BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!

Subject: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 11:25 PM

The surge has succeeded!

Bush and McCain just said so!

The surge is over!

We only have 18,000 more troops there now than before it started!

Woo hooo!

The government there is still unstable and unreconciled.

The Kurds have left the government.

No problem!!

We've won We've won!

McCain sure knows how to win a war!

Life is so much easier if I only watch Fox News!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 11:30 PM

Vets for Freedom are even saying it!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: MarkS
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 12:25 AM

So if the war is over now, lets go home and call it a victory.
No sense staying there in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 04:51 AM

In the following I take it that Jack the Sailor is wittering on about Iraq:

"The surge has succeeded!" - Yes it has hasn't it.

"Bush and McCain just said so!" - Yes they have haven't they, and so did quite a number of other people, the vast majority of them being Iraqis and I would tend to think that they knew at first hand exactly what they are talking about, wouldn't you Jack?

"The surge is over!" - Yep, all over bar the shouting, some minor mopping up left, but yes I'd say it was pretty much over.

"We only have 18,000 more troops there now than before it started!" - Now let's see if we are talking about "The Surge" here, that involved the sudden introduction into theatre of five brigades, some 30,000 additional troops. In the event this increase in troop levels was achieved over a few months and was completed by August last year. So if what Jack the Sailor is saying is correct that means that there has been a draw down of 12,000 troops since "The Surge" was completed - That correct Jack? I also believe that there will be quite a number home before long Jack which will have absolutely nothing to do with that clown Obama.

"Woo hooo!" - Whatever floats your boat JtS

"The government there is still unstable and unreconciled." - You mean the same as in quite a number of states JtS (Neither your own or mine are particularly flavour of the month according to the media)

"The Kurds have left the government." - Have they? Oh what a pity, they were bringing the dessert.

"No problem!!" - If you say so Jack

"We've won We've won!" - This comes from where Jack? - You?

"McCain sure knows how to win a war!" - If you say so Jack, I do agree he most certainly has more of an idea than Barak Obama, whose latest pronouncements, based upon what the Iraq Prime Minister did not say, could accurately be described as confused, ill-considered, contradictory, meaningless waffle. And absolutely no-one in the MSM is taking him to task on it - they obviously sense a better story down the line when he really screws everything up.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:17 AM

T:

Funny=--- the major editorials I have read consider Barack's op ed on Iraq strategy and Afghanistan and related issues, consider his planning to be far superior to that of McCain and far preferable to the ghastly rigor mortis of the Bush administration.

A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Goose Gander
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 11:06 AM

OK, we won - now can anyone tell me exactly what 'we' have won, and why did 'we' go there in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 11:15 AM

Something about non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction and bringing a better life to all those thousands of people we maimed, killed, orphaned, bombed, etc., I think.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 11:21 AM

We one VICTORY! What else is there?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 11:22 AM

Oops. "won" victory

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 11:26 AM

Teribus,

You seem tense and testy. Don't worry. Just relax and enjoy the peace dividend. We are in good hands with McCain. He knows how to win wars! I heard him say so. On Fox News!!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 11:37 AM

Before anyone gets too relaxed - as with Viet Nam this war is unwinnable unless we decide to use nuclear (nucular for the spelling challenged) weapons and wipe Iraq off the face of the earth (which might just create another war...) We will leave a mess behind us no matter who is president when it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 11:45 AM

In a guerrilla war against foreign armies of occupation one does not have to win a single battle...one just has to keep on fighting until the foreigners leave. Hit them where they are weakest, avoid them where they are strong. Keep moving around to where they are weakest and keep fighting. Make life hell for them until they finally leave. It may take a generation. It may take 3 generations. No matter. One keeps on fighting until the foreigners leave. The Vietnamese did this against the French, the Japanese, the French again, and then the Americans...until the foreign occupying forces left Vietnam. The Afghans have always drive out foreign occupiers eventually, and they will again. Ditto for the Iraqis.

One day the Americans and other foreign troops will ignominiously leave Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not be the day of their victory.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

Of course you are right Little Hawk. In this case, it looks like Al Qaeda has shifted its main front back to Afghanistan. If we leave fat juicy brigades in Iraq, we are just inviting them to restart the insurgency there once they start to lose ground to

"Surge II, Afghanistan!"

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 01:01 PM

He knows how to win wars!

He knows how to win wars!

John McCain IS...

