BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:12 AM

That's a good point, Donuel. The way to buck the failing economy at this point is to invest heavily in firms who make shredders. The Bush administration is going to be buying tons of them, and they'll work overtime from now until January, 20.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 09:26 AM

Blackwater leaves Iraq, Halliburton stock DOWN 67% from one year ago, TITAN torture systems Inc is going out of business...

Yep it all looks like it is winding down in a flood of shredded documents, pictures and files.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:00 AM

Teribus,

Its understandable that Ron may be misinterpreting you. Its hardy his fault though. You don't write clearly at all. For instance I have no clue what you were trying to say in the previous post. You seem angry and have some opinion on the Iraq war and Nazis. What it is I have no clue.

You don't think the Sunnis deserve anything but they should get what they deserve? OK!

Perhaps you should try calmly writing paragraphs, you know, complete, mature, well reasoned thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 03:28 AM

Trip down memory lane for you Ron:

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:32 AM

Ron, I know that you like putting words into my mouth and then quoting ad nauseum that they did in fact originate from me, and I have drawn your attention before to what I believe to be your extremely poor skills when it comes comprehension of the english language.

Now as to the three historical parallels that you claim I hold so dear, lets take a look at those:

1) ALL Iraqi Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945.

What I actually said was:
"Unlike Ron Davies I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945. From 1933 to 1945 they had milked every advantage out of their political allegiance as they could get, let them run to Ba'athist Syria for whatever hand-outs may come their way, those will be damn few and far between, but no less than what they richly deserve."

2) The US attacking Iraq is like Japan attacking the US in 1941.

Eh?? I think that you had better go back and read those posts again - I have argued exactly the opposite.

3) The Iraq insurgency/civil war is like the Malaysian situation in the late 1940's.

My references to what was known as "The War of the Running Dogs" in respect to Iraq relate to two aspects of post war Iraq:
A) The possible time frame for involvement - 15 to 20 years
B) How it should be handled, that the problem cannot be solved by military means alone, the tremendous importance of "Hearts and Minds", also pointed out my belief that US armed forces have never been very good at this.

But at no time at all did I ever say that "The Iraq insurgency/civil war is like the Malaysian situation in the late 1940's."

You see Ron you tend to read only what you want to read, only what backs your arguement. For a change try reading and trying to understand what is actually said.

Also read the explanation on Point 1) above given by me on 29th November - Don't know why I mention it, you didn't pay any attention to it then, you won't now, but it does serve as an excellent example of what is stated in the paragraph immediately above.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 09:55 PM

Gee, I wonder who was going to "leave the interim government to its fate".   Let's try this:

"The end of December 2006 marks the end of the UN Mandate for MNF troops to be stationed in Iraq. The Iraqis should be given notice that that is a dead line (sic), by which time they should be looking after their own affairs, and if that has to be resolved by sectarian militias, then so be it; let them get on with it..."

Sounds like the author was willing to leave the Iraqis to their fate even before Maliki took over---i.e. Maliki would never have been elected.

And as for the Sunnis:   "Unlike Ron Davies, I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945".

The sentiment regarding the Sunnis was wrong then (21 Nov 2006), and has remained wrong ever since. And it's the total rejection of this absurd----(did I say stupid?, no, not I)---- attitude especially by Petraeus and now gradually by Maliki, which has accounted for most of the progress in Iraq. (The rest of it is accounted for the viciously barbaric and unbelievably idiotic behavior of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who fancy themselves latter day Inquisitors, and by Petraeus' insistence that the US forces get out of their own encampments and live with--and fight by the side of--Iraqis.

Neither has anything to do with the "Surge"--since neither one is dependent on an increase in US troops.   It is Petraeus' intelligence--in contrast to the totally counterproductive attitude by Teribus--, and al-Qaeda's stupidity which have made the difference. As I said, the "Surge" is irrelevant. Unless of course Teribus does not know what the word "surge" means.


