Don’t pretend that I said you went in for the oil. You went for control over the oil routes. That’s very different.

[quote]Hmm - wouldn’t it make as much sense for me to say “you know nothing about politics if you disbelieve everything the president tells you” - which is factually true?

This notion that I somehow follow like a lemming behind Bush is comical - Vroom loves the tactic in lieu of substantive argument - but here is a tip: I don’t have to believe everything Bush says in order to disbelieve the radical, discredited fabrications of his most shrill detractors that listen only to the ideological radio voice in their head. [/quote]

You sure sound like a lemming to me. You simply echo the official line from Washington without any questioning whatsoever. So, as long as that persists, I’ll continue to call it as I see it.

I reiterate - no amount of reason will change your mind. You are a closed mind, dull-witted by the drug of your radical politics. It is a sad fact.

When in doubt or out of argument, throw in a few ad hominems.

Nice to see all of you so consistent, at least on that part.

[quote]We’ve been over this - Bush had numerous opportunities to plant WMDs and make his “lies” come true - but he never did. If he is nefarious mastermind, surely he would have done that to strengthen himself, which is his only principle?

I know, I know - reason again. It’s tough to drift from your script. [/quote]

What good is a horse…?

We’re talking WMDs and countries, not bags of weed a cop could plant in a car.

And wow - how extreme do you have to be to think both Fox and the NYT are too far to the Right?

Different leagues, but same game. Democrats’ foreign policy is similar to the Republicans. Less shouting perhaps, but same killing and inflicted suffering.

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It most certainly was a democracy. Democracy is (largely) value-neutral and has never meant “universal suffrage”. Even in today’s “progressive” world - sarcasm - 17 year olds can’t vote. Oppression! [/quote]

There’s a good reason kids can’t vote. It has nothing to do with sex or race.

The ancient Greeks invented democracy and yet restricted suffrage. Your whine is not only factually wrong, it adds nothing to the debate.

Democracy stems from the classical Greek demokratia, formed from the roots demos, “people, the mob, the many” and kratos, “rule”. I know my share about scammy democracies. Just because you hold a vote, doesn’t mean you have a democracy.

If your standards are so low that you’d call a segregationist country a democracy, well, that’s plenty telling.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

None baby, none! But last I checked, the main argument Bush put forth against Iraq was some terrorist sci-fi scenario. Pakistan is down to its neck in Al-Qaeda while Iraq had little to do with it all.[/quote]

Bush put forth over 20 reasons in the justification to go to war with Iraq. And so what about Pakistan? Are we suddenly uninterested in its situation just because we opted for Iraq?

You keep making the same error.

Plenty my ass! Rationalizing a decision isn’t so hard to do.

Lixy, never, ever use the word “rational” and expect me to keep a straight face.

And yes, there were plenty. Just because you haven’t an ounce of understanding is not my problem to fix.

Justifying gratuitous aggression against Iraq while Pakistan actually supports terrorism, has WMDs and sells nuclear expertise to rogue states. Iraq, in comparison, is an ally against terror.

Iraq was not an ally against terror - ridiculous. Don’t you at least try to make sense?

We weren’t counting on Iraq to help us in the GWOT. My God - awful, Lixy.

No. But it seriously shakes up the official motives for the invasion. A quick glance to the fact and you see that it was nothing but a big lie you all quietly swallowed.

Hahahaha - you say Pakistan “doesn’t prove Iraq was based on bad faith lies”…and then immediately say “it was a big lie!”, all the while doing nothing but stating a conclusion without supplying any information to go from the first statement to the second.

Hilarious. You really are bad at this.

Of course, as long as the war is half a world away, why would you even care? It’s not like you’re related to the kids who died.

[u]Is that a fact, Lixy[/u]?

You have completely ruined yourself with this sniveling attempt. Do you know if I have lost family in Iraq or not?

You just want to lash out and draw blood. It’s official - you are a hack acting in bad faith on this site. You are done.

No, he wasn’t. At least, when you compare him to Pakistan.

Well, he either was or he wasn’t - you are saying both. Maybe you think Pakistan was worse - great, that doesn’t mean Saddam wasn’t at all.

Reasonable people - see again?

What WMDs? Newsflash: They found none.

And? That is good news, not bad.

Intelligence said he has WMDs. The relevant nations believed the intelligence. Saddam bluffed - we called. End of story.

If Saddam had indeed WMDs, you would have never attacked for fear of reprisal. So, it’s not about amusement parks but self-defense. He might also have used some of them on his own, or to gain more regional influence.

But we are the most powerful nation on earth - why would we be afraid of him?

You have changed your mind since your last post - do you ever get tired of being exposed?

