BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 10:41 AM

You mean the US should invade Canada and convert it from socialism to a real Democracy?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 10:26 AM

Oh, yeah... ;-) I'm sure the rest of the Arab world desperately envies not having been invaded by the USA, smashed to hell by bombs and cruise missiles, wrecked, decimated, and then rebuilt and occupied by the hated invaders with a whole bunch of permanent military bases and an ongoing presence of American troops, mercenaries, and corporate contractors.

Hell, they must be green with envy, right? Why couldn't THEY be so lucky, like Iraq has been? Why???? ;-D

Yes, the whole world yearns to be invaded by America, beat to hell, occupied, and "saved". I know we here in Canuckistan think wistfully of being saved, for example, from our quaint form of democracy and our national health insurance...and given the more "progressive" American corporate approach.

Come on, attack us. Please. Invade and occupy. We WANT to be just like you.

I mean, who wouldn't?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 10:16 AM

Americans are rightly proud to watch millions of Iraqis go to the polls to cast their ballots for anyone they choose
Iraq: An example for the region
AlJazeera March 06, 2010

The Iraqi people have voted in free and fair elections locally, nationally and provincially since Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi president, was ousted by the US military in 2003. It has been a bloody and deadly example the entire Middle East, but this week, Iraqis will show the Arab World once again that their hard-fought freedom and painful sacrifices are an example for all people struggling under oppressive regimes.

On January 10, 2007, George W Bush, the then US president, defied critics and ignored popular opinion and political polls in the US by committing more than 20,000 additional American troops to the war in Iraq. "The Surge," as it is commonly called, has since been credited with bringing the Iraqi people more security, less violence and greater freedoms. By July 2008, the surge was heralded as a success from Baghdad to Boston.

"Democrats loudly disagreed"

In originally announcing the highly controversial surge, Bush made a nationally televised gamble to dramatically change the most important US foreign policy of his presidency. While Bush confidently said that the surge was for a "unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror," Democrats in Washington, DC, loudly disagreed.

Bush went on to make clear that more than 20,000 American men and women would be placed throughout Baghdad and the Anbar Province "to help Iraqis clear and secure neighbourhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security." The president's bold gambit was belittled and roundly mocked among liberals in the US and Europe - as well as by the future leader of the free world.

Moments after the surge was announced, Barack Obama, the then-US senator announced, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." The future president was emphatic that Washington should not only not add troops but that American men and women should also exit Iraq as soon as possible.

In announcing his candidacy for president a month later, Obama said: "It's time to start bringing our troops home ... That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008." Within months of entering the race for the White House in 2007, Obama started voting against Congressional funding for the troops and campaigning strongly for bringing the troops home.

Obama's plan

It is fair to say that if Obama would have been president a year earlier than he was, a very different Iraq would have emerged than the one developing today. In June 2006 and September of 2007, Obama voted to bring US troops home from Iraq. If implemented, Obama's wish would have left the untrained Iraqi military force to deal with the sectarian violence alone.

Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda would have been left unchallenged in their efforts to destabilise Iraq and surely would have successfully fomented a civil war by moving their secret campaign to arm and entice violent factions out into the open. The deaths of more than 4,300 US soldiers who died defending freedom in Iraq and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by the extremists' violence would have been in vain. But thankfully, for Iraqis who believe in democracy and crave freedom, Bush ignored popular opinion and worked closely with military experts to surge Iraq forward and help put it on the path it is today.

Monumental change

Although Iraq still sees sectarian violence and terrorist bombings all too much, there is no question that the country has made monumental change to its political system and in a relatively short time. This week's free and fair elections are yet another example of a young democracy taking hold in a country where just a few years ago real elections and campaigning were unthinkable.

No country in the Middle East gives its people more freedoms than Iraq does today. NGO's are being created weekly; a civil society has emerged to challenge the government's decisions, demand transparency, represent minorities and bring attention to people and issues that were ignored in the past. Iraq has a free press that is unrivalled in the Arab world, unobstructed access to the Internet and a military that is becoming a force to be reckoned with in the heart of the world's most unstable territory.

