New Iraqi Strategy

Damici · January 12, 2007, 11:05pm

I don’t necessarily disagree with you about the administration’s agenda. But that doesn’t change the fact that you completely sidestepped my point. Pay attention, and do the aforementioned research. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been providing mucho help to several insurgent groups and militias in Iraq. That’s the simple fact I’m stating, and you’re denying.

The discussion of this fact has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bush administration’s agendas, past or present.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Damici wrote:
I’m no big Bush fan, I wasn’t for this war to beging with and I doubt the troop increase is nearly enough to make a dent. But I hope I’m wrong, and I sincerely hope we can right the situation over there.

With that out of the way, for you to pretend – just because you don’t like the Bush administration – that Iran is not at all meddling in Iraq (arming, training, adivising insurgents) means you must’ve gone throught the past 3 years with your eyes and ears closed. I have neither the time nor the energy to dig up a shitload of links explaining that Iran is indeed doing so. But plenty has been written about it by very mainstream news sources. Do some research.

The neocon’s intention was always to attack Iraq and Iran WELL before Bush came into office - that is also VERY WELL documented. Do some research.

You know what else was written about in “mainstream media”? IRAQ’s WMD.

But the point is they have ZERO credibility - NONE. They were completely WRONG about EVERY aspect about Iraq - but they know ALL about Iran.

AGAIN - NO CREDIBILITY.

[/quote]

orion · January 12, 2007, 11:19pm

May I ask what kind of mental troubles people suffer from that still think Bush is not way out of his depth?

JeffR · January 12, 2007, 11:40pm

[quote]storey420 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
storey420 wrote:
From the above link:

More U.S. troops will mean more wasted blood and more people killed," Ahmed said. “The violence will surge unless U.S. administration decides to curb militiamen who are part of the Iraqi government.”

Abdel-Karim Jassim, a 44-year-old Shiite trader, said he had hoped Bush would come up with something other than the troop increase.

“Sending more troops will not solve the problem,” he said, although he acknowledged that “Iraqis cannot handle security issue on their own because of the sectarian divisions and the strong militias and insurgents.”

Here’s to hoping we lose!!!

Signed,

The only weiner in Texas (storey)

You see Jeffy unlike you and other chickenhawks like you, I have been there, I have lost friends there and watched them die, fuck you for thinking for one second that I would want us to lose this thing.

What people like you don’t realize or don’t care about is that sometimes throwing more bodies on the pile doesn’t work.
[/quote]

LIAR!!!

JeffR

Zap_Branigan · January 13, 2007, 1:34am

[quote]JeffR wrote:
storey420 wrote:
…

LIAR!!!

JeffR
[/quote]

Whether it is his holistic cures for cancer or his badass military service storey420’s stoned stories do stretch the limits of credibility.

JeffR · January 13, 2007, 1:57am

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JeffR wrote:
storey420 wrote:
…

LIAR!!!

JeffR

Whether it is his holistic cures for cancer or his badass military service storey420’s stoned stories do stretch the limits of credibility.
[/quote]

Zap,

It bothers me to no end when guys pull that stunt. I think it’s pretty easy to tell the guys who have been there. This guy isn’t one of them.

If storey wants this effort to fail, why not say so? Why all the deception.

I’d have more respect if he would say something like, “Nothing Bush does is correct and I can’t support anything he suggests.”

JeffR

tme · January 13, 2007, 3:23am

[quote]JeffRo wrote:
Nothing Bush does is correct and I can’t support anything he suggests.

JeffRo

[/quote]

Well, it’s about time you came clean!

FWIW - Exactly four years ago I predicted that we were destined to create the “Islamic Republic of West Iran”. Roughly one year later I stated that nothing we could do could prevent the creation of the “Islamic Republic of West Iran”.

We could create a non-viable Kurdistan in northern Iraq. We could allow Syria to annex most of western Iraq as a Sunni “autonomous region”.

But we can’t prevent the bulk of Iraq becoming part of the Shi’ite nation of Iran. The divide between Arab and Persian that Saddam sought to exploit are, apparently, less significant than the Sunni/Shi’ite divide.

Who knew? Most everyone but Bush, obviously.

brucevangeorge · January 13, 2007, 4:24am

If they hung Sadaam, they should hang Bush also.

bigflamer · January 13, 2007, 4:28am

[quote]hedo wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Democrats have never supported national Defense and do not appear to be doing so now.

Go fuck yourself, asshole. You’ve never displayed any integrity and do not appear to be doing so now.