The Surge Protector!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 01:01 PM

ALl this rap by dittoheads about how successful the surge was ignores a couple of important facts in play, even without talking about Afghanistan.

One is that the success of the surge is equally attributable to the constraints on insurgency imposed by Muqtya Al Sadr, without which we would have seen more blood and death than previously, instead of less.

Another is that the kind of superiorforce we have used to quell some of the uinsurgency is not the kind of military victory which actually resolves the well-springs of hatred and murderous intent on the part of the insurgents. I suspect to the contrary there will be a long-smoldering undercurrent of resentment against American influence as long as we are sitting in place there, and our so-called embassy looms over the city skyline fatrter than any of Saddams notorious pleasure palaces.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 01:37 PM

Wasn't Obama saying yesterday he would shift a few more brigades from Iraq into the Afgani .... Surge II ?

please correct me if I'm wrong.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 01:38 PM

You know what has happened in Iraq? A local despot (Saddam) who killed and terrorized many people but ran things reasonably well has been replaced by the armies of a foreign despot (Uncle Sam) who kills even more people, terrorizes the entire region, doesn't run things well at all, and also has wrecked pretty well the entire nation while doing so. Guess how much the average Iraqi likes that...

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 01:47 PM

Surge II endorsed by the democrats ...

surge II


I guess things will still stay the same regardless who wins the November election.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 01:48 PM

Yes, "6", he did.

Amos: most folks, before they announce a superdooper plan to end the war in Iraq, would talk to the commanders on the ground, perhaps even visit Iraq to see for themselves whether or not the surge worked. Not your candidate, apparently he doesn't want to be confused by facts, just announce a plan based on his own "superlative" experience.

No doubt AFTER he tours Iraq, for the second time, and Afghanistan for the FIRST time, he MIGHT have a better grip on what is going on over there. He might even "revise" his announced plan. After all, he has already greased such a possibility in a speech he made a week or so ago. With the three major TV network anchors in tow, Senator Obama will have an opportunity to slant the visit any way he chooses with blessings from the major networks.

There is still a lot of work to do in Iraq.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 01:59 PM

Unlike Bush, who, when presented with opinions from his commanders on the ground that he didn't like, fired them or persuaded them to retire, instead of heeding what they had to say. Which is why the war has lasted for five years and cost the lives of several thousand US service men and women, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians (and billions of tax payer dollars).

The commanders on the ground who remain are the ones who have passed the test of only having opinions that are endorsed by the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:07 PM

DougR:

It should be obvious that Obama is not most folks. He's a bit smarter than the average bear.

Now I notice when he announced he woudl be revising his plans based on feedback from commanders on the ground when he visits IRaq, your gang called him a flipflopper. The same stupid slur you used on Kerry, a meaningless black mark without any substance.

Anyone with more than two brain cells will update their plans against new data and will revise their tactics to fulfill their strategies and purposes.

"Until this week, when Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, offered a sensible and comprehensive blueprint for dealing with the mess that President Bush created by bungling the war of necessity against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which could have made Americans safer, and starting a war of choice in Iraq, which made the world more insecure.

Mr. Obama's Republican rival, Senator John McCain, is no longer able to ignore the situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban — the true threats to American security — are resurgent. But he has not matched Mr. Obama's seriousness on Iraq. Mr. McCain is still tied in knots, largely adopting Mr. Bush's blind defense of an unending conflict.

Mr. Obama has a better grasp of the big picture, despite Mr. McCain's claim to more foreign policy experience. For far too long, Mr. Bush's preoccupation with his misadventure in Iraq — which fostered a presence for Al Qaeda where there was none — has dangerously diverted precious manpower, resources and high-level attention from Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Mr. Obama correctly asserted in an Op-Ed article in The Times on Monday and in a speech on Tuesday, those countries, not Iraq, are the real frontline of the war against terrorism." (NYT Editorial().


A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:10 PM

Doug,

It is idiotic to think that a tour of a secure airbase or two or as stroll through an empty market with a few hundred armed guards will provide any useful information about the war zones. That's as bout as useful as flying over Katrina in Air Force One.

You have to stop parroting these guys, because if you don't, when they say stupid things, you say stubid things.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:20 PM

"As Mr. Obama correctly asserted in an Op-Ed article in The Times on Monday and in a speech on Tuesday, those countries, not Iraq, are the real frontline of the war against terrorism."

