BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:19 PM

DougR,

The premium they have been paying for gas was to pay for their roads and public transport. The premium we now pay is being used to fund whabi terrorists sponsored by Saudi pals of your buddy Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:21 PM

"JTS, JTS, JTS: If Obama is listening to Chuck Hagel, God help us all!"

Yes DougR, We know, we know... Anyone who does not toe the current Republican party line is evil incarnate.

Yawn....

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 07:37 PM

When is a war not a war?

When Teribus says so. Just ask him. To be a war, a war must first meet Teribus's requirements. And they are...........???

As far as paying a premium for gas, though, well I think everyone in Europe has been doing that for quite a long time now, haven't they? North America is slowly catching up to reality in that regard. We travel much longer distances on average in North America, we commute to work in cars much more than Europeans do and we commute farther, we have far less public transit than other developed nations do, and we have long benefited from our comparatively low fuel prices which were, I suppose, tailored to fit our car-oriented lifestyle. That is going to change now that gas is becoming more expensive, and it may get North America to finally give good public transit the importance it deserves.

I know that people around where I live are doing a lot less long distance driving now if they can possibly manage it, and they are finding other alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 07:57 PM

"the difference between a surge and an escalation" - that's easy. It only has half the number of letters.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 10:52 PM

But much the same number of troops. For much the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 11:01 PM

So let's see. It's not a war... it's not an occupation... I guess that means it's a day at the beach!

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:16 AM

Well tell us Jack, where exactly is this "war" in the middle-east? Which sides are fighting it?

Or is this like this "civil war" that you lot were ranting about in Iraq that never happened?

Is there conflict in the middle-east? Of course there is. Is there fighting in the middle-east? Of course there is, but there is no war going in the middle-east. The only countries that might be described as being on anything remotely like a war footing at the moment are Iran and Lebanon. The first to convince their own population that they are facing an external threat and the latter to deter and prevent a civil war.   Shall we take a look at the others?

Egypt - Nope.

Israel - Nope, IDF not mobilised, they are however countering attacks by external terrorist groups that are supposedly attempting to hold a "ceasefire" while they regroup and rearm for the next equally meaningless and futile bash at Israel.

Lebanon - See above

Turkey - Nope, but some internal security problems associated with their Kurdish population which has resulted in conflict and fighting, involving "hot pursuit" raids into northern Iraq. As Turkey still remains a popular European tourist holiday destination, I would venture to suggest that they are not at war with anyone.

Syria - Nope.

Palestine - Nope, although different terrorist groups within the West Bank and Gaza are fighting for their lives, both groups are currently supposed to be maintaining a "ceasefire", neither group has the capablity to wage war on any country's armed forces.

Jordan - Nope.

Kuwait - Nope.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Nope.

Yemen - Nope.

Oman - Nope.

United Arab Emirates - Nope.

Iraq - Nope, they are currently fighting an insurgency with the aid of troops operating under UN Mandate, they are not fighting a war, they do not independently have the means to do so.

Iran - See above.

Well that's about it I don't think that I have left anybody out and having checked the BBC World Service, guess what? Nobody in the middle-east is at war.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:19 AM

"The premium they have been paying for gas was to pay for their roads and public transport." - Jack the Sailor

Very very funny!!

I'm sorry Jack the Sailor, I mistook you for someone who was trying to make some sense. Continue with your farcical humour.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 04:51 AM

There is no such thing as a 'polite' war

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 06:07 AM

In reply to some points put to me by PoppaGator in his post of 17 Jul 08 - 03:23 PM

Point 1:
"Iraq has "posed no threat to the United States of America since March 2003" only because it posed no such threat prior to that date, either."

Well PoppaGator that was not how two committees specifically tasked with evaluating what the greatest threat to the United States of America found it quite independently in the last quarter of 2001.

I have often asked people on this forum to explain how that threat evaluation was so implausible, now I will ask you, based upon what was known about Iraq at the end of 2001, in what way did Iraq pose no threat to the USA PoppaGator?

Point 2:
"Since the invasion, however, Iraq has become more problematic for our country's safety than it ever was before then."