But, we’re digressing. There were no WMDs to start with.

Right - and we are a better world for it. They are hard to dispose of once found, you know.

Irrational? You should really check in your local library more often. Try the history section.

Lixy, given your painful limits on historical understanding, you ought not lecture anyone on learning history.

Let’s see: Muslims control Palestine through war, Muslims lose control of Palestine through war. Palestine given in part to Israel. Mad, humiliated Muslims try and attack Israel - Muslime get collective ass handed to them. Muslims manufacture “Palestinian refugee crisis” - they encourage Palestinians to leave, but won’t give Palestinians sanctuary in their own countries after Palestinians pack up, just so they can create a grievance with Israel’s existence.

Sorry, Lixy.

Irrational? Yes. Why would Israel’s existence bother Saddam?

Saddam was not a threat to anyone else but his people.

Nonsense, and stop the lies. 15 out of 16 UNSC countries disagreed with you. That is better evidence than anything you have.

Israel could have obliterated him at the first sign of aggression. He never constituted a threat to the US. Why do you keep asserting that he was? Are you not aware of your military superiority or are you just pretending to be fragile in order to make your point?

Wait, are you changing back to your original point - that we are almighty again? Why, I thought we wouldn’t attack Saddam if he had WMDs…

…you are contradicting yourself yet again. This is amusing.

And Saddam was a threat - playing quarterback with WMDs as the football. Oh sorry, I suspect a football analogy is lost on a naive peacenik.

[quote]What part of strategic control don’t you understand? You don’t try to gain strategic control over a useless piece of ice in Antarctica. There’s not much action going in there (well, maybe the bears are shaving off but that’s another issue).

Don’t pretend that I said you went in for the oil. You went for control over the oil routes. That’s very different.[/quote]

This marks the end of Lixy.

Let’s see, we want the “oil routes”, not the “oil”? Look at Lixy run for cover with his tail between his legs.

Did you hold up a sign in protest saying “No Blood for Oil Routes!”

You sure sound like a lemming to me. You simply echo the official line from Washington without any questioning whatsoever. So, as long as that persists, I’ll continue to call it as I see it.

You call nothing as you see it - largely because you are wannabe radical who sees whatever he wants.

I don’t parrot the party line from Washington. Readers around here know it. From my desire to have fewer military bases around the world, to my desire to end trade with Saudi Arabia - you get the idea.

You are just grasping at straws.

When in doubt or out of argument, throw in a few ad hominems.

It is a factual description.

Nice to see all of you so consistent, at least on that part.

You mean like calling someone a “lemming”? I am not that worried about it.

We’re talking WMDs and countries, not bags of weed a cop could plant in a car.

Who said it was a cakewalk? But wouldn’t Bush the Conqueror do it anyway, knowing it would give him amazing capital to march his armies into every Muslim capital city in the world?

Your theory, not mine. If I were “evil Bush”, when I lied, I would make sure and lie one more time to make myself look right.

Different leagues, but same game. Democrats’ foreign policy is similar to the Republicans. Less shouting perhaps, but same killing and inflicted suffering.

Good to know. At least the Democrats haven’t gone completely insane then.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

If your standards are so low that you’d call a segregationist country a democracy, well, that’s plenty telling.[/quote]

Telling of what? “Democracy” is value-neutral, you moron.

Nine out of 10 men can vote to lynch a black man - that is democratic. It speaks nothing to the rightness of the decision.

We also have a Senate in this country that gives Wyoming as many votes as New York on a given topic, despite the massive difference in number of people - does that mean the existence of our federalist Senate makes us undemocratic?

My God, Lixy - you are scraping to new lows.

[vroom]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“BAGHDAD - A battle raged Thursday in west Baghdad after residents rose up against al-Qaida and called for U.S. military help to end random gunfire that forced people to huddle indoors and threats that kept students from final exams, a member of the district council said…”
[/quote]

Fuckin’ A.

Assuming it’s not a slanted report, it’s a great sign when we can get the citizens of Iraq to cooperate with US forces and work to eliminate threats or improve their own well being and lifestyle.

I remember posting a long time ago that it is the Iraqi people that will ultimately have to decide that they won’t allow terrorism in their country. Maybe this indicates that some of them are willing to do something to make it happen instead of simply hoping the US will do it all.

So, the question is, is this an isolated or over hyped incident, or is it indicative of where we are heading? Is someone over there, finally, who knows what they are doing?

[Sloth]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

…The U.S. military and Iraqi army and police were running the center along with members of Anbar Salvation Council, a loose grouping of Sunni tribes that have banded together to fight al-Qaida…"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq [/quote]

Just wanted to add to my post above. A couple of us have pointed to the Anbar Salvation Council as a positive sign. The Anbar Salvation council, part of the Iraqi Awakening, opposes Al Qaeda and affiliates in the Anbar province. In fact, they’ve made a dramatic impact in Anbar. Especially in security force recruitment.