Still buying the old terrorist paranoia bit .... I dunno .... surge II is the same as surge I ... bottom line it is in all the US interest to control the mideast (bottom line) ... to have presence (occupy), is to have control.


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM

I don't think so biLL.

I think that Obama wants to destroy Al Qaeda and clean up Afghanistan and the western tribal regions of Pakistan so that these regions will not be a safe haven for terrorists planning to attack the United States.

I believe this because he has been saying so since 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:30 PM

Amos, can you explain to us exactly how today Al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a threat to the United States of America? It is also abundantly clear that Iraq has posed no threat to the United States of America since March 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: PoppaGator
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 03:23 PM

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.

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

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?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:37 PM

"War is over. The surge has succeeded!"


                   Good! California needs its national guard back to fight wild fires.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:45 PM

>>It is also abundantly clear that Iraq has posed no threat to the United States of America since March 2003.

Since that date,
The Iraqis have killed 4,000 Americans,
They have wound tens of thousands
The have driven up oil prices thus damaging the economy.
They have cost 750 million in direct costs and maybe a trillion indirect.
They are a major factor in the current economic crises and the decline of the dollar.

Otherwise they are no threat.

Why would they come here to hurt us when they can bleed us to death over there?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:48 PM

Iraq has never posed any credible threat to the USA...other than a little scheme Saddam once had to blow up George Bush Sr when he was visiting the Middle East some time after the Gulf War. I can't really blame Saddam for having pondered such a plan at that time... ;-) But in any case, such a plan does not constitute what I would term "a threat to the USA".

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:48 PM

Amos: One of the great things about our country is we are allowed to form our own opinions. Even if they are wrong.

JTS: I agree that if the only thins Obama tours in Iraq with his entourage of TV network stars and some 200 other journalists visit only the kind of sites you describe, little will be gained from making the trip. I don't know why he is going anyway, other than the fact that McCain shamed him into it. If he is as brilliant as Amos seems to believe he is, he really doesn't need anyone to advise him at all! Generals on the ground, or experts in any other subject one can name.

PoppaGator: I'm sure Teribus will reply to you on his own, but my two cents to your last paragraph is simple: to keep those same young people from having to fight them here!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:53 PM

Its all twoo! Even General Petraus was bumped upstairs and yet another general was put in charge.

When McCain went to Iraq he was not even a presumptive nominee, but he did brag about buying 3 carpets for only $5.

Hey Doug I know some Iraqis over here. You wanna fight them?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: skipy
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 07:54 PM

Bring our boys & girls home & turn the whole area to obsidion
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:22 PM

Doug.... Doug ..

Bush went over there in Thanksgiving 2005 and handed out turkey legs. He went through about 6 or 7 commanders "on the ground" in Iraq at CENTCOM and in the ambassador's chair before he found ones telling him things he wanted to hear.

Doug.... Doug .. Doug....

Obama is going on tour for exactly the same reason as McCain did. He's doing it for the photo ops.

Doug.... Doug .. Doug.... Doug ..

Obama is good BECAUSE he listens to other people!!

He listens to Chuck Hagel!

Wall Street Journal Article

Apparently in McCain universe, one cannot make informed decisions by reading reports and talking to knowledgeable people.

>>>Sen. John McCain heaped praise on Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican who opposes the Iraq war and who has said he would consider joining Democrat Barack Obama's ticket. While Hagel sees the war in Iraq much like Obama does, McCain said that Hagel's views were understandable because he has made an "informed decision" and Obama has not.<<<

Apparently Mr. McCain had to burn his fingers as a child to know that the stove was hot and he hasn't learned anything except through experience since then. That would explain his opinions on abortion and women's birth control at least.

McCain didn't learn anything on his trips to Iraq. He didn't even learn there was a difference between Al Qaeda and Shiite militants, even though Lieberman told him twice.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:39 PM

Has the Afghani posed any real direct threat to the U.S. ???

as far as I know Al-Qaeda is an organization without any definite country.

That's why surge II is just another fruitless attempt to crush them ... costing a lot of $$money$$, let alone human life and just adds more fuel to the already volatile mid-east in it's distrust, hatred of the U.S. in specific.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:43 PM

But then again ... retaining and adding troops in the Afgan is really about empire building, isn't it ... under the (marketing) guise of fighting the terroists.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:54 PM

The Taliban hosted Al Queda during its formative years under bin Laden, after the Russians left Afghanistan; prior to that Al Queda, in a sort of amorphous form, was nurtured by the CIA in an effort to make Afghanistan into "the USSR's Vietnam".