Really? Is there any doubt at all now about Iraq's ambitions with regard to pursuit of WMD and associated means of manufacture and delivery? No there is not - potential threat removed, making US safer. Is the Government of Iraq still sponsoring international terrorist organisations that are anti-US in nature? No they are not - source of funding for declared enemies of the US and her allies removed, making US safer. If you doubt any of that PoppaGator tell us all how many successful attacks have been carried out against mainland USA since 11th September 2001? How many have been attempted and have been thwarted?

An unpalatable fact for most of you I know, but you have been kept safer by George W Bush and his administration after the attacks of 11th September 2001, than you were by the Clinton administration after the attack on World trade Centre in 1993.

Point 3:
"Iraq has become a safe haven and a recruiting bonanza for Al Quida since that date, whereas it provided no such comfort for our real enemies before then."

PoppaGator when Al-Qaeda fled from Afghanistan after the fall of the Taleban, most went into hiding in NWFP of Pakistan, two notables however fled to Iraq. As to being a "Safe Haven", I'd rather call that into doubt, they've lost over 19,000 dead, they're leaderless, uncoordinated and have been driven out of every city in Iraq, mostly by US/MNF troops assisted by Iraqi troops, Police and citizen militia's. Even the Al-Qaeda leadership hiding in the tribal lands along the Afghan-Pakistan border admit that their "cause" in Iraq is as good as lost - so much for the "recruiting bonanza".

Point 4:
"Teribus, if you truly need Amos to explain how Islamic terrorists like Al Quioda and the Taliban are a threat to the US ~ implying that they are NOT, after, so very dangerous ~ can you explain why the hell our government has been sending large numbers of our young people, and much larger numbers of Iraqi civilians, to their deaths for the last five years and more?"

Your Government PoppaGator has concentrated on the greater threat, which, post-9/11, was not Al-Qaeda, it was not the Taleban. Independently Al-Qaeda had already done the worst it could possibly do and the US had weathered it, the US had pulled together the entire world to fight terrorism, from that point on Al-Qaeda has been on the run, they are still on the run to this day. On their own as they are today, Al-Qaeda poses little or no threat.

Now what was the greatest threat scenario again:

International terrorist organisation supported and backed by a rogue regime that possesses WMD and which is hostile to the United States of America and is prepared to provide WMD, WMD materials and WMD technology to that international terrorist group in order that an asymetric attack, or attacks, involving WMD could be mounted on the mainland of the United States of America designed to inflict maximum civilian casualties.

Bearing all that in mind PoppaGator, let's take a look at what has happened to that threat to the United States of America since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 - Note PoppaGator none of this would have happened had Iraq not been invaded:

- Iraq, Regime hostile to the USA removed from power; Iraq no longer athreat because of WMD programmes; Iraq no longer a state sponsoring international terrorist groups.

- Libya, regime hostile to the USA voluntarily abandoned its WMD programmes and materials including a nuclear weapons that was well advanced that nobody knew about. This nuclear disclosure blows the lid of the activities of Dr A. Q. Khan and stops them dead in their tracks.

- Iran, regime hostile to the USA (You don't scream "Death to America" every Friday of every year since 1979 without being basically hostile towards America), reportedly crash stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 according to last November's National Intelligence Evaluation. Wonder why the Iranians did that?

- North Korea, regime hostile to the USA, forced to take part in six party talks at the insistance of the USA and finally convinced to abandon its nuclear weapons programme.

PoppaGator that's the four leading contenders for the role of rogue state in the threat equation eliminiated - and you are trying to tell me that the US isn't safer!! And just to get things clear here - you have never ever been safe, but you have been a damn sight safer under your present President that you have ever been under any of his predecessors.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:43 AM

Iran ... a real threat to the U.S.A so says Bush .... well not according to Amerikan corporations.

You might find this interesting ...

U.S.A shipment of goods to Iran

Hmmmm ... some axis of evil

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 08:24 AM

Good article, I particularly liked this bit:

"The Trade, Sanctions, Reform, and Export Enhancement Act, adopted by Congress in 2000, was specifically intended to demonstrate that our policy targets the bad behavior of regimes, not innocent populations.

The expansion of some exports to Iran, over the past eight years, is a natural reflection of Congress's intent, as codified in that act, to expand access to American agriculture and medical experts.

It's only natural that experts would have risen in the years since 2000, as a result of that act.