Now, for even better news. The Iraqi Awakening is spreading fast. Regardless of it’s short existence, the movement has taken root in all provinces around Baghdad. These being (so far) Anbar, Diyala, and Salahadin. And, this week has seen the formation of the Babil Awakening.

And now, I’d like to hear from you Lixy, if you’re reading this. In the past you’ve referred to insurgents as, “legitimate” and “grass roots” fighters. You’ve made these statements even though US presence is requested by an elected body of Iraqis. Further, this “legitimate resistance” has a viable political avenue to possibly reach it’s goals.

So, I’m curious as to your thoughts on the Awakening movement. Are they traitors for working with, and requesting the help of, US forces? If they’re not traitors, are they “legitimate,” and a “grass roots” movement?

Do you support the goals of the Awakening? Do you hope for their success? Therefore, do you support their request of US/Coalition help in securing their provinces?

Basically, I’m well aware of your opposition to the war. But, my questions concern present realities in Iraq.

[Sloth]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
“BAGHDAD - A battle raged Thursday in west Baghdad after residents rose up against al-Qaida and called for U.S. military help to end random gunfire that forced people to huddle indoors and threats that kept students from final exams, a member of the district council said…”

Fuckin’ A.

Assuming it’s not a slanted report, it’s a great sign when we can get the citizens of Iraq to cooperate with US forces and work to eliminate threats or improve their own well being and lifestyle.

I remember posting a long time ago that it is the Iraqi people that will ultimately have to decide that they won’t allow terrorism in their country. Maybe this indicates that some of them are willing to do something to make it happen instead of simply hoping the US will do it all.

So, the question is, is this an isolated or over hyped incident, or is it indicative of where we are heading? Is someone over there, finally, who knows what they are doing?[/quote]

I’ve just posted something concerning the Iraqi Awakening movement. You might look into that a bit. Remember the 42 Iraqi captives held by Al Qaeda in Diyala? US forces saved them due to tips from Diyala citizens. Diyala is home to the newly formed Diyala Awakening. That alliance is of course part of the umbrella Iraq Awakening. This alliance has the potential to achieve what’s needed. That is, the ability for Iraqis to provide their own security.

Here’s are excerpts concerning security force recruitment in Anbar. Anbar is home to the Anbar Awakening alliance. Perhaps the most important aspect of the Iraq Awakening is the surge in security force recruitment. Note the recruitment numbers in Anbar, due to the Awakening movement." Link to full article provided below.

"Police in Iraq see jump in recruits
U.S. gains support of tribes in Anbar

By Rick Jervis
USA TODAY

RAMADI, Iraq ? The U.S. military is reporting a dramatic and unexpected increase in the number of police recruits in Anbar province, the center of Sunni insurgent activity in Iraq.

In the past two weeks, more than 1,000 applicants have sought police jobs in Ramadi, the provincial capital. Eight hundred signed up last month in Ramadi, said Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.

Those figures compare with only “a few dozen” recruits in September, the U.S. military said.

The U.S. military said Sunday that it had secured the support of four tribes in Ramadi after a month-long security operation there. In western Anbar, police ranks grew from zero a year ago to more than 3,000 today, said Col. William Crowe, the U.S. commander there…

…Lechner said the decision by Ramadi’s tribes to fight al-Qaeda is good news. “They’ve come out of the closet, so to speak,” he said. “There’s no going back now.”

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070115/1a_lede15.art.htm

[vroom]

Sloth,

Though I’ve been extremely unhappy with the management of issues in Iraq I still really hope that somebody can find a way to rescue the situation… perhaps the commanders on the ground?

Time will show us the caliber of the “awakening” movements, but it does appear as if somebody is finally starting to wake up and play an intelligent hand.

Brute force can only do so much… as we’ve been watching for years now. This is an interesting twist, and if the Iraqi groups are able to become viable and attract widespread citizen involvement, then I’d be willing to suggest keeping the troops in place longer to give them time to take root.

This is an incarnation of what I was hoping for, talking about, and mocked for when I suggested that Iraqis had to stand up and fight for their own freedom. It could give Iraqi citizens something to rally behind and end up being a long term source of pride… maybe I’m guilty of wishful thinking?

I’m just hoping this is realistic and not just “manufactured” news.

[JeffR]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
“BAGHDAD - A battle raged Thursday in west Baghdad after residents rose up against al-Qaida and called for U.S. military help to end random gunfire that forced people to huddle indoors and threats that kept students from final exams, a member of the district council said…”

Fuckin’ A.