While Iraq's very young democracy is messy, incomplete and imperfect, it is currently the envy of the Arab world.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 12:08 PM

Wasn't sure where to post this quote. Somehow this thread seems a good place for it...note, it is the 2,0008th day since "Mission Accomplished:"

War: first, one hopes to win;
then one expects the enemy to lose;
then one is satisfied that he too is suffering;
in the end, one is surprised that everyone has lost.
--Karl Kraus

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:00 AM

Aw Shucks Jack, not even one teeny, weeny lie??? Not even the merest indication of one? God knows you and your fellow believers have been hammerin' on about this for the best part of 6 years now and none of you can come up with an example of the lies the current President is supposed to have told.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 04:55 AM

You may have the last word.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 02:01 AM

Ah Jack The Sailor, at least the likes of myself, pdq and Kent Davis can stand our corner in a discussion by backing up what we say with salient facts and examples, hardly fantasies, they (fantasies) would appear to be more your line.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 11:08 PM

>>>Kent Davis,   Your 02:22 PM post show both intelligence and humor. Also a fair amount of work. Don't expect too many here to appreciate that, but some do. Hope that is enough. ... Pdq<<<

Actually it make one feels like Charlie Brown's teacher, when constantly presented with solid evidence of conspiracy and malfeasance all he hears is "Wah wah wah Bush wah Wah Bush Wah wah Bush."

On the other hand giving Bush credit for a lot of things is taking credit from the troops, leaving the obvious question. Why does Kent Davis hate America?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 11:00 PM

Keep clinging to your fantasies Teribus. They are sure to keep you warm at night.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 10:07 PM

Kent Davis,

Your 02:22 PM post show both intelligence and humor. Also a fair amount of work. Don't expect too many here to appreciate that, but some do. Hope that is enough.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 09:02 PM

My word Jack The Sailor that is terribly decent of you:

I get to say, "That I don't think that Bush lied" - i.e. expression of a personal opinion.

While you get to broadcast, "He lied so much about the war.." - statement of fact. Shouldn't that be, "I believe (or I think) he lied so much about the war..."

And of course you are not going to go into detail to defend your statements and beliefs, because they have no substance. When pinned down to inconvenient detail it becomes obvious that you have no arguement at all.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 06:09 PM

Teribus,

If you don't think that Bush lied. Good. Just say so. I feel no need to prove the obvious. I feel no need to try to argue a position to you that you refuse to be open minded about.

No one who is open minded cares whether I go through that old tired ground with you once again. It doesn't amuse me to do it so I am not going to do so just to please you.

I say this in kindness. You are not a credible judge in what is logical. You bring so many unexpressed assumptions to any argument that it is very difficult to follow your points.

Certainly the assumption that anything I say or Amos says, must be vetted by you and explained during your cross examinations fits in that category.

Where have I ever asked people to accept everything I say as "the gospel truth"? I say what I say. You can believe it or not. But I will not abide by you appointing yourself the schoolmaster in Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and trying to run me through your meat grinder. Squawk all you like. Beat your ruler on the desk if you must. I don't care. I don't answer to your confused notions of logic and I don't have the time or energy to disabuse you of your cherished misconceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 05:51 PM

So Jack The Sailor, just like Amos, you can make any statement you wish, regardless of how idiotic, illogical, or incorrect, and everybody reading this thread has to accept it as the gospel truth.

Well I thought this was a discussion forum Jack, and that does not seem to be much of a premise for a discussion.

You still cannot give one example of Bush ever having knowingly lied to the people of America, now why is that Jack? If you cannot furnish any examples of the current President of the United States of America lying to the people of America why are you stating clearly that he has, sorta makes a bit of a liar out of you doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:31 PM

Teribus.