Look, everybody knows the insurgency is in it’s last throes (Dick Cheney) and major combat operations are over (George Bush). This troop increase is totally negligable. It’s not going to make a bit of a difference in the long run, when you have these same clowns running the show. It takes 12 weeks to train a US soldier, Bush has had 4 years to train an Iraqi army and hasn’t been able to pull it together. That’s a result of Bush’s political incompetence, not a lack of US firepower. Bush has brought his Katrina level of incompetence to Iraq, and we’ve been watching a slow motion trainwreck for the past four years. The latest evidence… Bush has installed an Iraqi government that can’t even pull off a hanging, without screwing it up.

Bush was a great campaigner but he’s a total fuckup as a president, and he’s clueless about what to do in Iraq now that he’s screwed the pooch. He’s trying to stall and postpone, so he can get the fuck out of office and hand off the mess to somebody else.

If the Democrats were just trying to be cynical opportunists about the war they would be laughing and celebrating now, because Bush’s insistance on the surge has just cost the Republicans even more losses at the polls in 2008.

Does your mom know your using her computer to type cuss words. Shame on you child. Now sack up and try again.

It takes a lot longer to train a soldier then 12 weeks you pathetic sack of shit. Tell us about your trigger time. How long did basic and infantry training take again…you fucking idiot.

The Bush derangement syndrom you have has now leaked out of your brain and dried up you balls son. Try and get some T in your system…maybe it will clear your small mind.

The Democrats are celebrating, didn’t you see Madame Pelosi’s coronation ceremony. It was on all the networks.

I did 9 weeks of relief work during Katrina. The fed didn’t fuck things up son, only milk fed moonbats like you think that. But do tell us about your experiences on Katrina and what the fed did or didn’t do. Did your school volunteer to send some kids down to help out for a day or two?

Your panties are all wadded up because the Dems are blowing it. They will be swept out in 2008 worse then they were in 94. They actually have to be for something now and they are incapable of doing so…much like yourself. Your childish post is filled with false statements, hats and venom but no substance…much like yourself.

What an asshole.

[/quote]

Very good post Hedo, but I fear that your words fall on deaf ears. Bradley is too far gone with BPS.

vroom · January 13, 2007, 3:23pm

[quote]hedo wrote:
The troops will patrol and garrison, along with the Iraqi’s in the areas where the insurgents operate. It is designed to kill the enemy and hold the areas.

The switch in generals and combat commanders is to be combined with more effective tactics. Less restrictive rules of engagement which the troops have requested far more then more then additional troops. This will allow then to provoke, engage and kill the enemy and destroy his supply channels.

Lastly Bush made clear that Iran and Syria are fueling the enemy with training and supplies. If they follow thru they will stop this by hitting training camps and supply depots in those countries that are near the border. This will send a clear message that we are ready to engage them militarily. If they don’t blink then this will intensify.[/quote]

Hedo, sounds good actually.

If you are going to be at war you should at least go after the enemy and not make it easy for them to develop forces and collect munitions for use against you.

Would you believe I actually felt as if the Bush administration was previously willing to use Iraq as a way to draw extremists in - why else not bother to secure the borders and so forth?

So, honestly, I’m of mixed opinions right now…

One: I’m really concerned that this is going to end up costing a lot of American lives and I’m pissed off that such rules of engagement haven’t been in place since day one… it probably would have saved a lot of lives in the long run.

Two: I’m concerned for the military, in a way. It’s extremely frustrating to know what should be done and not be permitted to do it. It’s also tough for the guy on the ground to have his tour extended or to keep coming back for another. To be clear though, I don’t have any doubts about the military.

Three: I’m really pissed off that we’ve been hearing for years how fucking perfect everything is going… with the administration totally unwilling to admit anything. Sure, after years we finally got such an admission, but really, does Bush have to assume we are all stupid and can’t see the truth for ourselves?

jsbrook · January 13, 2007, 3:26pm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Hey irish!!!

I think the gloves are going to come off. Personally, I can’t think of another way. You can tell that Bush is starting to drop the P.C. crap. He’s fingering the syrians and iranians directly. He’s pointing to the mahdi and other shiite milita groups.

He means to win this.

He spoke up like a man and admitted/took responsibility for the shortcomings so far.

He’s set dates and deadlines: circa November 2007.

I hope you are open to seeing and acknowledging the victories.

For instance, yesterday’s capturing of iranian nationals who are suspected of involvement with terrorism.

That’s a big deal.

JeffR

We will see. As you can imagine I have no faith in him or his administration to do anything correctly…but I hope the military can handle what he never can.

I disagree with sending in more troops…but I will await the results.

[/quote]

What military? He fired the commanders and analysts who didn’t agree with this half-assed surge and replaced them with stooges who would rubber-stamp his plan.

vroom · January 13, 2007, 3:45pm

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What military? He fired the commanders and analysts who didn’t agree with this half-assed surge and replaced them with stooges who would rubber-stamp his plan.[/quote]

It’s a hallmark of this administration. Surround yourself with people that all have a viewpoint you want to hear – or simply ones that are willing to echo your own.