Assuming it’s not a slanted report, it’s a great sign when we can get the citizens of Iraq to cooperate with US forces and work to eliminate threats or improve their own well being and lifestyle.

I remember posting a long time ago that it is the Iraqi people that will ultimately have to decide that they won’t allow terrorism in their country. Maybe this indicates that some of them are willing to do something to make it happen instead of simply hoping the US will do it all.

So, the question is, is this an isolated or over hyped incident, or is it indicative of where we are heading? Is someone over there, finally, who knows what they are doing?

I’ve just posted something concerning the Iraqi Awakening movement. You might look into that a bit. Remember the 42 Iraqi captives held by Al Qaeda in Diyala? US forces saved them due to tips from Diyala citizens. Diyala is home to the newly formed Diyala Awakening. That alliance is of course part of the umbrella Iraq Awakening. This alliance has the potential to achieve what’s needed. That is, the ability for Iraqis to provide their own security.

Here’s are excerpts concerning security force recruitment in Anbar. Anbar is home to the Anbar Awakening alliance. Perhaps the most important aspect of the Iraq Awakening is the surge in security force recruitment. Note the recruitment numbers in Anbar, due to the Awakening movement." Link to full article provided below.

"Police in Iraq see jump in recruits
U.S. gains support of tribes in Anbar

By Rick Jervis
USA TODAY

RAMADI, Iraq ? The U.S. military is reporting a dramatic and unexpected increase in the number of police recruits in Anbar province, the center of Sunni insurgent activity in Iraq.

In the past two weeks, more than 1,000 applicants have sought police jobs in Ramadi, the provincial capital. Eight hundred signed up last month in Ramadi, said Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.

Those figures compare with only “a few dozen” recruits in September, the U.S. military said.

The U.S. military said Sunday that it had secured the support of four tribes in Ramadi after a month-long security operation there. In western Anbar, police ranks grew from zero a year ago to more than 3,000 today, said Col. William Crowe, the U.S. commander there…

…Lechner said the decision by Ramadi’s tribes to fight al-Qaeda is good news. “They’ve come out of the closet, so to speak,” he said. “There’s no going back now.”

USATODAY.com [/quote]

Sloth,

Excellent additions.

Please keep them coming.

JeffR

[lixy]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, I’m curious as to your thoughts on the Awakening movement. Are they traitors for working with, and requesting the help of, US forces? If they’re not traitors, are they “legitimate,” and a “grass roots” movement? [/quote]

Of course, they’re grassroots and legitimate. Their efforts to secure the stability of their provinces is noble in that it saves lives.

Do you support the goals of the Awakening? Do you hope for their success? Therefore, do you support their request of US/Coalition help in securing their provinces?

Definitely. I wish them all the best in fighting the terrorists and trouble makers. I wish nothing but peace and stability for Iraq.

[Sloth]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, I’m curious as to your thoughts on the Awakening movement. Are they traitors for working with, and requesting the help of, US forces? If they’re not traitors, are they “legitimate,” and a “grass roots” movement?

Of course, they’re grassroots and legitimate. Their efforts to secure the stability of their provinces is noble in that it saves lives.

Do you support the goals of the Awakening? Do you hope for their success? Therefore, do you support their request of US/Coalition help in securing their provinces?

Definitely. I wish them all the best in fighting the terrorists and trouble makers. I wish nothing but peace and stability for Iraq.[/quote]

Appreciate it. While we’ve had some fairly heated debates, I’m glad to see these answers.

[Headhunter]

Lixy,

You’ll never need any Ex-lax with all the ‘ripping’ Thunder has done.

Was a treat to watch!

ROFLMAO!!!

[100meters]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:

That is a complete falsehood. Further, you know it.

That makes it worse.

Here is an absolutely fascinating collection of the WMD finds in Iraq so far.

Remember as you are reading about them, how little press they received.

Kudos to this guy for doing what Bush isn’t apparently willing to do: Keeping track.

http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=2786

There were some that I knew about. For instance the 500 sarin nerve gas shells. However, what was chilling was the nearly two tons of enriched uranium removed, 1,000 pounds of powdered and easily dispersed uranium.

Jeffr’s credibility now in negative territory…

Uhmm…no. Iraq did not have the stockpiles of WMD “we” were looking for.

Have we found the odd degraded shell misplaced or disregarded in 1981, or items under IAEA seal? Uh, yes. Is this too embarassing for even the nuttiest of wankers in the admin to mention…?

Yes.
Except for Jeffry, and oh, Rick Santorum.