I'm not interested in playing your straw man games. If you want to try to refute what I have said go ahead. But I don't accept homework from you.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Kent Davis
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 02:22 PM

Thanks, guys! I get it now! How silly of me not to have seen it before! It's so obvious once y'all pointed it out. From what I've read in this and related threads, it's like this:

Saddam Hussein gases his own people - Bush the elder's fault
Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait       - Bush the elder's fault
The Gulf War                            - Bush the elder's fault
Israel attacked                         - Bush the elder's fault
Kuwait is liberated                     - no thanks to Bush
casualties lighter than expected    - no thanks to Bush
nevertheless many killed            - Bush is a murderer
Iraqi infrastructure mostly saved   - no thanks to Bush
but some destroyed                  - Bush is a Nazi
inspections mandated                - no thanks to Bush
Baathist regime resists inspections - Bush the elder's fault
First World Trade Center bombing    - not Clinton's fault
deadlines pass                      - Bushes bad; Clinton good
9/11 attacks                        - Bush asleep at the wheel
Taliban driven from power          - no thanks to Bush
but not entirely destroyed          - Bush is a failure
casualities lower than predicted    - no thanks to GWB
Afghan Constitution enacted         - no thanks to you-know-who
Afghan elections fairly smooth      - ditto
but not perfect                     - Bush is a monster
Iraqi sanctions still in place      - Bush is killing Iraqi children
Hussein still resisting inspections - Bush's fault
Bush says sanctions didn't work    - Bush loves war and hates people
U.K. intelligence supports U.S.    - Bush lied
War begins                         - people died - GWB's fault
initial casualities light          - no thanks to Bush
but not zero                        - Bush murdered American soldiers
Baathists soundly defeated          - no thanks to Bush
a democratic constitution for Iraq - no thanks to Bush
Iraqi elections                     - no credit to GWB
factional violence                  - entirely Bush's fault
many coalition soldiers killed      - blood on Bush's hands
Hearts & Minds campaign to Sunnis   - no thanks to Bush
Iraqi Security Forces trained       - not due to Bush
Kurdistan mostly secure             - not because of Bush
violence halved                     - no thanks to GWB
violence halved again               - not due to anything Bush did
many Iraqi provinces fairly stable - dumb luck; not credit to GWB
Iraq still not Switzerland          - Bush is Satan
whatever bad thing happens next    - Bush's fault
whatever good thing happens next    - no thanks to the Evil One

Did I miss anything?

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 02:06 PM

GUEST Jack the Sailor (02 Aug 08 - 08:45 PM)

"I have no idea what Bush set out to do. He lied so much about the war and changed the target so many times, there was and is no clear goal."

JTS states this but cannot provide any examples.

JTS states this attempting to convince us that there was and could only be one single reason to justify the actions taken when in actual fact there were many.

JTS states this attempting to convince us all that there must be a single objective that must be accomplished, when in actual fact there were lots, many of which have been achieved.

By the bye Jack The Sailor here are a few questions you conveniently forgot to respond to:

"Iraq was being contained." - JTS

Was it?? In what way?? Exactly how was it being contained?? Again I ask you what would Saddam's reaction have been to Iran's nuclear programme??

"Al Qaeda was the real enemy" - JTS

Al-Qaeda was, and still is one "real enemy" amongst a number of others, but it was not adjudged, via evaluation and analysis, to be the greatest threat. Could you explain to us Jack The Sailor, exactly what the security benefit would have been to the USA in single-mindedly pursuing one of your enemies, while completely ignoring the greatest threat to your country? List for us Jack The Sailor the things we would not have a clue about if the US had not called the UN to take action against Iraq in 2002 and had not gone into Iraq in March 2003 when it became patently obvious that the UN was going to do nothing to enforce compliance on Resolution 1441?

"Afghanistan was and is the central front in the war on terrorism." - JTS.

Is it?? Care to tell us how and why?? Bin Laden, his second in command and Mullah Omar get captured tomorrow, the Taleban throw in the towel immediately on hearing the news, do you think that that would be the end of it?? Are you really that naive??

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 11:15 AM

I skimmed this thread quickly but did not see the following aspect of the surge story discussed:

MNBC: CBS Edits McCain's Whopper Out of Broadcast (w/original video)

Follow-up on MSNBC: McCain gives history (his story) of surge in the cheese aisle of a Bethlehem PA supermarket

Follow-up part 2: McCain says media not fair to him

Postscript, just for fun: Applesauce counterinsurgency (same supermarket, I think!) (Not shown here, but on the local news' video McCain's reaction was to say "That wasn't me, that wasn't me" over and over again!)