It's important to note that exports to Iran, under this act, are licensed on a case-by-case basis, following a rigorous interagency review process.

... Our goal here has been to provide agricultural and medical products as well as other humanitarian goods and services that are useful to the Iranian people, because our quarrel is not with the Iranian people; our quarrel is with the Iranian government that continues to proceed down this path.

I understand that these exports have increased. However, we believe that they are increasing to a segment of the population that we want to reach out to, we want to know and understand that the U.S. government -- the U.S. people want to be friends with them, want to work with them to integrate them into the world economy and become partners in the future."

All very encouraging.

By the bye, No.6, "Iran ... a real threat to the U.S.A so says Bush" no. But there again that is not what President Bush has been saying -

"A nuclear armed Iran ... a real threat to the U.S.A so says Bush" and in that Bush is 100% correct, even the Russians would agree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:22 AM

This is delightful.   It's nice to know you can depend on some things.

Specifically, Teribus continues his winning ways as a perfect negative indicator.

He thinks "the surge" has resulted in the improved Iraq situation.

Uh, actually what has resulted in the improved Iraq situation has 3 causes.

1) The US military has totally rejected Teribus' brilliant, yet, somehow self-defeating attitude, that all Sunnis are the same as unreconstructed Nazis at the end of World War II. Instead, under Petraeus, the approach has been to reach out to Sunnis--to consider them just Iraqi citizens--as I have advocated from the start--and Teribus has opposed. Now even the Shiite government has been dragged kicking and screaming into this changed approach. If Teribus' long-held views were still being adhered to, the improvement would be much less.

2) Al-Sadr has decided that lying low for a while is the best policy. But he and his forces will still be there when the US leaves.

3)   By far the most significant cause of the improvement in Iraq is the stupid, thug-like Puritanical behavior of Al-Qaeda.   As I've noted quite a few times, Al-Qaeda's insistence on trying to enforce its own brand of Islam by maiming and murder has alienated the only possible support it could have had in Iraq.

It's as if the Inquisition had been introduced into Iraq. Consider how popular the Inquisition was with Protestants. After all, both sides were Christian. Or consider how popular Cromwell's side was after his death. What kind of a reception did Charles II, who brought, among other things, a total end to Puritanism as a guide for rule, get? How popular are Puritans of any stripe these days?

If the US had left immediately after toppling Saddam, the anti-US feeling in Iraq would be practically non-existent.

And if al-Qaeda had behaved then as it is behaving now, there would have been absolutely no chance al-Qaeda could take over in Iraq. As there is no chance now. The presence of US soldiers makes absolutely no difference to this. Al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy. And the tiger will not change his stripes.

It's also interesting that Bush has been forced to eat his own words--and the US military is now accepting what Bush--and McCain--said would be a dreadful mistake--a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

As the WSJ points out today 19 July 2008: this "marks a change of course for the White House, which had resisted attempts to set troop withdrawal goals, and reflects the unpopularity of the US presence among Iraqis."

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

Teribus and his fellow hardliners strike out again.

Situation normal.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:32 AM

One more thing. The Inquisition Al-Qaeda has introduced into Iraq is aimed at its fellow Sunnis, as well as Kurds and Shiites. What a surprise that the Inquisition is not popular.

And if there had been zero US troops in Iraq when Al-Qaeda did this, this reaction would not change one iota.

The "Surge" is totally irrelevant--and always has been.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:43 AM

As I've also noted many times before, there is in fact a good role for US troops to play in"Kurdistan"--as a buffer against Turkish adventurism in trying to clamp down on the PKK. But the Kurds don't consider themselves part of Iraq--and never have wanted to be one.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jts
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 11:41 AM

>>Iraq - Nope, they are currently fighting an insurgency with the aid of troops operating under UN Mandate, they are not fighting a war, they do not independently have the means to do so.<<

That insurgency has been blowing up pipelines.
The civil war has also disrupted production.
There was a battle over the major oil port this year.
There are fears that the war will spread to Iran or to the Saudi side of the gulf or both.

But no, the uncertainty over oil prices is because of Hugo Chavez.