So, Teribus, the only question now appears to be: would you like to eat your words with HP sauce, marmite, or do you prefer some other condiment?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 09:48 PM

"Limbaugh does not claim to be a journalist or even reasonable. He is a political spokesman and an entertainer."


                      On top of that, he can't hear and he's addicted to opiates.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:27 PM

"So, this quote is clearly from an unreasonable person: Rush Limbaugh, July 30, 2007." ~ TIA

Limbaugh does not claim to be a journalist or even reasonable. He is a political spokesman and an entertainer.

"They're basically a way for Congress to weasel their way out of having to take responsibility..." ~ CarolC

Nothing new there!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:18 PM

Authorizations for the use of military force are not legally declarations of war. They're basically a way for Congress to weasel their way out of having to take responsibility for either declaring war or not declaring war.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:15 PM

General Motors is moving to Abu Dabe.
Don't say that the terrorists won or that Arabs now build your Buick.
IT was bad enough when someone said that Bush sold control of our ports to the Arab Emerites.

Lets just say they needed the capital and they didn't care where it came from.



7+ years ago I stared a thread that said the USA Loses the War!

Nothing says loser like watching the big three go down one after another.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:13 PM

approx. what Wiki sez:

"The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists was enacted 18 SEP 2001 authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all 'necessary and appropriate force' against those whom he determined 'planned, authorized, committed or aided' the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups."

There surely were al-Qaeda in Iraq on Sept. 11, but they were not directly responsible for the attacks and nobody authorized to speak for the US government ever said they were. That twisting of histiory comes directly from the imaginations of the New York Times editors and writers. It was intended to damage President George W. Bush.

Text of this Joint Resolution is easily found at several websites.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:54 PM

That's an interesting response, Teribus. No, I definitely wouldn't take anything for granted, as you say. There are many complex factors that could come into play. I am simply echoing the general thing that has been said in the US media itself for quite some time now, that the Shiites are the dominant group in Iraqi civilian politics since the Sunnis were dethroned by the invasion, and Iran is also Shia. But those other factors that you have mentioned would play a part. I suspect it would work this way: when the Iranians and Iraqis find themselves worried about a common threat to both, they'll join forces. When they don't have a common threat on their minds, they'll find things to disagree about. That's how it usually goes with traditional neighbours in a region... ;-)

China and North Vietnam, for instance, got along fine as long as the USA was fighting a war in Southeast Asia...but once the Americans were good and gone it didn't take long for the Chinese and Vietnamese to resume their ancient hostilities along their mutual border region.

pdq - "That decision is above LH's pay grade"

Yeah. ;-) Way above. But it isn't above my common sense grade.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:51 PM

I'm sorry, there wasn't nothing. There was almost nothing, mentioned not as an instruction, (I posted the instruction) but as one of the justifications in the "whereas" section.

You speak of it as if the expressed purpose of the document was the Bush Administration asking specifically for permission for regime change. It was not. No reasonable person voting for the document would think that.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: TIA
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:38 PM

"No reasonable person can claim that the 2003 use of military force against the Iraqi government was an invasion..."



So, this quote is clearly from an unreasonable person:
"From the moment we invaded Iraq in '03 the argument the Democrats have launched has been, "What are we doing there?"










Rush Limbaugh, July 30, 2007.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:32 PM

Did the US Senate legally declare war on "terror"? Are we legally at war with terrorism? Is there a formal declaration of war against terror or terrorism?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM

"There was not adequate reason for a US attack on Iraq in 2003."

That decision is above LH's pay grade, as they say in the US Army

Besides, look at a map of Iraq's No-Fly Zones. The northern one was to protect Kurds from more of Saddam's nerve gas attacks. The southern one protected Shiites who despised him. Together the comprise 70% if Iraq's territory.

The No-Fly Zones were under control of the US and it's allies and they were mandated by UN resolution.

No reasonable person can claim that the 2003 use of military force against the Iraqi government was an invasion when we already controlled 70% of the country and had UN mandates to do so.