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

I have no idea what Bush set out to do. He lied so much about the war and changed the target so many times, there was and is no clear goal. But I certainly don't remember him saying that the target was 13 Americans and 400 Iraqis killed per month.

McCain is taking credit for "success" but he is also apparently taking credit for other factors which had little to do with the surge and he is not giving any credit to the 2006 mid term elections and the growing resolve of the US people to pull out if things quieted down over there.

I think that is more than possible, maybe even likely that things would have calmed more if the President had simply made the promise that the Democrats were in effect making to the Iraqi people. That if they stop killing each other we would leave.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 08:38 PM

Ahhhhh, let me ask you a question, Kent...

If I came into your business, or to your home, and demanded that you pay me not to mess you or your family up and you agreed to do so, would you consider that an success???

Well, I quess that you will have succeeded, thru your prompt payments, in protecting yourself and your family but I don't see the success in this... Paying Sunni's not to kill US is no more opf a success than you paying the Mob not to mess you up...

This is what has happened...

Lets get real here for one minute... "The Surge" didn't represent the highest troop levels in Iraq since the invasion???

Hmmmmmmm??? What does that mean??? Maybe that it wasn;t the troop levels at all that has created less violence but a combination of Iraqi politics, protection money, the Sunnis havin' has ebough of al-qeada and alot ofother things that we may not know for years... But one thing is for sure, inreased troop levels didn't work before "The Surge" so "The Surge" of troops can't be given credit for the decrease in violence on the ground...

"The Surge" of my tax dollars going to Sunnis??? Maybe...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Kent Davis
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 08:03 PM

Thank you, Jack the Sailor, for your concern for my soul. I assure that I too pray every day for God's mercy, and I'm sure I need it every bit as much as you do, though perhaps for different reasons. I apologize for the way I wrote. It was too abrupt, and I hope you'll forgive my abruptness. Please allow me to try again.

Success is defined as doing what you set out to do.

The absence of perfection is not evidence of failure. We would not adopt such a standard in any other endeavor. A police force, for example, is considered successful if it reduces crime. Yet no police force has eliminated crime. Would you say that police forces are failures, with the blood of crime victims on their hands?

Medicine has not eliminated sickness or death. Is medicine therefore a failure, with the blood of those who die on its hands?

Do you think that the invasion of Normandy was a failure? The Allies lost 10,264 men and the war still went on. Did that make it a failure?   

It is possible, this far into the discussion, to have forgotten that we are discussing the success or failure of the surge, not the morality of the entire war. It is also possible to have forgotten the purpose of the surge. The purpose of the surge was to reduce sectarian violence. 409 is less than 3,014.

Success is defined as doing what you set out to do. I trust we can all agree upon this

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:29 PM

Those deaths are all on Bush's hand and yours too if you voted for him.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:28 PM

If you think that 409 people killed is a success then may God have mercy on yours.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:13 PM

A success is usually defined as accomplishing what you set out to do. A surge, while clearly not lending itself to precise definition, is usually a short-term increase in something or other. Unless you're a Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Kent Davis
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:53 PM

Jack the Sailor,

If you don't think a decrease in Iraqi deaths from 3,014 in a February, '07 to 409 in July is a success, may God have mercy on your soul.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 12:34 AM

Good point Kent.

Your stats show that while the extra troops provided during the "surge" brought a decrease in violence, 13 US troops dead combined with 409 Iraqis can hardly be called "success".

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Kent Davis
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:55 PM

Updated estimates from icausualties: http://icasualties.org/oif/Default.aspx

             U.S. military         Iraqi Security Force & Civilian   
                   deaths                      deaths
Feb. '07         81                         3,014

July '07         80                         1,690

July '08         13                           409

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 10:00 AM

"you've neglected to tell us, with your unmatched predictive powers, just who would attack well-armed bases in "Kurdistan'." - Ron Davies as Guest 29 Jul 08 - 10:49 AM.

