BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 11:23 PM

This is getting a bit boring. Doug R and other lockstep Bushites still parrot the old line about the "surge" making Sunni assistance to the "Coalition" possible. ( "When will they ever learn?")

Precisely backwards. The Sunni disgust and loathing for al-Qaeda,--which predates the "surge"--- caused, as I've noted more than once, by al-Qaeda's insistence on enforcing their own brand of Islam by maiming and murder, was what made the success in Iraq possible. The other element was Petraeus' realization that he had to get his troops out of their heavily fortified areas--and get them to fight by the side of Iraqis. The "surge" was incidental--and likely not even necessary--Petraeus' intelligence and al-Qaeda's stupidity made the improvement in Iraq--and Petraeus would have needed no more troops--no "surge"-- to achieve it.

It's also a question as to how durable the success is--since al-Sadr and his "army" are still there, having made the tactical decision to lie low for a bit--and especially since it looks like the vaunted provincial elections will not take place this fall. Which in turn has a lot to do with the fact that, as I've mentioned, the Kurds in "Kurdistan" want nothing to do with "Iraq".





By the way, thanks, Teribus, for giving more of your Sunni-Nazi quote, placing it further into context. Too bad the context does nothing but cement your obvious punitive attitude toward all Iraqi Sunnis---exactly the wrong attitude when trying to break up a Sunni insurgency.

Petraeus, on the other hand, rejecting totally your meat-cleaver approach to diplomacy, has looked for and found common cause with most Sunnis--and not by requiring them to come begging to him.

Seems it's very good thing that you are far from the levers of power.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 11:25 PM

"Seems it's a very..."

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 01:20 AM

JTS: "The standards of the New York Times?" What a laugh. The "Times" readership has been reduced to only a few thousand folks like you who labor under the illusion that your point of view reflects the majority of American voters. It's sad really. You folks are going to find yourselves in the same position you were in when you were rooting for your candidate in 2004! It must be terrible to be so committed to a losing philosophy and find yourselves so often as political losers. I think that may account for the reason that it is so difficult for you, and those who believe as you do, to engage in reasonable discussion with folks that have a political view opposite from your own. Sad really.

And kat, I love you, really I do, but I simply do not understand why folks who share your and JTS's political point of view offer Blogs as evidence of the correctness of your belief. Those of us with a conservative POV could do the same, but whatever would be the point. It's like the preacher preaching to his believers.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 02:36 AM

"The "surge" was incidental--and likely not even necessary--Petraeus' intelligence and al-Qaeda's stupidity made the improvement in Iraq--and Petraeus would have needed no more troops--no "surge"-- to achieve it." - Ron Davies

"The Surge" - "incidental" - "not necessary" - "needed no more troops".

You then refer to General Petraeus' intelligence Ron. If that is what you believe Ron could then please explain why it was the intelligent General Petraeus who asked for the additional combat formations required for "The Surge", after all "The Surge" was his idea - Or are you saying that he didn't know what he was doing? This from the man who would maroon US Forces in "Kurdistan" with no line of retreat.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 10:10 AM

Sorry, got back from work at about midnight last night. Didn't get a chance to check the 'Cat.


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. (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.)

As a prudent military man, Petraeus felt he wanted to maximize his forces. But, as it turns out, it was not necessary.

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


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.

So, as I said, it's certainly good that Petraeus has totally rejected Teribus' worse-than-uesless attitude regarding the Sunnis--and a very good thing that Teribus has, to say the least, limited clout in the Mideast.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 10:11 AM

"worse-than-useless"

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 10:19 AM

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.

Some people don't seem to realize that not everybody likes to start wars at the drop of a hat--only Bush supporters do, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 11:33 AM

DougR-
What aspects of the present Republican party's performance do you consider to be Conservative? The deficit spending? The weakening of Constitutional government? The increasing infringement of Federal Government on States' rights? The institutionalizing of torture?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 12:00 PM

DougR

"Opposite point of view" I want what I think is best for the country. I'm sure that the New York Times wants the same. I didn't realize that you wanted the opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

That is:   "Only Bush supporters like to start wars at the drop of a hat, it seems" . In case there is any doubt due to the phrasing.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 01:14 PM

Ah yes, one more thing has made the current success--temporary as it may be--possible. And again it has nothing to do with the "Surge"--increase in troops.

Not only were many Sunnis totally alienated by al-Qaeda's barbaric behavior in attempting to enforce their brand of Islam. But many Sunnis--and Shiites--were unemployed. And willing to take the relatively good wages offered to them by the US military for participating in various self-defense organizations.

Again, this has improved the situation--but again, was not caused by the "Surge"--it has nothing to do with an increase in US troops.

And, as many Mudcatters have already pointed out, when this money to these formerly unemployed military-age men stops flowing from the US, it's not at all certain the current lull will continue. So unless the US withdraws its combat troops from non-Kurdish Iraq soon, as Obama advocates, the US will have to continue paying doubly in Iraq to avoid paying in blood. That is, we pay to maintain our troops there, and we pay to keep military-age Iraqi men employed.