Kofi Anan is one of the most corrupt people in history. He stole more money in the mis-named Oil For Food program than Yasser Arafat stole from his aid programs. They last thing Kofi Anan wanted was for Saddam to go away. That would have ended his biggest cash cow. What Anan says about the UN authorization is junk. Good thing he was not head of the UN during the other important events in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 04:53 PM

GUEST,Jack the Sailor (22 Jul 08 - 03:35 PM)

Link ****Here is the resolution.****

"There is nothing in it about the eviction of Saddam Hussein"

Really Jack? Open and read your own link, try Page 4 second paragraph down, where it mentions the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 04:45 PM

"The new Iraqi Shiite regime, if left alone to do as it wishes, will be a natural ally of Iran. ;-)" - Little Hawk

Wanna bet? Ever had a look at the make up of Iran LH?

The main ethnic groups are Persians (51%), Azeris (24%), Gilaki and Mazandarani (8%), Kurds (7%), Arabs (3%), Baluchi (2%), Lurs (2%), Turkmens (2%), Laks, Qashqai, Armenians, Persian Jews, Georgians, Assyrians, Circassians, Tats, Mandaeans, Gypsies, Brahuis, Hazara, Kazakhs and others (1%).

Not much of an Shia Arab population is there LH?

Having looked up the make up of Iran LH, take a look where their oil is concentrated - Khuzestan in the South West corner of Iran. Have a guess where the 3% population of Iran's Arabs live LH?

Now look into how well the Arabs and the Persians get along Little Hawk - Hint, not at all.

Natural ally of Iran eh? In that part of the world I would not take anything for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 03:48 PM

pdq - There was not adequate reason for a US attack on Iraq in 2003. Most of the world felt there was not adequate reason, and that was reflected in the fact that the Security Council did not give their support to that attack, nor did the General Assembly, nor did most people in the world.

The USA and Britain went ahead anyway without U.N. approval. By doing so, they were in fact in defiance of the U.N. and of a majority of the British populace too, and certainly of a majority of the populace in almost every other country in the world.

To claim earlier U.N. resolutions against Iraq as justification for a later act of aggression not endorsed by the U.N. is the height of hypocrisy and insincerity, but when you have to justify unprovoked aggression to your own people at home, well, you say whatever you can come up with, right?

The war may have officially been against Saddam and his government, but it impacted the entire society and it has caused that whole society to suffer immeasurable loss. That loss is the responsibility of those who started the war, meaning the USA and Great Britain.

They started it (supposedly) over something that didn't exist. WMDs in Iraq.

It was a war justified by lies about WMDs. It was a war of choice, launched without provocation, and without Iraq posing any real danger to any other nations at the time. It was really about regime change and establishing an American presence in Iraq. Those aims have been accomplished...at, however, what may prove in the long run to be an unacceptable cost.

The new Iraqi Shiite regime, if left alone to do as it wishes, will be a natural ally of Iran. ;-) How inconvenient for the USA! Thus do the best laid plans of scoundrels go astray.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 03:35 PM

Here is the resolution.

There is nothing in it about the eviction of Saddam Hussein


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and ter-
rorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the ter-
rorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WARPOWERSRESOLUTIONREQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFICSTATUTORYAUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statu-
tory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHERREQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 03:12 PM

I am just trying to keep the facts out there for an honest discussion.

I have no intentions of doing the heavy lifting that Teribus does. He was a military officer and an historian.

For people to claim that there was no reason for the US actions in Iraq, or the the US military was not given a mandate by Congress is factually incorrect.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 as it is correctly called, most certainly calls for just what we did.

It should be looked upon as an attack on Suddam Hussein and his government, not an attack on Iraq or it's people.

Only 15% of Iraq was Suni / Arab and they were Saddam's only supporters. Half of them wanted him gone.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:45 PM

pdq,

You seem to be defining these votes with your own words.

I don't remember any vote authorizating the eviction of Saddam Hussein's government. Wasn't it more like giving the President to use good judgement in dealing with a threat?

