New Iraqi Strategy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Your commentary about dirty nuclear weaponry is INSANE.[/quote]

You asked if I considered it a WMD.

Just to make sure we’re talking about the same thing, this is a good description of what’s commonly referred to as a “dirty bomb.”:

And not a “dirty” thermonuclear device in the sense that it isn’t efficient and disperses radioactive material along with the nuclear blast. THAT, yes, is a WMD.

A dirty bomb in the sense of strapping uranium to a conventional explosive charge and detonating it, is not. At least, no more than the equivalent uranium-free explosive would be.

Now which of these do you think represents a more likely threat from people who fight you using Kalishnikovs and explosive-packed cars, were they to get their hands on low-grade uranium?

222

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Eradicate Al Qaeda and their brand of Islamic fanatacism as a significant threat? Yes. [/quote]

From the look of it - and besides overthrowing the Talibans -, you seem to be more interested in flexing your muscles and getting a foothold on some strategic regions, than you are in defeating Al-Qaeda. If anything, you’re boosting the number of applications they receive, and with every civilian that dies because of the war you started, you end up with more people who wants to hurt you.

You can’t eradicate their movement unless you act on the causes. But that’s not gonna happen any time soon, now is it? Well, maybe if Nader gets elected, we might have a chance.

223

[quote]lixy wrote:
No offense meant, but you guys seem to care more about the SuperBowl and Anna-Nicole Smith’s butt than about what’s going on outside your borders.[/quote]

Of course dude, anything outside their borders is by definition an absolute shithole. Haven’t you noticed?

224

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No but now they have committed to Iraq and the seeds of their destruction have been sown.

They are desperately fighting on the battleground we chose. When they lose in Iraq they will lose everywhere.

If they did not fight in Iraq they knew their movement was doomed.

Zap, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud reading your comment. If I didn’t know where you stood, I’d have considered your post sarcasm.

You really think there’s a way to eradicate terrorism? Do you seriously believe there is a limited supply of terrorists? Do you not see how it feeds on the very violence you throw at it?

Eradicate terrorism? No. Eradicate Al Qaeda and their brand of Islamic fanatacism as a significant threat? Yes.

The Islamic world is being dragged into this century kicking and screaming. There will be blood but things will change for the better.

They bad guys know it and that is why they are fighting so hard.[/quote]

Zap,

A perfect post! The people who fear the loss of their ‘old ways’ will do anything to prevent that, including suicide bombings and beheadings.

The goal is to civilise the Middle East, it will be hard going, but it WILL happen.

225

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap,

A perfect post! The people who fear the loss of their ‘old ways’ will do anything to prevent that, including suicide bombings and beheadings.
[/quote]

How would you relate this to the subject of gay marriage?

226

[quote]JeffR wrote:
NOTICE 50 KG OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM FROM RUSSIA AND FRANCE.[/quote]

What happened to the two tons? In a few posts, you’ve gone from arguing to tons of uranium to 50kg?

Mister “I never lie.” indeed.

A variety? You’re probably not aware, but there is a minimum mass (known as the “critical mass”) of uranium required to make a nuclear device. 50kg won’t give you a “variety” of weaponry. Assuming the best possible grade, you’d could make 2. Assuming you don’t waste any and don’t test either. Maybe Islamic technology “just works” since Allah is so great.

And while reading from that link you provided above, I reached:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

Scroll down to conclusions and see what the IAEA had to say in 2003…

Hell, let me give you an excerpt: After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.

Who the hell uses links that contradict his very own arguments to back himself up?

Oh right: A big funny clown living in the rightwingoverse.

227

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No but now they have committed to Iraq and the seeds of their destruction have been sown.

They are desperately fighting on the battleground we chose. When they lose in Iraq they will lose everywhere.

If they did not fight in Iraq they knew their movement was doomed.

Zap, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud reading your comment. If I didn’t know where you stood, I’d have considered your post sarcasm.

You really think there’s a way to eradicate terrorism? Do you seriously believe there is a limited supply of terrorists? Do you not see how it feeds on the very violence you throw at it?

Eradicate terrorism? No. Eradicate Al Qaeda and their brand of Islamic fanatacism as a significant threat? Yes.

The Islamic world is being dragged into this century kicking and screaming. There will be blood but things will change for the better.

They bad guys know it and that is why they are fighting so hard.[/quote]

Zap,

I couldn’t agree more. The fact that the Sunni’s are turning against al qaeda is a defeat for them in no uncertain terms.

I am heartened to hear that in spite of continued violence, police recruiting is actually going up.

If George can keep the Iraqi Parliment from taking a 2 month break, this surge might be just the thing.

I was fascinated listening to the talk of cease fires. That some of the militia groups would be willing to talk speaks volumes.

My fingers are crossed.

JeffR

228

More great news from:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070601/wl_afp/iraq

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Sunni tribal fighters, American troops and nationalist insurgents were all in action against Al-Qaeda’s Islamist militants in vicious street battles in west Baghdad on Friday.

Sunni militants, who would once have sympathised with Al-Qaeda’s war against US and Iraqi government troops, have instead this week been shooting it out with the Islamist extremists in the lawless Amiriyah neighbourhood.