What a disgrace.

hedo · January 13, 2007, 5:20pm

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Hey irish!!!

I think the gloves are going to come off. Personally, I can’t think of another way. You can tell that Bush is starting to drop the P.C. crap. He’s fingering the syrians and iranians directly. He’s pointing to the mahdi and other shiite milita groups.

He means to win this.

He spoke up like a man and admitted/took responsibility for the shortcomings so far.

He’s set dates and deadlines: circa November 2007.

I hope you are open to seeing and acknowledging the victories.

For instance, yesterday’s capturing of iranian nationals who are suspected of involvement with terrorism.

That’s a big deal.

JeffR

We will see. As you can imagine I have no faith in him or his administration to do anything correctly…but I hope the military can handle what he never can.

I disagree with sending in more troops…but I will await the results.

What military? He fired the commanders and analysts who didn’t agree with this half-assed surge and replaced them with stooges who would rubber-stamp his plan.[/quote]

Which commanders are you referring to?

Petreus is well respected by the troops and the brass. He’s a warfighter with experience in the theatre.

From what I’ve read they are bringing in a pretty good team and extending the people who have experience fighting rather the policing. Two different mindsets.

So what stooges are you referring to? Serious question.

hedo · January 13, 2007, 5:23pm

[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
The troops will patrol and garrison, along with the Iraqi’s in the areas where the insurgents operate. It is designed to kill the enemy and hold the areas.

The switch in generals and combat commanders is to be combined with more effective tactics. Less restrictive rules of engagement which the troops have requested far more then more then additional troops. This will allow then to provoke, engage and kill the enemy and destroy his supply channels.

Lastly Bush made clear that Iran and Syria are fueling the enemy with training and supplies. If they follow thru they will stop this by hitting training camps and supply depots in those countries that are near the border. This will send a clear message that we are ready to engage them militarily. If they don’t blink then this will intensify.

Hedo, sounds good actually.

If you are going to be at war you should at least go after the enemy and not make it easy for them to develop forces and collect munitions for use against you.

Would you believe I actually felt as if the Bush administration was previously willing to use Iraq as a way to draw extremists in - why else not bother to secure the borders and so forth?

So, honestly, I’m of mixed opinions right now…

One: I’m really concerned that this is going to end up costing a lot of American lives and I’m pissed off that such rules of engagement haven’t been in place since day one… it probably would have saved a lot of lives in the long run.

Two: I’m concerned for the military, in a way. It’s extremely frustrating to know what should be done and not be permitted to do it. It’s also tough for the guy on the ground to have his tour extended or to keep coming back for another. To be clear though, I don’t have any doubts about the military.

Three: I’m really pissed off that we’ve been hearing for years how fucking perfect everything is going… with the administration totally unwilling to admit anything. Sure, after years we finally got such an admission, but really, does Bush have to assume we are all stupid and can’t see the truth for ourselves?[/quote]

I agree with your points. My hope is that agressive rules of engagement cost less US lives. Also if this leads to more insurgents getting killed then there are less experienced fighters around to worry about.

jsbrook · January 13, 2007, 6:03pm

[quote]hedo wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Hey irish!!!

I think the gloves are going to come off. Personally, I can’t think of another way. You can tell that Bush is starting to drop the P.C. crap. He’s fingering the syrians and iranians directly. He’s pointing to the mahdi and other shiite milita groups.

He means to win this.

He spoke up like a man and admitted/took responsibility for the shortcomings so far.

He’s set dates and deadlines: circa November 2007.

I hope you are open to seeing and acknowledging the victories.

For instance, yesterday’s capturing of iranian nationals who are suspected of involvement with terrorism.

That’s a big deal.

JeffR

We will see. As you can imagine I have no faith in him or his administration to do anything correctly…but I hope the military can handle what he never can.

I disagree with sending in more troops…but I will await the results.

What military? He fired the commanders and analysts who didn’t agree with this half-assed surge and replaced them with stooges who would rubber-stamp his plan.

Which commanders are you referring to?

Petreus is well respected by the troops and the brass. He’s a warfighter with experience in the theatre.

From what I’ve read they are bringing in a pretty good team and extending the people who have experience fighting rather the policing. Two different mindsets.

So what stooges are you referring to? Serious question.[/quote]

I’m not saying that Petreus doesn’t have a good record. It’s just very convenient that Bush ignores the massive opposition amongst Democrats, Republicans, and the military to the surge in the manner he’s executed it. And simply brings in those who agree with him. It’s typical and what I hate most about him and this administration.

I don’t think they ever engage in a real diaglogue and try to utilize those in the know to formulate policies on any issue, foreign or domestic. They are entirely beholden to their pre-conceived notions and decisions and only look for those who agree with them wihtout exploring the merits of any alternative position at all.