If Bush and Cheney had honestly laid all their cards on the table and caled for an up or down vote on ousting Hussein. It would have been at least 77-23 the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:37 PM

The fact that Democrats voted for something doesn't make it right, anymore than Republicans voting for it. Declaring a "War" on Terrorism--a "war" with no firm conclusion possible--merely surrenders civil rights to a "war-time" government.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:22 PM

Let's go back and get a few facts here.

The Senate Resolution for the War on Terrorism was passed 14 SEP 2001 by a unanimous vote: 98 to 0, with two Republicans voting "present". All Democrats voted for it.

The Senate vote authorizating the eviction of Saddam Hussein's government was in OCT 2002. The vote was 77 "yes" and 23 "no".

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:00 PM

McCain is the Surge Protector

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 01:57 PM

al-Qaeda should have invested in a large surge -protector.

(uh hunnert!)

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 01:51 PM

The Senate's near-unanimous 2003 vote was to allow force "as a last resort". We now know that the Bush Administration had already planned, and even begun executing, the war.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 01:32 PM

Guilaini calls it a war. He says that the "Surge worked" and that there would be chaos without it.

Lets put aside al Sadr, telling his fighters to stand down because he was told that if he did, the Americans would be gone sooner. Set aside the bribes we are paying to the Sunnis and their fighting Al Qaeda because they were told that if they did the Americans would be gone sooner.

The Surge combined with the above factors, has taken Iraq violence from a bit over 2000 deaths to around 500. The question I'd like to ask is was it worth $200,000,000 and a few hundred american lives and a few thousand permanently maimed, to save those 1500 Iraqis from each other?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 01:30 PM

When the terrorists were supposed to have flown planes into some buildings in the US, we were told that was an act of war. Which government declared that war? If no government declared war on the US at that time, I guess that would mean that no terrorist action taken on 9/11 against the US could be defined as an act of war in the legal sense.

If that's the case, then we were lied to when we were told we were responding to an act of war. And of course, if no war was declared by the US against either Iraq or Afghanistan, that would mean we were lied to when we were told that the president is a war president, and we were lied to when we were told by the president that his gutting of the Constitution was justified because we are at war.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 01:13 PM

Bill D-
Yes, "at war" is a legal point. But it's that point that's been the justification for the extraordinary power grab (and Constitution weakening) on the part of the Executive branch.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 09:41 AM

"Bush merely sent a bunch of troops to Iraq without asking Congress for permission."

Is this statement a joke? Is it the result of blind partisanship? Is it pure ignorance?

The US Congress authorized the ouster of the Hussein government around February of 2003. The 2001 authorization for a War on Terrorism would have been enough, according to many legal experts, but President George W. Bush made sure he had very specific approval for this action. George H. W. Bush was just as careful in 1991 when he sought and received a UN mandate to evict Hussein's army from Kuwait.

The 2003 eviction of Hussein's government received near unanimous approval in the Senate. The Senate vote for the War on Terrorism was unanimous.

We also have a UN mandate for the current Iraqi conflict, and the Afghanistan action is under NATO, not the US government.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Mike789
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 08:56 AM

IMHO: There is not a project, procedure, nor natural phenomena; from the planting of a seed to the miracle of birth, to the building of a bridge, that does not adhere to some kind of time line or schedule. Open-ended policy is a non-starter. Every once in a while you have to accetpt the consequences of your actions. Putting on the back burner over and over is not he answer.

The criteria for proof of lasting success in Iraq is to allow the Iraqis to see the horizon line of their own destiny. Their sense of nationalism cannot be fullfilled with a surrogate strong man looking over their shoulder.

The fact that we do not like an Iraqi Shiite alignment with Iran, the fruit of this endeavor, is not sufficient reason to precude giving birh to this independent nation. You gotta cut the umbical cord sometime and let the cards fall where they may.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 03:36 AM

Taking apart "Historian" and Strategist/Tactician" Ron's post first:

Point 1:
"As I said, it's thanks to the US (and Maliki's) rejection of your brilliant idea that the Sunnis were like Nazis at the end of World War II that much of the improvement has happened in Iraq."