You really don't pay too much attention do you Ron? - Refer to my post 28 Jul 08 - 07:54 AM where I point out that your well-armed base in "Kurdistan" would be so isolated and difficult to keep supplied that no-one would have to attack it to ensure it fell.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:54 AM

"Iraq was being contained." - JTS

Was it?? In what way?? Exactly how was it being contained?? Again I ask you what would Saddam's reaction have been to Iran's nuclear programme??

"Al Qaeda was the real enemy" - JTS

Al-Qaeda was, and still is one "real enemy" amongst a number of others, but it was not adjudged, via evaluation and analysis, to be the greatest threat. Could you explain to us Jack The Sailor, exactly what the security benefit would have been to the USA in single-mindedly pursuing one of your enemies, while completely ignoring the greatest threat to your country? List for us Jack The Sailor the things we would not have a clue about if the US had not called the UN to take action against Iraq in 2002 and had not gone into Iraq in March 2003 when it became patently obvious that the UN was going to do nothing to enforce compliance on Resolution 1441?

"Afghanistan was and is the central front in the war on terrorism." - JTS.

Is it?? Care to tell us how and why?? Bin Laden, his second in command and Mullah Omar get captured tomorrow, the Taleban throw in the towel immediately on hearing the news, do you think that that would be the end of it?? Are you really that naive??

Note that you have responded to none of the points put to you Ron.

"Congratulations on your 20/20 hindsight-- 'backlash obvious'"

Surge happened when Ron? - Answer (cos Ron doesn't like answering questions) Spring through Summer of 2007 - TRUE?

Dialogue opened with Arab Sunni leaders - When did that happen Ron? - Answer (cos Ron doesn't like answering questions) After democratic election of Iraqi Government, throughout the Summer 2006 - TRUE?

My prediction of a backlash against the terrorists by the Iraqi people was made on 6th July 2004. Ron, I take it that you do know what the term "hindsight" means don't you??

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:43 PM

"Afghanistan was and is the central front in the war on terrorism."


                   Jack - I agree with you on that, but military pundits continue to make the point that Iraq has more stratigic value. I suppose because of its geographic location and its oil reserve, but it's hard to pin them down on that, I've noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:25 PM

Iraq was being contained.

Al Qaeda was the real enemy

Afghanistan was and is the central front in the war on terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:03 PM

The No-Fly Zones were mandated by United Nations resolution. The northern No-Fly Zone was to protect Kurds from nerve gas attacks, done several times by Saddam's little helpers like "Chemical Ali". The southern No-Fly Zone was to protect the Shiite majority who hated Saddam. Please do a little more research, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:53 PM

Jack - I continually run across people who make the case that Iraq needed to be punished because it often fired on US planes patrolling the "no-fly zone(s)." It doesn't seem to occurr to them that the planes were violating Iraqi air space, and that the no-fly zones were arbitrarily drawn by Iraq's hostile enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:19 PM

Suss's hubby,

Try to focus and stay on topic. Iraq had nothing to do with UN resolutions other than the ones introduced as an excuse to attack.

If we are going by UN resolutions flaunted then Israel goes to the top of the list. But no obviously UN resolutions are not the determining factor.

Its really quite chear. Iraq did not attack the US. The 9/11 masterminds were Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Susu's Hubby
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:36 PM

Very good point, Amos.

But Iraq was also the country that repeatedly ignored the UN resolutions time after time after time again.

So if Saddam was going to continue to just ignore the resolutions the next question is what do we do now?

It's evident that talking wasn't getting the job done.

So we went in to enforce the resolutions. Oh and by the way, while we were there guess who shows up? Al Qaida.

Were we suppossed to tell them " Oh, um, we can't fight you here. Can ya'll meet us in Afghanistan?"

So justifying one without at least looking at the justifiable reasons of the other shows a little bit of political expediency on your part.

But then again, why souldn't it? Any chance you can take to take a swipe at the other side shouldn't be left alone, huh?


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:00 AM

So it's okay to kill Taliban then, JTS? But they had nothing to do with 9/11!