US and Iraqi government security forces have also piled into the fight.

“Planned security operations in cooperation with Iraqi security forces were conducted today based on intelligence gained from local leaders and citizens of the area,” said US military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Scott Bleichwehl.

These official units also have a shadowy new ally in the battle, according to the commander of a Sunni tribal militia.

“We dispatched around 50 of our secret police from Anbar to Amiriyah, and started to hit Al-Qaeda there. We killed a lot of them,” Sheikh Hamid al-Hais, the head of the Anbar Salvation Council, said in a telephone interview.

“A similar operation will be launched in Al-Ghazaliyah against Al-Qaeda today. We have sufficient information on places they are in, and we will punish them,” he said, adding that his forces were fighting in plain clothes.

The Salvation Council is the armed wing of an alliance of Sunni sheikhs from the western Anbar province, where they have funnelled tribal gunmen into the Iraqi security forces in order to fight Al-Qaeda extremists.

Many of these Sunni militants are former insurgents once hostile to the US military and Baghdad’s Shiite-led government but, angered by Al-Qaeda’s attacks on civilians and tribal leaders, they have now changed sides.

US commanders see this as one of the most positive recent developments in Iraq, which is in the grip of vicious series of overlapping civil conflicts, and hope now to persuade former insurgent groups to join a peace process.

Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the number two US officer in Iraq, told reporters on Thursday that about four-fifths of the militants currently fighting American forces were thought to be ready to end their campaigns.

“So we want to reach back to them,” he said. “And we’re talking about ceasefires and maybe signing some things that say they won’t conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces.”

JeffR

229

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the number two US officer in Iraq, told reporters on Thursday that about four-fifths of the militants currently fighting American forces were thought to be ready to end their campaigns."

JeffR
[/quote]

If this does work out…

230

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap,

A perfect post! The people who fear the loss of their ‘old ways’ will do anything to prevent that, including suicide bombings and beheadings.

How would you relate this to the subject of gay marriage?[/quote]

Civilised people vote, not murder. Remember, marriage is an announcement to a community about entering into a specific and legal agreement. The community decides what constitutes a legal agreement.

Suppose someone made an agreement to sell their 16 year old daughter into sex slavery. This is not a legal agreement according to our community. In pre-20th century China it was legal and done often. It all depends on what the community accepts as a legal agreement.

The morality of any of this is, of course, debatable.

231

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Civilised people vote, not murder. Remember, marriage is an announcement to a community about entering into a specific and legal agreement. The community decides what constitutes a legal agreement.

Suppose someone made an agreement to sell their 16 year old daughter into sex slavery. This is not a legal agreement according to our community. In pre-20th century China it was legal and done often. It all depends on what the community accepts as a legal agreement.

The morality of any of this is, of course, debatable.
[/quote]

Kudos on making a real post for a change!

I’d like to focus on “the people who fear the loss of their ‘old ways’ will do anything to prevent that” a little bit.

Some folks, perhaps not yourself, barely consider our opponents human. Your reply acknowledges in a roundabout way that of course they are human, but uncivilized from our point of view in the way they deal with their concerns.

Mr. Teacher, what is the prescription for stamping out ignorance and the ills it brings?

232

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Civilised people vote, not murder. Remember, marriage is an announcement to a community about entering into a specific and legal agreement. The community decides what constitutes a legal agreement.

Suppose someone made an agreement to sell their 16 year old daughter into sex slavery. This is not a legal agreement according to our community. In pre-20th century China it was legal and done often. It all depends on what the community accepts as a legal agreement.

The morality of any of this is, of course, debatable.

Kudos on making a real post for a change!

I’d like to focus on “the people who fear the loss of their ‘old ways’ will do anything to prevent that” a little bit.

Some folks, perhaps not yourself, barely consider our opponents human. Your reply acknowledges in a roundabout way that of course they are human, but uncivilized from our point of view in the way they deal with their concerns.

Mr. Teacher, what is the prescription for stamping out ignorance and the ills it brings?[/quote]

You answered in a civil manner so I will respond in kind. I THINK I can do it…:smiley:

If the root of ignorance is cultural, there is very little anyone can do, especially if the ignorant person continues to live in that culture. Think of the recidivism rate among convicts, who go back to their old neighborhood once released. Therefore, under those conditions, the solution is to isolate that community and allow it to evolve on its own.

The trouble is, of course, a lot of the world oil is in the ME. That’s like injecting tons of cash into the community of ex-cons and gang bangers described above. What will they do with all that $$$?

This means that our cultures clash and that WE MUST stay in Iraq — to prevent the oil wealth from going to a radical community. We’re going to have to stay until the society evolves away from violence; we’re going to have a LONG wait.

233

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If the root of ignorance is cultural, there is very little anyone can do, especially if the ignorant person continues to live in that culture. Think of the recidivism rate among convicts, who go back to their old neighborhood once released. Therefore, under those conditions, the solution is to isolate that community and allow it to evolve on its own.

The trouble is, of course, a lot of the world oil is in the ME. That’s like injecting tons of cash into the community of ex-cons and gang bangers described above. What will they do with all that $$$?