But it doesn’t matter because we are there to bring Jeffersonian democracy to Iraqis… wait…update from the president…the current objective in Iraq is:

BUSH: Either we’ll succeed, or we won’t succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence.

Poor lumpy,

You are so far behind, you think you are ahead.

Silly, deluded, lumpy.

Oh, how many tons of enriched uranium? How many flights to syria? What do the Poles think about chemical tipped weaponery? How much money into R & D?

I don’t like spending too much time on you lumpy. I’m fully aware that even if we found a million tons of WMD, you’d explain it away or change the subject.

It’s your way.

JeffR

[/quote]
So…you agree, they DID NOT have the WMD we thought they had. CIA says so, the Nutty Administration says so, Duelfer says so…etc…

[100meters]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
“BAGHDAD - A battle raged Thursday in west Baghdad after residents rose up against al-Qaida and called for U.S. military help to end random gunfire that forced people to huddle indoors and threats that kept students from final exams, a member of the district council said…”

Fuckin’ A.

Assuming it’s not a slanted report, it’s a great sign when we can get the citizens of Iraq to cooperate with US forces and work to eliminate threats or improve their own well being and lifestyle.

I remember posting a long time ago that it is the Iraqi people that will ultimately have to decide that they won’t allow terrorism in their country. Maybe this indicates that some of them are willing to do something to make it happen instead of simply hoping the US will do it all.

So, the question is, is this an isolated or over hyped incident, or is it indicative of where we are heading? Is someone over there, finally, who knows what they are doing?

I’ve just posted something concerning the Iraqi Awakening movement. You might look into that a bit. Remember the 42 Iraqi captives held by Al Qaeda in Diyala? US forces saved them due to tips from Diyala citizens. Diyala is home to the newly formed Diyala Awakening. That alliance is of course part of the umbrella Iraq Awakening. This alliance has the potential to achieve what’s needed. That is, the ability for Iraqis to provide their own security.

Here’s are excerpts concerning security force recruitment in Anbar. Anbar is home to the Anbar Awakening alliance. Perhaps the most important aspect of the Iraq Awakening is the surge in security force recruitment. Note the recruitment numbers in Anbar, due to the Awakening movement." Link to full article provided below.

"Police in Iraq see jump in recruits
U.S. gains support of tribes in Anbar

By Rick Jervis
USA TODAY

RAMADI, Iraq ? The U.S. military is reporting a dramatic and unexpected increase in the number of police recruits in Anbar province, the center of Sunni insurgent activity in Iraq.

In the past two weeks, more than 1,000 applicants have sought police jobs in Ramadi, the provincial capital. Eight hundred signed up last month in Ramadi, said Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.

Those figures compare with only “a few dozen” recruits in September, the U.S. military said.

The U.S. military said Sunday that it had secured the support of four tribes in Ramadi after a month-long security operation there. In western Anbar, police ranks grew from zero a year ago to more than 3,000 today, said Col. William Crowe, the U.S. commander there…

…Lechner said the decision by Ramadi’s tribes to fight al-Qaeda is good news. “They’ve come out of the closet, so to speak,” he said. “There’s no going back now.”

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070115/1a_lede15.art.htm

Sloth,

Excellent additions.

Please keep them coming.

JeffR

[/quote]
Yeah, its great that because of our occupation of Iraq, al qaeda has poured in and now after 4 years some sunnis are fighting them with our help. I’m almost forgetting the fact that other sunni’s are killing our troops everyday, that some sunni’s are joining al qaeda everyday, even helping a previously cash-strapped bin Laden in Pakistan, other sunnis are killing shia in deliberate acts of violence…yes this is great news, a tiny circle band-aid on a self inflicted injury.

[vroom]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Yeah, its great that because of our occupation of Iraq, al qaeda has poured in and now after 4 years some sunnis are fighting them with our help. I’m almost forgetting the fact that other sunni’s are killing our troops everyday, that some sunni’s are joining al qaeda everyday, even helping a previously cash-strapped bin Laden in Pakistan, other sunnis are killing shia in deliberate acts of violence…yes this is great news, a tiny circle band-aid on a self inflicted injury.
[/quote]

I have to say the fact that I think the war was needless and that it has been a clusterfuck so far does not mean that I can offhandedly dismiss something that has the potential to be a pivotal moment.

Please note the word “potential”, with all kinds of reservations and concerns including some of the things you mentioned. Personally, I don’t have any idea how much of this is real versus hype, for example. I’m willing to entertain an ember of hope and risk being disappointed…

[Sloth]

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
“BAGHDAD - A battle raged Thursday in west Baghdad after residents rose up against al-Qaida and called for U.S. military help to end random gunfire that forced people to huddle indoors and threats that kept students from final exams, a member of the district council said…”

Fuckin’ A.