Dougie:

THis is a good point, actually. But the Taliban were the "state" providing support and a base of operations to bin Laden. A flimsy, second-rate sort of state, granted, but all we could find to aim a gun at. That placed them directly on the enemies list. And everyone knows that enemies may be killed freely.


A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:50 AM

Sorry, last posting was me, as is probably no mystery.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:49 AM

Gee, Teribus, sounds like your blood pressure is still in danger.   Simmer down--if nothing else we need you around as a foil.

Congratulations on your 20/20 hindsight-- 'backlash obvious' . For one who likes to complain about false predictions by liberals, your track record is, shall we say, not the best.

And though you like to throw around the term`'Alamo' as though you might possibly know what it means, you've neglected to tell us, with your unmatched predictive powers, just who would attack well-armed bases in "Kurdistan'.

Awaiting your next cogent comments.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 08:03 PM

YES DOUG!

It they are attacking NATO troops and defending Al Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 07:45 PM

So it's okay to kill Taliban then, JTS? But they had nothing to do with 9/11!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 03:35 PM

A few other points for Ron to ponder regarding his little "Alamo" way up there in sunny Kurdistan. We have raised the one about supply for General Ron's "Legion of the Lost". Now what about the potential problems to be faced by their "hosts".

1. Acceptance by the rest of Iraq that the Kurds can parlay their autonomy within the structure of a sovereign Iraqi State to what would amount to any form of "Independence" that would be vigorously contested by Turkey, Iraq and Iran. So not too good an idea.

2. I take it Ron that this Kurdistan that is so welcoming of US Troops (All 130,000 of them - Who is Barak Obama going to bring home then General Ron you've got them all camped out at "The Alamo") will be pretty reliant upon oil exports for revenue. Any suggestions as to exactly how they intend exporting it? The pipelines are owned and controlled by the Iraqi Government, they run through Iraqi Territory then on into Syria. The Kurds may have oil but they do not controll its means of export.

3. All your "mudcatters" who voiced their opinions against US/UK intervention in Iraq and roundly condemned them for ignoring the United Nations. OK Ron another little flea in your ointment, at what point does the Obama for "Change" camp go traipsing down to the UN and get their OK for dismembering Iraq. Current UN Mandates guarantee the present borders of Iraq - So I think your man Barak will have a bit of a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 03:32 PM

>>By the way, how many of the terrorists who joined in the attack on the World Trade Center were members of the Taliban? If none of them were, how can you justify killing them in Afghanistan?<<

Al Qaeda has been in Afghanistan and Pakistan since 9/11. They have build new training camps and are planning new attacks. The Taliban are protecting them.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 02:39 PM

Oh, I can read ok, JTS, but sometimes my old nimble fingers hit the wrong key on the keyboard.

I assume all of you critics of the Iraq war are going to cheer on Obama when he takes our troops our of Iraq and sends them to Afghanistan, right? It's okay to kill Taliban, but not al Quieda?

By the way, how many of the terrorists who joined in the attack on the World Trade Center were members of the Taliban? If none of them were, how can you justify killing them in Afghanistan?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 02:32 PM

McCain should talk to the families of the people killed yesterday in Iraq about "success and winning".

Things are still pretty bad.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 01:06 PM

DougR.

You don't know how to read. Which is quite dangerous in someone who complains so much and who always votes against his own self interest.

I am JTS not LTS. I said that the violence was 20 percent now of what is was before the surge.

"Conditions on the ground" is just and excuse not to make a decision. It is Bush and McCain's cowardice expressed in timidity. Go ahead. Vote for the chicken. Again.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:54 PM

I thought we had "marked improvement", Dougie???

Time to beat feet and go after the real, not imagined, boogie men...

Unless, of course, this entire war was fought to secure Iraq's oil which is about the only reason I can think of why Bush and Cheney, both oilmen, don't want to leave...

(But, Boberdz, we gotta stay there to train the Iraqis...)

Train them to do what??? Kill each other??? I think they are fully capable of doing that without any additional training...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:36 PM

LTS:"How soon can we remove our troops?" Answer:when conditions on the ground warrant it.