And in both cases, that money can and should be used elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 01:36 PM

Ron,

You make a good point, but that is where I have hope. With the price of oil where it is, the iraqis have plenty of money. But as long as we are spendig our money to keep the peace there, they don't have to. It time to wean them off our tax money. Bush has seemed incapable of doing that. Obama, without Bush's baggage, has a better chance to succeed. McCain, has less Iraq baggage than Bush. But Obama is in the best position.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 01:54 PM

JTS: I want what is NOT best for the country? And who determines what is best? You? The New York Times? Gimme a break.

Dick Greenhaus: I am not particularly pleased with the Republican Party at this time. Bush and the Congress spent money like it belonged to them, government did not grow smaller, it got bigger, and some Republican Senators and Congressmen got too greedy for their and the Party's own good. That doesn't mean that I embrace what the Democrat party has become however. It is no longer the party of Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman, it's become much closer to Karl Marx instead and I think, eventually, that will be it's downfall.

As to torture:whatever means were used to interrogate terrorist prisoners were approved by appropriate members of the Justice Department. "Torcher", in many ways, is in the eye of the beholder. So far, it has not been proven that any of the methods used by interrogators were in violation of the Geneva Convention. There are MANY (including you I suppose) who do not agree. I am not convinced that terrorists, when captured, will willingly tell interrogators what they want to know simply by being nice to them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 03:05 PM

It isn't as much that Bush has been the big spender, even thou he has, it's been that Bush hasn't spent money that the Treasury had to spend... Face it, Dougie, even if you cut out all the pork you wouldn't decrease the annual budget even 5%... That's right... So what that means is that Bush's irresponsible tax cuts are going to have to not be made perminent... Sorry, Dougie...

As for torture, it isn't as much as defined in eyes of the beholder as it is human decency and international law... We prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding and then we now turn around and do it ourselves... No eye of the beholder involved...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 04:03 PM

DougR-
Re. torture--Which probably can't be justified even if guilt were known...which it isn't. I seem to recall some Japanese being hanged after WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 04:46 PM

>>Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 01:54 PM

JTS: I want what is NOT best for the country? And who determines what is best? You? The New York Times? Gimme a break.<<

Your avowed ability to read the english language aside, that is exactly my point. You said we were on opposite sides, I didn't say that, you did. I know that you would not be so rude as to say that I do not want what is best for the country. Leave that kind of ignorance to desperate politicians like John McCain. So it puzzles be for you to say that you are opposite from me.

Did you perhaps mean opposing rather than opposite?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 05:21 PM

Me think Dougie had a "McCain Moment", Jack... lol...

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 06:29 PM

I'll try to simplify it JTS. My opinion of what is best for our country differs from yours and The New York Times. Comprendo?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 08:25 PM

It seems to me, if there is a solution to be found in Iraq, neither McCain nor Obama are ever going to find it.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 08:35 PM

Well, given McCain's idea that Iraq is going to be like, ahhhhh, South Korea where we are going to occupy it indefinately, yeah...

Not 100% sure about Obama but I think he is the better bet... At least he knows who is who which puts him in a class well beyond McConfused...

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 08:57 PM

Doug,

You don't need to simplify. Just write clearly in the first place.

Frankly I don't know what you think is best. But I have read plenty of complaints from you.

You can start now. What is the best for this country in reference to Iraq? And don't just say "victory" because that is an empty word if you can't define what victory is.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 07:19 PM

I think victory in Iraq will be defined as follows, JTS:
The violence in Iraq will be rare instead of commonplace.
The government of Iraq will be stable and as free as possible of corruption and will serve the public equitably.
The Iraqi Army and other Iraqi security forces will be able to protect the population from those who would do it harm.
A fair, workable plan will be initiated by the Iraqi government to equitably share oil revenues.
Iraqi citizens will be able to travel to all areas of the country without fear of roadside or human suicide bombers blowing them up.
Other Arab states in the region will recognize the Iraqi government and welcome Iraqi diplomats to establish embassies in their countries.
Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds will enjoy equal opportunities.

That's about it, JTS.

You?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 09:18 PM

That's a lot more than McCain has seen fit to say about it. Very brave of you. Do you realize that the violence is now about 20 percent of what it was at its worse? So its still pretty bad. I don't see how American troop can make them welcome other ethnic groups and share their wealth. They probably would resent being force to do that at the point of 130,000 guns.

So just how are McCain's plans going to win us that victory? How soon can we remove our troops?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 09:42 PM

Well, if Iraq is this Utopia-in-making, Dougie, then why the heck do we have to pay $12B a month to keep it occupied???

(Well, Boberdz... Think of it this way... Iraq is so great that our troops are like vacationing there and that's why we have to pay all that money to be there...)

Oh???

B;~)

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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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".