Now Ron, being the student of history and misinformation that you are you will realise that Maliki was not in power when I made the statement re the perception of other Iraqi's would be to view the Sunni Arabs and the Ba'athists that they supported like people viewed the Nazis at the end of World War II. You will also remember that at that time the Sunni Arabs of central Iraq were supporting both the Ba'athist remnants insurgency and the terrorist campaign mounted by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Again if you remember correctly, instead of conveniently and selectively as you are most prone to do, people were dying in droves and both these groups were trying their utmost to foment a "Civil War" in Iraq.

What I advocated at that time was that the Sunni Arabs of central Iraq had to realise was that their best hope lay in joining the emergent political process and throwing in with the Interim Government and turn their backs on the insurgents and terrorists who could only deliver them death and destruction.

You on the otherhand at that time insisted that the Interim Government had to more or less capitulate to Sunni Arab demands and the ongoing insurgency because the war against them was unwinnable.

As predicted by myself, the activities of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi led to a Shia backlash, and all of a sudden the Sunni Arabs of central Iraq realised that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Ba'athist insurgents could not protect them from this onslaught, only the US troops of the MNF and the newly created Iraqi Army could. So again as I predicted when the Sunni Arabs of central Iraq did abandon their support for the insurgency and turned their backs on the organisation that was now known as "Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq" that things got decidedly better all round.
   
Point 2.
"If you don't know Petraeus has in fact reached out to Sunnis--as I counseled years ago-- your ignorance is even greater than I had feared. Don't you ever do any research?"

I believe the question I asked Ron in response to your statement that General Petraeus had reached out to the Sunni's as recommended by yourself was - Can you give us any examples? Your failure to do so has no doubt been noted. Do you have any examples of General Petraeus following the "Davies Doctrine"?

Point 3:
"And if you don't realize that al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy--for exactly the reason I stated-- you need to start reading something other than the Sun--or whatever your sources have been."

Eh Ron, I believe it was me who predicted that if "Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq" continued to indiscriminately attack Iraqi civilians the population would turn against them. You at that time joined the chorus of "usual suspects" on this Forum bleating about "Civil War", and about how the only way out was to either appease the terrorists or capitulate completely, withdraw and leave the Interim Iraqi Government to it's fate.

Point 4:
"And as for the 16 month time frame--now have you noticed who has embraced this? Not just Obama--but Maliki."

Now Obama says irrespective of conditions on the ground he will complete withdrawal of all US troops in 16 months. Obama also says he wants to maintain a US military presence in Iraq, which would be quite difficult because Obama says that he guarantees that the US will build no military bases in Iraq - Obama seems to say rather a lot of very contradictory things Ron Davies, maybe that is why he appeals to you.

Now what does Maliki actually say Ron? His own words Ron, not those that other people told you he said, not those as reported by others. Of course Iraqi's want to see the departure of MNF Troops, that is only natural, it would signal the fact that life was back to normal. What I haven't heard or read Ron is Maliki stating, or demanding, that he wants US/MNF troops out of Iraq in accordance with any set timetable.

Point 5:
"Too bad that doesn't fit with your theory about the disaster such a timeframe would be."

I'll stick with my prediction Ron, which was, that if the US Armed Forces leave Iraq in any manner that "Al-Qaeda", the insurgents or militias can claim "victory" then it will prove to be a disaster for the USA and Iraq in particular, and for the region and the world in general. You might not have thought things out, because that is not a thing that you do well, besides nobody has told you what to think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 03:13 AM

Would Teribus care to comment on the number of terrorist attacks attempted against the UK since the start of the Iraq "war".

The USA, unlike the UK, does not have large ghettoised Muslim communities, where the young can be easily "radicalised".
Teribus often repeats this crap about America being a safer place after their invasion of Iraq, but he is living in cloud cuckoo land and does not seem to realise that alienation of one sector of society simply stores up problems for the future.