And as far as this particular issue goes, from everything I’ve read and watched, I agree with McCain that we need more than 20,000 troops. And I also agree that there needs to be a diplomatic effort and plans to establish a dialogue between Shiite and Sunni factions and to work towards some concessions on both sides.

I think Iraq has been so bungled up to this point that withdrawal may be the only logical course despite that adverse consequences that WILL follow. But I’m not quite prepared to concede that yet. I might be in favor of one last-ditch efforts that encompassed a political solution and the amount of troops needed. But as far as this current plan goes, I think it will do little to change the situation, and eventually we’ll STILL have to withdraw with things just as bad or worse, and the only change being more American lives lost.

But conveniently for the President, he’ll no longer be in office to make that tough decision and clean up the mess. If there is a way to ‘win’ this war, I don’t think this is it. And I resent the president ostensibly ignoring members of his own party, the military, and failing to consider other plans than his own that are far from calling for withdrawal.

jsbrook · January 13, 2007, 6:06pm

[quote]vroom wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
What military? He fired the commanders and analysts who didn’t agree with this half-assed surge and replaced them with stooges who would rubber-stamp his plan.

It’s a hallmark of this administration. Surround yourself with people that all have a viewpoint you want to hear – or simply ones that are willing to echo your own.

What a disgrace.[/quote]

I do think it’s the hallmark of this administration, moreso than any other past administration-Democrat or Republican. And what I resent most about them-more than their actual policies.

JustTheFacts · January 13, 2007, 7:27pm

[quote]Damici wrote:
I don’t necessarily disagree with you about the administration’s agenda. But that doesn’t change the fact that you completely sidestepped my point. Pay attention, and do the aforementioned research. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been providing mucho help to several insurgent groups and militias in Iraq. That’s the simple fact I’m stating, and you’re denying.

The discussion of this fact has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bush administration’s agendas, past or present.
[/quote]

I’m well aware of what they’ve been saying about the IRG helping the insurgents - I just don’t believe it for one second. Just because the administration says Iran is arming the insurgents doesn’t necessarily make it a “fact” - it’s just a story that fits their AGENDA to vilify Iran.

Ask yourself, why is the US buying tens of thousands of shitty, used, UNTRACEABLE weapons for Iraqi security forces from Bosnia and shipping via questionable and blacklisted arms smugglers?

US in secret gun deal - Small arms shipped from Bosnia to Iraq ‘go missing’ as Pentagon uses dealers
The Guardian
Friday May 12, 2006
The Pentagon has secretly shipped tens of thousands of small arms from Bosnia to Iraq in the past two years, using a web of private companies, at least one of which is a noted arms smuggler blacklisted by Washington and the UN.

According to a report by Amnesty International, which investigated the sales, the US government arranged for the delivery of at least 200,000 Kalashnikov machine guns from Bosnia to Iraq in 2004-05. But though the weaponry was said to be for arming the fledgling Iraqi military, there is no evidence of the guns reaching their recipient.

Senior western officials in the Balkans fear that some of the guns may have fallen into the wrong hands.

A Nato official described the trade as the largest arms shipments from Bosnia since the second world war.

The official told Amnesty: “Nato has no way of monitoring the shipments once they leave Bosnia. There is no tracking mechanism to ensure they do not fall into the wrong hands. There are concerns that some of the weapons may have been siphoned off.”…

Mr Wilkinson said: “The problem is we haven’t seen the end user.”

[b]A complex web of private firms, arms brokers and freight firms, was behind the transfer of the guns, as well as millions of rounds of ammunition, to Iraq at “bargain basement prices”, according to Hugh Griffiths, Amnesty’s investigator…

Some of the firms used in the Pentagon sponsored deals were also engaged in illegal arms shipments from Serbia and Bosnia to Liberia and to Saddam Hussein four years ago.[/b]

“The sale, purchase, transportation and storage of the [Bosnian] weapons has been handled entirely by a complex network of private arms brokers, freight forwarders and air cargo companies operating at times illegally and subject to little or no governmental regulation,” says the report…

Aerocom is said to have carried 99 tonnes of Bosnian weaponry, almost entirely Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles, in four flights from the Eagle base in August 2004, even though, under pressure from the EU, the firm had just been stripped of its operating licence by the Moldovan government because of “safety and security concerns”. Amnesty said there was no available record of the guns reaching their destination…

Good luck drawing a positive conclusion from that.

hedo · January 14, 2007, 12:56am

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Damici wrote:
I don’t necessarily disagree with you about the administration’s agenda. But that doesn’t change the fact that you completely sidestepped my point. Pay attention, and do the aforementioned research. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been providing mucho help to several insurgent groups and militias in Iraq. That’s the simple fact I’m stating, and you’re denying.