It seems to me, LTS, you won't be satisfied until all U. S. troops are removed and the Sunnis and Shias are free to duke it out.

Also, you must not be aware that troops are ALREADY leaving Iraq as conditions improve. Read a variety of publications and you might get a better idea of what is going on over there. By the way, where did you get the statistic that violence had only increased 20% since the surge? If it came from a left-wing blog, don't bother to answer.

Bobert, Bobert, Bobert. My description of "Victory" requested by LTS, is not utopia. It is merely a description of marked improvement. That's why it continues to be necessary to keep ample numbers of U.S. forces in Iraq.

(Sigh)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 10:04 AM

PS Ron:

What are would you suggest they call this "well-fortified base" in "Kurdistan" - The Alamo??

I have also never read anything that presupposes me to believe that the Kurds want US Troops camped on their doorsteps indefinitely.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 07:54 AM

Direct from Ron Davies at 10:10 AM – 26th July

Ron Davies Point 1: - (Ron here operating in his Strategic Advisor Capacity)
"Petraeus had no idea, as most people did not, that al-Qaeda would be as consistently stupid as it has been--and that their vicious barbaric "Moslem Puritanism" would cause the huge revulsion in the Sunni population that it did. He may be very intelligent but his crystal ball is not perfect, just as Mudcatters are not always correct in foretelling the future."

This piece of arrant nonsense defies what was said and commented upon shortly after elections were held and the Interim Iraqi Government took over from the Coalition Provisional Authority, something that many here said would never happen. That was when the Arab Sunni leaders started to feel short changed by the Ba'athist insurgents and Zarqawi's Jihadists. They found themselves almost completely out of the loop – On the outside of the tent pissing in, I believe is how it's described – but enough Sunni Arabs did vote to give them some representation, in fact percentage-wise a damn sight more than normally turn out to vote in Scottish General Elections.

Ron contends that Sunni backlash against the insurgents and Jihadists could not be predicted – complete and utter rubbish – it was bloody obvious from summer of 2004 what was going to happen.

Hey Ron as you are fond of "quoting me" try this one:

"Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Sovereignty
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 05:17 AM

-The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.

Again that was to be expected in the run-up to 30th June. The CPA was brutally frank in their predictions and warnings on this subject. The number of attacks should also be viewed alongside the nature of those attacks and their selected targets to determine the purpose behind them. They will prove to be as effective in Iraq as they have been in Palestine. Again due to the existence of a sovereign Iraqi government it will not take long for the bulk of the Iraqi people to turn against those carrying out those attacks. A new Iraqi government holds out and offers the people of Iraq hope - the "insurgents" offer them nothing except the prospect of civil war and the continuation of the misery they have endured for decades - It will not take long for the people of Iraq to recognise that."

If it was obvious to me on 6th July 2004 Ron, you can bet your boots that it was equally evident to the likes of General Petraeus and his Australian advisor Lt. Col. David Kilcullen who have made a lifetimes study of "counter-insurgency" campaigns. My own study period on it was a damn sight shorter, but I'd bet it was a more relevant than your own.

Ron Davies (aside Point)
(But many Mudcatters and Obama predicted many of the problems which have occurred as a result of the Iraq war--in contrast to the fools who beat the drum for war-- on Mudcat and elsewhere.)

And all those Mudcatters have studiously ignored the questions relating to the problems that would have occurred had Saddam not been removed from power? I'll pointlessly ask it once again. Had Saddam remained in power exactly what would the UN have done to enforce their disarmament requirements and what would have been Saddam's reaction to Iran's nuclear programme? By the bye all you many mudcatters who objected to US/UK intervention, depending upon which source you take as being his "average tally", Saddam and his son's would by now have killed between 300,000 and 550,000 of his own subjects. Personally I believe it might have been a great deal higher as I believe that by 2002 UN sanctions would have been lifted and we would now be into either the second or third year of the Second Iran/Iraq War.

Ron Davies Point 2: - (Ron switches now to Military Genius and Tactician)
"As a prudent military man, Petraeus felt he wanted to maximize his forces. But, as it turns out, it was not necessary."