The Taliban shielded Osama bin Laden during the first few weeks after 9-11, first pretending he was not in country and then woffling about turning him over, playing a very narrow, duplicitous role during that period.

In doing so they brought down upon themselves the wrath of the Bush Administration and, thereby, the US military supporting the anti-Taliban northern Alliance.

SInce then, according to what I have read, they have regrouped in the hard remote hill country and are continuing to promote harsh Sharia culture of the most extreme sort, muster recruits against the US in Iraq and provide al Qeda with support and cover.

I don't know these for facts, but they seem to be the pattern.

Anyone have any better data? I am open for education.





A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:35 PM

This weeks Economist agrees with you Amos.

Special report on Al Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:50 PM

Explain it again, please--the difference between a surge and an escalation?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:06 PM

OK ... if that is so, Surge II is justified (McCain and Obama are correct) ... but to make it really work it should overflow into Pakistan. Now that would really lite up a shitstorm wouldn't it.

Now, the purpose of the Al-Qaeda's resentment (understatement) of the U.S. is their presence in the middle east (holy territory so to speak) ... am I correct? Is this hatred going to get shoved out of the hearts and minds of the young Islamists by the presence and brute force of (infidel) military troops in their lands?

If I'm wrong on this please direct to the correct solution. Otherwise I can only assume that this whole crusade is for the sole purpose of empire building ... making Wolfowitz's strategy and dream come true.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:11 PM

Much of the stuff that I've read about Al Queda leads me to believe that Al Queda never would have come into being without the CIA to build it up in the first place. They did that in order to destabilize the Russian presence in Afghanistan and the Caspian region. Their intention was to use extreme Muslim fundamentalism to break up and exhaust the Soviet empire, and they eventually succeeded in that aim.

"Al-Queda" literally means "The Database". The reason for that is probably linked to an enormous database that the CIA kept of all the names and identities of all the Muslim fighters they had recruited and trained and assisted in the 70's and 80's to do damage to the Russians.

So the USA basically inspired and trained both the forerunners of the Taliban and Al Queda through the efforts of the CIA.

As for the Northern Alliance, they were just a bunch of vicious warlords who were fighting for turf with the Taliban and I suspect that they are just as nasty a bunch of people as the Taliban...but for the USA the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"...and the same went for the Northern Alliance.

I think that Al Queda, as it was originally marketed to the American public, is for the most part a mythical entity...in this sense: it is not nearly as united, large, powerful, and well organized a group as it has been presented to be. The worldwide Al Queda network that the media has been blathering about in order to scare people and create a justification for an endless war is probably a myth for the most part...but it's a very powerful myth that is also believed by Muslims. Therefore you now have a vast number of disaffected and angry young Muslim men who would like to join "Al Queda" because the world media has convinced them that there IS such an Al Queda to join.

It becomes a case of life imitating "art" (propaganda in this case). ;-) Then too, you have a few quite serious characters who were in it from the start, and it is in their interests also that the world should imagine that Al Queda is this huge, powerful organization with cells all over the place...because that helps them recruit more foolish young jihadists from the Muslim population worldwide.

Now all of that is absolutely great if you want an endless war. By all accounts, Bin Laden wants such a war. So does the USA military industrial complex. Therefore I would say that they are both in it together, and they share the blame for it. They are enemies who need each other and whose existence is mutually convenient for each other in various ways...although they also detest one another and try to kill each other whenever possible.

The world would be far better off if both of them just went away to some other planet and let the rest of us alone here to build a peaceful community of nations. But they won't. Things are never that easy.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:17 PM

"As for the Northern Alliance, they were just a bunch of vicious warlords who were fighting for turf with the Taliban and I suspect that they are just as nasty a bunch of people as the Taliban...but for the USA the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"...and the same went for the Northern Alliance."

so true L.H. ... pirates and drug marketeers. The U.S. has a very nasty habit of shaking hands with the devil.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:03 AM

So the upshot of that Amos is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda can only really now cause trouble in Afghanistan and in certain areas of Pakistan. Should Al-Qaeda mount a "terrorist spectacular" it would at worst case be no worse than 9/11. Sorry chumps that is not the greatest direct security threat that the United States of America is exposed to, and two independent bodies within the USA came to that conclusion way back in 4th Quarter of 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:26 AM

No the worst security threat to the USA is keeping all those soldiers in Iraq,
Borrowing money from China to keep a lid on their civil war;
Watching our military slowly waste away in deployment after pointless deployment.
Building schools and roads over there while ours crumble,
Paying 4 dollars a gallon of gas while they pay 40 cents.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 04:02 AM

JtS, if you'd been paying 2 dollars a gallon for "gas" for the last 20 years you would have paid for a nation-wide free health service; you would have paid for your new schools, bridges and roads.