Assuming it’s not a slanted report, it’s a great sign when we can get the citizens of Iraq to cooperate with US forces and work to eliminate threats or improve their own well being and lifestyle.

I remember posting a long time ago that it is the Iraqi people that will ultimately have to decide that they won’t allow terrorism in their country. Maybe this indicates that some of them are willing to do something to make it happen instead of simply hoping the US will do it all.

So, the question is, is this an isolated or over hyped incident, or is it indicative of where we are heading? Is someone over there, finally, who knows what they are doing?

I’ve just posted something concerning the Iraqi Awakening movement. You might look into that a bit. Remember the 42 Iraqi captives held by Al Qaeda in Diyala? US forces saved them due to tips from Diyala citizens. Diyala is home to the newly formed Diyala Awakening. That alliance is of course part of the umbrella Iraq Awakening. This alliance has the potential to achieve what’s needed. That is, the ability for Iraqis to provide their own security.

Here’s are excerpts concerning security force recruitment in Anbar. Anbar is home to the Anbar Awakening alliance. Perhaps the most important aspect of the Iraq Awakening is the surge in security force recruitment. Note the recruitment numbers in Anbar, due to the Awakening movement." Link to full article provided below.

"Police in Iraq see jump in recruits
U.S. gains support of tribes in Anbar

By Rick Jervis
USA TODAY

RAMADI, Iraq ? The U.S. military is reporting a dramatic and unexpected increase in the number of police recruits in Anbar province, the center of Sunni insurgent activity in Iraq.

In the past two weeks, more than 1,000 applicants have sought police jobs in Ramadi, the provincial capital. Eight hundred signed up last month in Ramadi, said Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.

Those figures compare with only “a few dozen” recruits in September, the U.S. military said.

The U.S. military said Sunday that it had secured the support of four tribes in Ramadi after a month-long security operation there. In western Anbar, police ranks grew from zero a year ago to more than 3,000 today, said Col. William Crowe, the U.S. commander there…

…Lechner said the decision by Ramadi’s tribes to fight al-Qaeda is good news. “They’ve come out of the closet, so to speak,” he said. “There’s no going back now.”

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070115/1a_lede15.art.htm

Sloth,

Excellent additions.

Please keep them coming.

JeffR

Yeah, its great that because of our occupation of Iraq, al qaeda has poured in and now after 4 years some sunnis are fighting them with our help. I’m almost forgetting the fact that other sunni’s are killing our troops everyday, that some sunni’s are joining al qaeda everyday, even helping a previously cash-strapped bin Laden in Pakistan, other sunnis are killing shia in deliberate acts of violence…yes this is great news, a tiny circle band-aid on a self inflicted injury.

[/quote]

We’re well aware of the fact that Sunnis helped Al Qaeda. Of course, other Sunni tribes were terrified to stand up to them. One need only to look at the assassinations and torture committed by Al Qaeda against uncooperative Sunnis. That’s the point, Al Qaeda is being openly rejected and fought. And that movement is spreading.

I’m tired of the invasion debate. By now, I think everyone has an idea where everyone else stands on that specific issue. What I’ve posted is about present realities. As you’ve said, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. And as Al Qaeda has said, it is the battlefield of utmost importance. Regardless of how or why, they are there.

Speaking to the present, the question is, do we leave Iraq when they’re capable of reasonably carrying on the fight themselves? Or, retreat just as these anti-Al Qaeda/terrorist movements begin to openly fight back?

The formation of these alliances is no small thing. While it’s a rather recent development, the movement has grown very quickly. It has fueled a cooperation with the Coalition, and the Iraqi government. Further, it has invigorated ISF recruitment.

[Sloth]

[quote]vroom wrote:
100meters wrote:
Yeah, its great that because of our occupation of Iraq, al qaeda has poured in and now after 4 years some sunnis are fighting them with our help. I’m almost forgetting the fact that other sunni’s are killing our troops everyday, that some sunni’s are joining al qaeda everyday, even helping a previously cash-strapped bin Laden in Pakistan, other sunnis are killing shia in deliberate acts of violence…yes this is great news, a tiny circle band-aid on a self inflicted injury.

I have to say the fact that I think the war was needless and that it has been a clusterfuck so far does not mean that I can offhandedly dismiss something that has the potential to be a pivotal moment.

Please note the word “potential”, with all kinds of reservations and concerns including some of the things you mentioned. Personally, I don’t have any idea how much of this is real versus hype, for example. I’m willing to entertain an ember of hope and risk being disappointed…[/quote]

I find your position very reasonable. You strongly question the need to go to war. And the way much of the post war was handled. I think those are very reasonable points of debate. Yet, you show a concern for a hasty and immediate withdraw. I’ll say that this is a very reasonable and realistic stance. I’m actually like you as far as the “ember of hope,” comment.