The " war" in Ira is winding down, as it inevitably would, due not to "the surge" or any other external forces, but simply because the Shia have what they want.
They have removed a secular dictator, removed the yoke of Sunni domination, and are now in the process of removing the American invaders and constructing an Iraqi Islamic Republic, to sit alongside the Iranians.

Do the warmongers here seriously think that any of us are "safer" because of the actions of American financial interests and their mad Christian fundamentalist ally Blair?

Waken up! don't look at American politics as "personalities".
American politics is run by a cruel hard cabal, who have no regard for the safety or wellbeing of "the American people"...regardless of the name on the tin!!..........Ake

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:27 PM

"War". What does it mean?


Well, you have legally defined war...meaning a war has been officially declared by some nation-state on another, and is being fought or is about to be fought.

Then you have the wars which haven't been officially declared, but are still happening anyway...those are sometimes called a "police action" or some such euphemism, but they are still wars.

Then you have protracted military occupations of foreign territories which are being actively resisted by many of the local inhabitants through a lengthy guerrilla campaign, planting bombs, assassinating officials, attacking occupation forces, etc. That is still a war.

They you have civil wars within a population.

Of the above, only the first is a legally declared war in the legal sense.

They all, however, share one basic commonality: people are engaging in organized violence against other people over some large political issue(s), and people are dying.

That's war.

Hell, you can even have a war in a city between 2 sets of Mafia-type gangs...it's still called a war. And you know why? Because people are fighting each other in an organized way and people are dying. That's war.

There is a war in Iraq. There is a war in Afghanistan. There are a number of other wars going on here and there in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Most of them have not been officially "declared". So what? They are still wars.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 08:25 PM

Gee Doug, do you need some counsel too?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 06:19 PM

At the risk of confusing a few posters...being "at war" is a legal point. We have not declared war on anyone. Bush merely sent a bunch of troops to Iraq without asking Congress for permission. 'War' in this case is merely a nice shorthand term for an 'armed conflict' or perhaps a kinda large 'temporary incursion'.....sorry-VERY large, and not exactly temporary.

No matter what you want' to CALL it, I see McCain is still babbling that we have 'succeeded' in whatever it is we are doing...much to the bewilderment of either the Iraqis or our troops who are merely dying at a slightly slower rate. The Bush administration has managed to redefine 'success' by referring to its own fuzzy 'benchmarks' for success in truly amazing examples of distorted calculations and hedged qualifications...and STILL cannot claim that half of them have been met.

.........and I see that Obama's ideas, understanding and character are being widely admired by the leaders he has met on his trip.

all very interesting

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 05:36 PM

Gee whiz, Teribus, it seems to me after reading Mr. Davies last post, you better shape up or ship out! Actually, it was not until I read that last post that I realized that Mr. Davies is serving as a "counsel" to the commanding general in Iraq. Thank God he listened to you Mr. Davies and got friendly with the Sunnis. Otherwise the "surge" might not have worked.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:11 AM

Teribus--

Hope your blood pressure simmers down soon. Absurd outrage is not really good for your health.

As I said, it's thanks to the US (and Maliki's) rejection of your brilliant idea that the Sunnis were like Nazis at the end of World War II that much of the improvement has happened in Iraq.

If you don't know Petraeus has in fact reached out to Sunnis--as I counseled years ago-- your ignorance is even greater than I had feared. Don't you ever do any research?

And if you don't realize that al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy--for exactly the reason I stated-- you need to start reading something other than the Sun--or whatever your sources have been.

And as for the 16 month time frame--now have you noticed who has embraced this? Not just Obama--but Maliki.

Too bad that doesn't fit with your theory about the disaster such a timeframe would be.

I hate to tell you, but actually Maliki has a bit more clout--and might even possibly know more about this-- than you.

But sleep well.