This means that our cultures clash and that WE MUST stay in Iraq — to prevent the oil wealth from going to a radical community. We’re going to have to stay until the society evolves away from violence; we’re going to have a LONG wait.
[/quote]

I’m not sure I’m going to agree with everything you are saying, or concluding, but I will agree on the key core concept.

The society, or culture, must evolve in some way.

And we can probably both agree that the fundamentalists who are the root of the current problem do not want any of this change to occur.

I don’t know about you, but the fact that Iraqi’s are banding together to fight back against terrorism is something that I can see as potentially leading towards some cultural evolution.

It also has the potential to backfire, but that’s another story.

I’m also going to jump out on a limb and offer a tangential thought on the issue too.

Fundamental religions seem to oppose cultural evolution, instead wanting to impose rigid or static mores and behaviors which are almost certainly going to cause conflicts as societies in general continue to evolve.

234

[quote]vroom wrote:

I’m also going to jump out on a limb and offer a tangential thought on the issue too.

Fundamental religions seem to oppose cultural evolution, instead wanting to impose rigid or static mores and behaviors which are almost certainly going to cause conflicts as societies in general continue to evolve.[/quote]

You’re not jumping out on a limb at all. Mainstream religions and governments have been natural allies, the religions keeping the masses docile in exchange for protection and monopoly of the faithful. That’s why our Constitution has seperation of church and state built into it.

235

Daily update.

Senior al qaeda killed by Iraqi Army.

JeffR

236

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Daily update.

Senior al qaeda killed by Iraqi Army.

JeffR[/quote]

Meanwhile, in the real world (that’s incidentally far far away from the sphere of breitbart and his Fox cronies) 2000 innocent people died during the month of May.

But JeffR would merrily argue that it’s all worth it as long as you get a senior Al-Qaeda member killed. After all, it’s well known that an organization that’s cellular in nature can’t replace the loss of a leader. it’s not like they are replaceable in any way.

The number of civilians killed in
Iraq jumped to nearly 2,000 in May, the highest monthly toll since the start of a U.S.-backed security crackdown in February, according to figures released on Saturday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070602/ts_nm/iraq_dc_1

You can be sure that some family members of those 2000 are going to retaliate.

237

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Daily update.

Senior al qaeda killed by Iraqi Army.

JeffR

Meanwhile, in the real world (that’s incidentally far far away from the sphere of breitbart and his Fox cronies) 2000 innocent people died during the month of May.

But JeffR would merrily argue that it’s all worth it as long as you get a senior Al-Qaeda member killed. After all, it’s well known that an organization that’s cellular in nature can’t replace the loss of a leader. it’s not like they are replaceable in any way.

The number of civilians killed in
Iraq jumped to nearly 2,000 in May, the highest monthly toll since the start of a U.S.-backed security crackdown in February, according to figures released on Saturday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070602/ts_nm/iraq_dc_1

You can be sure that some family members of those 2000 are going to retaliate.[/quote]

Retaliate against al qaeda.

That’s the difference.

JeffR

238

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Retaliate against al qaeda.

That’s the difference.

JeffR [/quote]

There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion. There were no suicide bombs in the streets.

That’s the point.

And don’t give me that at-least-we-overthrew-Saddam apologist crap. As monstrous as the guy was, he wasn’t worth the the lives of hundreds of thousands innocents.

239

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Retaliate against al qaeda.

That’s the difference.

JeffR

There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion. There were no suicide bombs in the streets.

That’s the point.

And don’t give me that at-least-we-overthrew-Saddam apologist crap. As monstrous as the guy was, he wasn’t worth the the lives of hundreds of thousands innocents.[/quote]

lixy,

There was al qaeda in Iraq before the invasion–zarqawi and his associates.

Second, how many did saddam kill over his regime?

Wasn’t it 2,000,000? Last time I looked it was considerably more than your inflated numbers.

I can smell your fear that this is going to work.

That is good.

JeffR

240

[quote]JeffR wrote:
There was al qaeda in Iraq before the invasion–zarqawi and his associates. [/quote]

Last I checked, Zarqawi and his associates weren’t killing hundreds of people a week before the invasion.

[quote]Second, how many did saddam kill over his regime?

Wasn’t it 2,000,000? Last time I looked it was considerably more than your inflated numbers. [/quote]

So, now you wanna argue that, as long as the casualties under Saddam exceed the numbers since 2003, it’s OK to turn Iraq into chaos and add to the list of deaths?

I’m not going to quibble over how many millions Saddam killed. You can say it was 10 millions if you like. I believe that it is a disgrace to the lost souls to argue about that. Bottomline is that a LOT of people are dead as a direct consequence of the invasion.

And, one more thing: Saddam was killing those who rebelled against him. Everybody else who minded their own business and didn’t get entangled into politics was pretty much safe. People had lives, women could go to the market without the fear of being blown, and kids could safely walk to school. Nowadays, doing that is a challenge.

[quote]I can smell your fear that this is going to work.

That is good. [/quote]

Cyber-Jihad, blah blah, blah.

That line is getting old.