I’m not presenting this as “see, we’ve won.” As you said, it’s got the makings of a pivotal moment.

[100meters]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

We’re well aware of the fact that Sunnis helped Al Qaeda. Of course, other Sunni tribes were terrified to stand up to them. One need only to look at the assassinations and torture committed by Al Qaeda against uncooperative Sunnis. That’s the point, Al Qaeda is being openly rejected and fought. And that movement is spreading.

I’m tired of the invasion debate. By now, I think everyone has an idea where everyone else stands on that specific issue. What I’ve posted is about present realities. As you’ve said, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. And as Al Qaeda has said, it is the battlefield of utmost importance. Regardless of how or why, they are there.

Speaking to the present, the question is, do we leave Iraq when they’re capable of reasonably carrying on the fight themselves? Or, retreat just as these anti-Al Qaeda/terrorist movements begin to openly fight back?

The formation of these alliances is no small thing. While it’s a rather recent development, the movement has grown very quickly. It has fueled a cooperation with the Coalition, and the Iraqi government. Further, it has invigorated ISF recruitment.

[/quote]
Uhmmm…openly fighting back against an enemy that is fighting us because we are present. Minus us…uhmm isn’t it likely that sunni’s distracted by us might attack someone else? say al qaeda in Iraq. Again al qaeda is pouring in because WE ARE THERE, not because we aren’t. (You realize of course the same people making doomsday predictions of what happens after we redeploy troops out of Baghdad and Iraq are the same people who have been wrong about everything else up to this point.)

[100meters]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:
100meters wrote:
Yeah, its great that because of our occupation of Iraq, al qaeda has poured in and now after 4 years some sunnis are fighting them with our help. I’m almost forgetting the fact that other sunni’s are killing our troops everyday, that some sunni’s are joining al qaeda everyday, even helping a previously cash-strapped bin Laden in Pakistan, other sunnis are killing shia in deliberate acts of violence…yes this is great news, a tiny circle band-aid on a self inflicted injury.

I have to say the fact that I think the war was needless and that it has been a clusterfuck so far does not mean that I can offhandedly dismiss something that has the potential to be a pivotal moment.

Please note the word “potential”, with all kinds of reservations and concerns including some of the things you mentioned. Personally, I don’t have any idea how much of this is real versus hype, for example. I’m willing to entertain an ember of hope and risk being disappointed…

I find your position very reasonable. You strongly question the need to go to war. And the way much of the post war was handled. I think those are very reasonable points of debate. Yet, you show a concern for a hasty and immediate withdraw. I’ll say that this is a very reasonable and realistic stance. I’m actually like you as far as the “ember of hope,” comment.

I’m not presenting this as “see, we’ve won.” As you said, it’s got the makings of a pivotal moment. [/quote]

And there have been many pivotal moments, but the Iraqis have been doomed from the start, because the president doesn’t take this stuff seriously. These troops could be getting the supplies they need and perhaps oh, a doubling or tripling in overall footprint in Iraq, but it ain’t evah gonna happin…

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Bush put forth over 20 reasons in the justification to go to war with Iraq. And so what about Pakistan? Are we suddenly uninterested in its situation just because we opted for Iraq?

You keep making the same error. [/quote]

Stop it already with the 20 reasons! I thought that was settled by Pookie on another thread and we’ve established that all the reasons boils down to the WMDs.

Lixy, never, ever use the word “rational” and expect me to keep a straight face.

Haha…Is that the best you can do?

And yes, there were plenty. Just because you haven’t an ounce of understanding is not my problem to fix.

Sure they were plenty. Just don’t insult our intelligence by saying that it had anything to do with the ones Bush presented.

Iraq was not an ally against terror - ridiculous. Don’t you at least try to make sense?

Did Al-Qaeda have the same influence in Iraq before the invasion? No? Shut the fuck up then!

Hahahaha - you say Pakistan “doesn’t prove Iraq was based on bad faith lies”…and then immediately say “it was a big lie!”, all the while doing nothing but stating a conclusion without supplying any information to go from the first statement to the second.

Few things are certain in this world. Proof is very hard to give on such complex issues. So, yeah, it WAS a big lie, but I can’t prove it irrefutably. The best I can do, is expose the many flaws in Bush’s reasoning and let the whole thing crumble under its own weight.

[quote][u]Is that a fact, Lixy[/u]?

You have completely ruined yourself with this sniveling attempt. Do you know if I have lost family in Iraq or not?