LOLOLOL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 12:24 PM

The war is between the United States and "Terror". It is a declared war, and it has a budget. A staggeringly, astonishingly, toenail curlingly enormous budget. The theater (theatre) in which this war is being fought is wherever the Bush administration thinks it should be fought. Currently, it is being fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan and Iran, and other places by proxy.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 02:32 PM

I dunno Terribus ... remember Bush beating the patriotic drum ""You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror," .... the axis of evil and all that ... and here the U.S. is exporting bras to Iran ... did you ever think that these could make excellent sling launching devices so they could hurl nuclear warheads at us.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:01 PM

All they need to do is to keep a lid on things until after the election.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:40 PM

Well I dunno Numbbber 6, you seemed to have forgotten to tell me how many times that the mainland of the USA has been successfully attacked since 11th September 2001. Or do facts like that sotra stick in yer craw.

After all you've ducked any question as to what the greatest threat to the United States of America is. So you just continue to bury your head in the sand sing, "La la la la" to yourself and once you've elected Obama to be your President and the pigeons come home to roost, just remember that on this forum there was at least one person posting that told you what your defence should have been.

Since the end of the Second World War there has been two times when the United Staes of America has been shown to be demonstrably weak:

- USA v Cuba - Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis

- USA V Iran - hostage crisis

Both under Democratic Administrations, both under Administrations and Presidents that are currently being likened to Barak Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:58 PM

CarolC in her post of 19 Jul 08 - 12:24 PM states the following:

"The war is between the United States and "Terror". It is a declared war, and it has a budget. A staggeringly, astonishingly, toenail curlingly enormous budget. The theater (theatre) in which this war is being fought is"

World wide CarolC, and forgive me for stating the obvious but that fact was self-evident from the outset - Or doesn't your attention span accept that sort of conflict?

Here is a toenail curling thought CarolC. The ONLY time that the United States of America has EVER been SAFE since the end of the Second World War has been in that period between the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and when the Soviet Union conducting their first Atomic Test. After that you have always been at risk. Subsequent to the ending of the "Cold War", which the USA won hands down, the attacks of 11th September 2001 showed exactly how vulnerable you were.

Now then CarolC, and all your "fellow Bush bashing fellow travellers" the events of 11th September 2001 were brought about by 19 individuals, who caused more loss of life than the entire Japanise nation managed to do on 7th December 1941. Something for you to ponder CarolC, and please tell me how this would be impossible. What if those 19 individuals had check in luggage?

Check in luggage of the nuclear, chemical or biological variety? You certainly would not be able to take in a show on Broadway would you?   Well you did mention theatre didn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 08:04 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 08:11 PM

From the expert on the international oil industry - Jack the Sailor

"That insurgency has been blowing up pipelines."

Good heavens Jack has it !!!! Can you explain how Iraq is producing and exporting more oil now than since before 1990? Must be awfully difficult with all these pipelines being blown up, but what the hell the figures cannot lie.

"The civil war has also disrupted production."

Really Jack??? What "civil war is that? Please enlighten us all.

"There was a battle over the major oil port this year."

Oh yes so there was, a battle that the Iraqi Government forces won if I remember correctly, care to contradict me Jack?

"There are fears that the war will spread to Iran or to the Saudi side of the gulf or both."

Fears that what war will spread Jack?? The "civil war"?? The "War against terror"?? Or some other war that you are going to dream up??

"But no, the uncertainty over oil prices is because of Hugo Chavez."

Now who on earth said that the increase in the price of oil per barrel was solely due to that populist wanker Hugo Chavez?? You Jack the Sailor?? Certainly not me.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:18 PM

Hey Ron, care to take us through exactly how Petraeus reached out to the Sunni's?? If what you say is true you must have quite a comprehensive list.

Up until the point that they realised themselves that supporting the insurgents was counter to their best interests. The Sunni Arab population has always realised that the Iraqi Government have always treated them as, "just Iraqi citizens". The change Ron old son came from the Sunni Arab elements of Iraqi society, they finally realised that Al-Qaeda and the Ba'athist hold-outs were leading them nowhere, so they joined the political process just as I said they would have to and all of a sudden Al-Qaeda found themselves out in the cold -- Petraeus raching out to the Sunni's my arse.

"2) Al-Sadr has decided that lying low for a while is the best policy. But he and his forces will still be there when the US leaves."