Looking forward to your next, typically calm, well reasoned posting.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 04:48 PM

There have been exactly two attacks, 8 years apart. Its been almost seven years since the last one. There have been tens of thousands of successful attacks on Americans since the last attack. Mostly due to where the Americans they were given and where they were sent. Not a war of course.

BTW is there a word in Teribus land for what is happening in Iraq? Because if you don't have one, I'm just going to call it what everyone else does, "war".

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 04:42 PM

Amos,

How many successful attacks have been made against mainland USA since the actions and measures implemented by President George W Bush subsequent to the attacks of the 11th September 2001?

How many successful attacks were made against mainland USA despite the actions and measures implemented by President William J. Clinton subsequent to the attacks of the 26th February 1993?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 02:07 PM

Teribus:

IF there is no war, then an awful lot of 'splaining is due America by all the legalists who insisted that the authorization for the use of force in Iraq by Congress was tantamount to the granting of dictatorial powers. In fact your somewhat contorted rationale for insisting there is no war is kinda ludicrous.


Because the notion that he is a war president is the only thing that lets Bush sleep at night.


A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 02:01 PM

No victory but a terrible loss for Americans. A misguided lie that echoes Vietnam.

The "surge" has only succeeded for the Military contractors who have made millions
on the blood-letting and sanguinary machinations of a psychotic Administration.

"War is a racket" says Smedley Butler. Mark Twain had something to say about it too
under McKinley.

Obviously the thread is an attempt at sarcasm but it plays very much like the cover
of the New Yorker magazine in that there are too many ignorant people out there
who believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 11:26 AM

"The timetable is also Obama's approach. So Bush and McCain have to give in to reality--and Obama's plan for Iraq."




                               More drivel!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 10:54 AM

The US is on a war footing. At least that's what our president keeps telling us. He keeps saying he has to take away our civil liberties, concentrate power in the Executive Branch, and violate our constitution (the most central law of the land), because "we are at war and the constitution authorizes the president to do such things during war time".

But maybe he's lying to us just so he can play dictator for a while. He did say he would like to be a dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 04:01 AM

"The only war is total war." - Quite right Jack the Sailor, if you happen to find yourself in a war you do not "half-fight" it. Neither the USA or Iraq is on anything like a war footing, but there again they wouldn't have to be to fight against a now isolated group of terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 12:30 AM

OK Teribus.

The only war is total war.

War is Peace.

Peace is 138,000 troops going to Iraq to drink Starbucks and none of that has anything to do with the price of Oil.

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 12:25 AM

Nope. I'm not really interested in getting into a discussion of 9/11 in this thread. Especially since it's introduction to the thread only serves as an attempt to distract people from the fact that people who say there is no war are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:44 PM

CarolC - 19 Jul 08 - 08:04 PM

"9/11 could have been prevented had the US government had any desire to do so."

Care to explain how Poppet?

From Jack the Sailor we get:

"The Pentagon believes that there is a war in Iraq. That's why they have 138,000 soldiers there."

Well no Jack they don't. The Pentagon has 138,000 soldiers (in actual fact I believe the number to be around 150,00) in Iraq because they are required to be there in compliance with an undertaking entered into between the United States Government, The United Nations and The Government of Iraq. The United States of America is not at war in Iraq, if it was it would be over once and for all 15 minutes after the last US soldier left Iraq. Iraq would be glass, that Jack the Sailor would be the US at war.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:27 PM

...and I think my point has been made. Anyone who asserts that there is no war, is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:18 PM

Teribus,

You obviously have no interest in communicating. You know what war I was talking about and decide to play ostrich and then you try to bury me with exclamation points.

The Pentagon believes that there is a war in Iraq. That's why they have 138,000 soldiers there. The oil market reacted to the 33 police recruits killed the other day. Security is tenuous in the area of the world where a quarter of the world reserves. 138,000 soldiers are there and they can't come home, but in your mind tgere is no war. In Teribus land its Putin, Chavez and Nigeria.

Uhhh Huh.