You just want to lash out and draw blood. It’s official - you are a hack acting in bad faith on this site. You are done. [/quote]

Yep. I’m pretty certain that nobody from your family had a life in Iraq and then lost it in the war.

A guy in boots and with a rifle is not exactly an innocent victim, now is he?

Well, he either was or he wasn’t - you are saying both. Maybe you think Pakistan was worse - great, that doesn’t mean Saddam wasn’t at all.

No. He posed absolutely no threat to the sovereignty of the United States. The best he could have done is kill some more of his own people or start skirmishes with Iran. He was way too weak to consider starting a confrontation with even as small a state as Israel. Why the hell would you think he was a threat to the US?

And? That is good news, not bad.

When half a million people lost their lives on false pretense. Millions displaced and hundreds dying each week from the situation you created, I’d say it was terrible news.

Intelligence said he has WMDs. The relevant nations believed the intelligence. Saddam bluffed - we called. End of story.

Intelligence says many things. It takes deceitful bastards like Powell, Cheney and Bush to engage a country in war based on suppositions.

But we are the most powerful nation on earth - why would we be afraid of him?

You’re confusing self-defense with bullying. A bully never attacks someone who could fight back. But as far as defending yourself is concerned, Saddam never represented any threat that can be taken seriously.

You have changed your mind since your last post - do you ever get tired of being exposed?

And you never tire of including such baseless statements that give no added-value at all.

Right - and we are a better world for it. They are hard to dispose of once found, you know.

This is nothing to joke about. Had you lost innocent relatives in the war, you wouldn’t be so schmuk about it.

Kids died you jerk!

[quote]Lixy, given your painful limits on historical understanding, you ought not lecture anyone on learning history.

Let’s see: Muslims control Palestine through war, Muslims lose control of Palestine through war. Palestine given in part to Israel. Mad, humiliated Muslims try and attack Israel - Muslime get collective ass handed to them.

Muslims manufacture “Palestinian refugee crisis” - they encourage Palestinians to leave, but won’t give Palestinians sanctuary in their own countries after Palestinians pack up, just so they can create a grievance with Israel’s existence.

Sorry, Lixy.

Irrational? Yes. Why would Israel’s existence bother Saddam? [/quote]

Because it’s a nuclear power.

Because Israel already bombed him.

Because Israel is a basically an offshore base of the US.

[quote]Wait, are you changing back to your original point - that we are almighty again? Why, I thought we wouldn’t attack Saddam if he had WMDs…

…you are contradicting yourself yet again. This is amusing. [/quote]

Yes, you would have thought twice about attacking if he had WMDs. I maintain that position.

Don’t confuse enough power to defend yourself in case of attack with enough power to confidently attack others.

And Saddam was a threat - playing quarterback with WMDs as the football. Oh sorry, I suspect a football analogy is lost on a naive peacenik.

I personally don’t give a rat’s ass about a sport that’s nowhere to be found outside of the US. So, yeah, lost analogy…

[quote]This marks the end of Lixy.

Let’s see, we want the “oil routes”, not the “oil”? Look at Lixy run for cover with his tail between his legs.

Did you hold up a sign in protest saying “No Blood for Oil Routes!” [/quote]

Having your troops stationed in Iraq gives you significant leverage over anyone who threatens to disrupt the flow of oil. How can you not see that is beyond me, let alone twist it into something I didn’t say.

I don’t parrot the party line from Washington. Readers around here know it. From my desire to have fewer military bases around the world, to my desire to end trade with Saudi Arabia - you get the idea.

On the topic at hand (yes, it’s Iraq, in case you lost track!), you do nothing but echo Bush’s pathetic rhetoric.

You mean like calling someone a “lemming”? I am not that worried about it.

You brought it up. I merely confirmed it.

Who said it was a cakewalk? But wouldn’t Bush the Conqueror do it anyway, knowing it would give him amazing capital to march his armies into every Muslim capital city in the world?

What armies? Last I checked you were stretched.

I don’t wanna rehash the whole “planting WMDs thing”, but let me say this: Bush got re-elected despite not finding WMDs. Bush gets to keep the troops in Iraq for at least a couple more decades. Why would he take the risk of his plan getting exposed? He already got all what he wanted.

Your theory, not mine. If I were “evil Bush”, when I lied, I would make sure and lie one more time to make myself look right.

Chances of planting WMDs and not getting exposed are quite low. You need a lot of people involved. Leaks were a risk.

[quote]Different leagues, but same game. Democrats’ foreign policy is similar to the Republicans. Less shouting perhaps, but same killing and inflicted suffering.

Good to know. At least the Democrats haven’t gone completely insane then.[/quote]

So, I take it that you consider anyone trying to stop the killing and suffering insane. Good to know…