Not necessary according to who Ron?? The reason General Petraeus asked for the 30,000 additional troops was to ensure that the troops he already had deployed in Iraq could continue the tasks already set them without interruption, while the additional troops could come in and operate in targeted areas alongside newly operational Iraqi Army Units.

"To say that the current success in Iraq is due to the " surge"--more troops--is the post hoc fallacy." – A Classic RONISM

Ron Davies Point 3: - (Ron now as eminent historian and philosopher)
"One more thing: There is nothing inherently wrong with being a Sunni. Just as there is nothing inherently wrong with being a Shiite. There is obviously something wrong with being a Nazi.   Teribus' parallel of Nazis and Sunnis is only dead wrong but pernicious---as is his further dehumanization of Moslems by talking of the "9 old gits"-- since it leads to completely wrong policies.   This sort of attitude exemplifies the worst of Western cultural blind arrogance--but it's not surprising to see in Bush supporters."

Now let's see what Ron omits to mention:
•        Ba'athist Party inspired by the German Nazi Party
•        Saddam did not trust the Iraqi Armed Forces, and therefore formed a second tier organization within Iraq's Military called The Republican Guard – To be a member of this Republican Guard (Best pay, best training, best equipment) you had to be a Sunni Arab. Again inspired by the Nazi's who had the regular German army the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS.
•        Not quite happy with The Republican Guard who kept watch over the Iraqi Army, Saddam formed a second additional formation – The Special Republican Guard – they watched the Police and the civilians – Now to be a member of the "Special Republican Guard" not only did you have to be a Sunni Arab but you had to come from Tikrit, Saddam's home town

See any sort of trend for preferential treatment creeping into the picture here?

By the bye Ron it's "12 Old Gits" – Ruling Council of Iran, if that expression is dehumanizing of them and derogatory all well and good, they continue to fail miserably in Iran and I am sure that the general population would love to see the back of them, along with such quaint practices of ritual public executions (stoning to death) and child hangings. With such a track record Ron, it hardly needs me to do anything to "dehumanize" them.

And direct from Ron Davies at 10:19 AM – 26th July, 2008

Ron Davies Point 4: - (Ron switches back to Military Genius and Tactician)
"Also: "marooned in "Kurdistan". More tripe. Who's going to attack well-fortified bases in Kurdistan? ( And the Kurds would be quite happy to have such American bases there). The Turks would not attack. Nor would the Iranians-unless the US is criminally stupid enough to attack them."

Talking of tripe, let us examine what Ron Davies imagines is going to happen:

•        The US under the masterful plan for "Change" that Obama will bring in will withdraw US Forces from the Central and Southern Sectors of Iraq. Obama believes that what the Iraqi people, the Iraqi politicians and the Iraqi Government wants is for the US Forces to leave Iraq and he wants to take advantage of this desire for Iraqi's to be more "masters of their own destiny". Great so far, now tell us Ron, how does Obama convince the Iraqi people, the Iraqi politicians and the Iraqi Government that an armed "US Colony" in the Northern part of Iraq is to everybody's advantage?

•        As to being "Marooned" Ron, have you ever had a look at a map of the area?

•        You have withdrawn from the rest of Iraq they don't want you there so nothing comes into your little Kurdistani enclave that way.

•        You are actually confronting a fellow NATO Member Turkey so you cannot supply your Kurdish enclave from there.

•        Air access over Iranian airspace would be unlikely, as would a similar arrangement with Syria

Attack a well fortified base? Hell Ron you wouldn't have to attack it just sit there and starve them out. And when they go they make you a present of all their wonderful toys.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 10:38 PM

The Kurds might very well decide that thay'd be better off complying with joining the country of Iraq, because the alternative is war with Turkey.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 09:47 PM

"Iraqi army". "government of Iraq", "equitably share oil revenues"

Big problem: the Kurds do not want to be part of "Iraq" and never have wanted it. And they have a lot of the oil. As well as, already, their own flag-- and many deals with international oil firms--over the strenuous objections of the "Iraqi government". And very strong views on Kirkuk.

So the question remains: what will "Iraq" consist of?