The whingers in the US who complain about fuel prices should get it into their thick heads that you have been given cheap "gas" for far, far too long - You are picking up the tab now - join the rest of us in the real world. The rise in the price of oil per barrel has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or Afghanistan, I mean how could it the latter does not export any and the former's has supposedly been under embargo and sanctions since 1990, and even when it did export oil it was ranked 17th in the order of oil exporting countries.

Factors affecting the rise in the price of oil per barrel:
- Increased demand world-wide but especially from countries such as India and China.
- Lack of refining capacity world-wide
- Lack of resources to bring new developments on-stream quick enough
- Political uncertainty particularly in Nigeria, Russia and Venezuela as major suppliers.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 09:44 AM

Jack the Sailor

One small correction about the 2005 Bush Thansgiving in Iraq.

He was photographed offering a resin fake turkey to the troops.

The irony of this is too great to ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM

The worse potential specific security threat to mainland USA would be the detonation of a nuclear weapon in an American city. I think everyone is well aware of that risk, and it's in the back of everyone's mind.

There are numerous disaffected groups who would no doubt like to do just that, but they would have to acquire such a weapon first and then get the weapon onto (or very near) American soil to do it. The easiest way to do that would be to bring it in on a ship and detonate it in the harbour of some American city.

This is something that I'm sure is keeping American security forces busy on a fulltime basis...and let's hope to hell it never happens...because if it ded it would be a total disaster and it would only lead to even greater tragedies not long afterward. It would inevitably cause further wars to occur, as some country would get fingered with the blame (whether or not they really planned it).

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:14 PM

>>Factors affecting the rise in the price of oil per barrel:
- Increased demand world-wide but especially from countries such as India and China.
- Lack of refining capacity world-wide
- Lack of resources to bring new developments on-stream quick enough
- Political uncertainty particularly in Nigeria, Russia and Venezuela as major suppliers.
<<

Did you get those "factors" from the main stream media? The media dominated by Exxon and BP adverts?

You don't think that War in the Middle East trumps uncertainty in those other places?
You don't think it trumps all other concerns?

Its not supply and demand. There is plenty of supply on the world market and OPEC isn't pumping at anywhere near full capacity.

Refining capacity? How does a lack of refining capacity do anything but DEFLATE the price per barrel? You think the refiners are handing over checks saying "I can't refine that much, but ship it to me anyway. i just love sitting on billions in inventory."

There is no lack of resources to bring new supplies on line the oil companies are awash with cash.

The "uncertainty" problems with the three countries you mentioned are largely a consequence of the belliocose behavior of the Bush administration and the oil comapnies.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM

"Did you get those "factors" from the main stream media?"

Answer - No.

"You don't think that War in the Middle East trumps uncertainty in those other places?"

Answer - There is no war in the middle-east, or there wasn't last time that I checked the world news. Exports of oil from the middel-east have not been disrupted since the Iraqi Forces were expelled from Kuwait in 1991.

"You don't think it (non-existant war in the middel-east) trumps all other concerns?"

Answer - No I do not.

"Its not supply and demand. There is plenty of supply on the world market and OPEC isn't pumping at anywhere near full capacity."

Answer - Are you saying that demand for fuel has not risen? Of course there are adequate supplies, but supply of crude oil is only one part of thge equation, or don't you realise that. OPEC are not the ony suppliers and why should they pump at full capacity if to do otherwise suits their national interests better. Remember Jack National Oil Companies own 93% of the world's oil while those big bad oil companies only control 7%. "Its not supply and demand" - Oil like anything else is a commodity and as far as the market value of it is concerned it is ALL a question of supply and demand.

"Refining capacity? How does a lack of refining capacity do anything but DEFLATE the price per barrel?"