Al-Sadr knows damn well that the Shia Arab population of Iraq will heed the word of Al-Sistani long before they will heed him. Al-Sadr has only once dared to face up to the US forces in Iraq and he came off decidely second best. The wilder elements of the Medhi Army have rucked up and have come in second to both Iraqi and US Forces arrayed against them. So tactician Ron believes that they are laying in wait until the US leaves Iraq, yet discounts for some reason that Iraqi forces have proved loyal to their Government and capable of taking on and defeating Al-Sadr's Medhi Army. Sorry Ron old son time is not on their side.

Al-Sadr stood his private Army down for one reason and one reason only Ron. He knew that if he put it into direct confrontation with the Government of Iraq and the MNF Troops stationed in Iraq, they would lose and lose heavily.

"3)   By far the most significant cause of the improvement in Iraq is the stupid, thug-like Puritanical behavior of Al-Qaeda.   As I've noted quite a few times, Al-Qaeda's insistence on trying to enforce its own brand of Islam by maiming and murder has alienated the only possible support it could have had in Iraq."

Well no shit Sherlock!!! I have been saying that for years, when did you jump onboard?? At one time you were prattling on about US actions in Iraq being Al-Qaeda's best recruiter. What happened to that line of reasoning??

"It's as if the Inquisition had been introduced into Iraq. Consider how popular the Inquisition was with Protestants."

Oh please Ron, for someone who confessed to the fact that you don't read source material and are totally reliant on taking at face value the reported opinions of others, please don't go making historical comparisons about which you know sweet FA.

Yes of course Ron let's consider how popular the Inquisition was with the Protestants - Care to tell us exactly in how many Protestant countries the Inquisition operated? By God you really are a Grade A Fuckin' Idiot

By all means let us, "consider how popular Cromwell's side was after his death". Oh Ron, historian extraordinaire, care to Google up a certain General Monck? Aw fuck it I'll save you the trouble. He was a Cromwellian General and Admiral responsible for keeping Scotland in line. He was also instrumental in organising and negotiating the Resoration of the Stuart Monarchy in 1660. Now let's see how much of Cromwell's system remained after the Restoration shall we Historian Ron?? Parliament - stayed exactly as it had been during Cromwells time, the power of the Monarch was severely restricted. The Army modelled by Cromwell, Fairfax and Halifax remained very much the instrument of the Parliament, not of the King. So much for a total end to Puritanism, by the bye who fed you all this shit - Mel bloody Gibson? Or some other Hollywood Wanker

By the bye Historian Ron in less than thirty years we decided to turf the Stuart Twat out, best thing that ever happened to the country - All done by Parliament of course - you know - the one that you contend was completely overthrown.

"If the US had left immediately after toppling Saddam," There would have been a civil war of gigantic consequence in Iraq and the middle-east would be aflame from end to end. If you are naive enough to believe for one moment that the US would have been loved and admired for their actions in the scenario you described then you are a bigger fool than even I know you to be. True enough anti-US feeling in Iraq would be non-existant mainly due to the fact that Iraq would be non-existant.

"And if al-Qaeda had behaved then as it is behaving now, there would have been absolutely no chance al-Qaeda could take over in Iraq. As there is no chance now. The presence of US soldiers makes absolutely no difference to this. Al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy. And the tiger will not change his stripes."

Hells teeth Ron talk about stating the blindingly obvious!!! But back up a mo Ron. Al-Qaeda are only acting they way that they are now in Iraq because the US and MNF troops fought them to a standstill whenever Al-Qaeda attempted to take them on. Since March 2003 Al-Qaeda in Iraq have lost over 19,000 men, the majority of whom have fallen to actions by US soldiers. You are now telling us that the US troops had nothing to do with this?? I'd love to see the substatiation for that arguement.

"It's also interesting that Bush has been forced to eat his own words--and the US military is now accepting what Bush--and McCain--said would be a dreadful mistake--a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq."

Is there a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq Ron?? Care to give us a reference or source? That prick Obama is talking about 16 months but he'd be a complete and utter idiot to hold to that and ignore his commanders on the ground, after all up to now what the hell has Barak Obama ever commanded?

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 01:57 PM

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

(uh hunnert!)