This might come as startling news to you Jack the Sailor but very few people use crude oil, it has to be refined into a form that can be used as fuel. Now it would appear that according to your logic that if there are too few refineries price of a barrel of oil will go down. Now why should that be? Is it because you think that those who own the oil are different from those who refine the oil? Who are in turn different from those who distribute the oil and sell it? If so how touchingly quaint and "Camberwick Green" in nature. Besides it should be blindingly obvious that it is the demand for the refined product that determines the cost of the raw material per barrel, that along with a few other costs that have to be factored in.

"You think the refiners are handing over checks saying "I can't refine that much, but ship it to me anyway. i just love sitting on billions in inventory."

Answer - The "refiners" as you refer to them are either National Oil Company owned facilities or are owned by Oil Companies. They, along with speculators sit on oil by the tanker load waiting to see which way the market will go and where best to sell

"There is no lack of resources to bring new supplies on line the oil companies are awash with cash."

Answer - Oh, so the only resource required to bring new supplies on line is cash is it Jack the Sailor? Again a rather naive view of the real world. Now then Jack with oil at $145 per barrel how many people (nations) who have oil in their territories will be eager to exploit that wealth? Lots? All of them I would have said, all over the world. Any idea what it takes to find oil and get it to the "gas" station Jack, it takes a damn sight more than just money. I'll give you an example of things where the lead time on hardware is measured in terms of years - Wellheads, blow-out preventers, flexible pie the list goes on and on down through a whole rake of specialist expertise and equipment that is in short supply because of the world-wide scramble to produce oil. That Jack the Sailor was one thing the Kurds in Iraq were very well tuned into, that is why they were in such a rush to enter into contracts to get their oil programmes running. Doesn't matter how much money you've got Jack the Sailor if there are no rigs available for drilling your oil stays where it is.

"The "uncertainty" problems with the three countries you mentioned are largely a consequence of the belliocose behavior of the Bush administration and the oil comapnies."

Answer - Really? Nigeria, Russia and Venezuela? Now let's see:

Nigeria - Internal problems mainly to do with lack of equitable distribution of the oil wealth within the country principally in the oil producing regions of the country (Ibo). Now I do not see GWB or the USA featuring large in that scenario. (33.3% of the way there)

Russia - When the USSR collapsed western oil companies were welcomed in to boost Russian production. Once that was done the Russian Government started grabbing stuff back, which quite naturally caused investors to become more cautious and western firms viewed the area as being not worth the hassle. Russia signed energy deals with western Europe and when disputes have arisen between the Russians and her newly independent neighbours (primarily the Ukraine) the Russians promptly turned the taps off, not a very good move to inspire customer confidence. Once again I do not see GWB or the USA featuring large in that scenario. (Now 66.7% of the way there)

Venezuela - Much the same as Russia in that Chavez has acted in such a way as to scare off foreign investment and technical know how. This ultimately has a price for Venezuela's oil industry further down the line, you cannot just produce you must carry out down-hole maintenance to keep the reservoirs healthy, Chavez is not doing this and the industry world-wide knows it. Nothing whatsoever to do with GWB or the USA in that scenario. (Home)

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:12 PM

Donuel: If you know some Iraqis "over here" that want to fight, I suggest you call Homeland Security.

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

Teribus: I was wondering when one of you folks across the pond was going to call your American cousins on our whine factor over the cost of gasoline. I was a bit shocked to learn, during my first trip to Ireland, that you folks have been paying a premium for gasoline for years.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 05:15 PM

LOL

"There is no war in the middle-east"

Very very funny!!

I'm sorry Teribus, 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,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!)

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

McCain is the Surge Protector

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pdq,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the resolution.

There is nothing in it about the eviction of Saddam Hussein


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not much of an Shia Arab population is there LH?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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










Rush Limbaugh, July 30, 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

approx. what Wiki sez:

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing new there!

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Trip down memory lane for you Ron:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teribus,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 06:11 PM

Dear Rig

Storage facilities for Corporate Clients is doing very well in this economy. Up 20%

It seems what they can't sell they put in storage.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:31 PM

JTS: You don't understand what Teribus wrote? Seems pretty clear to me, JTS. It's in English. You do read English, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Mike789
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:32 PM

Folks, I came across this unbiased analysis of the Surge today. It is comprehenive and enlightening. Enjoy.

http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/21211/what-mccain-gets-wrong-about-the-surge-and-iraq/

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:32 PM

Oddly enough Jack the Sailor the post regarding the Sunni Arabs being perceived as the Nazi's were after the Second World War was a direct reply in the same thread to a post by Guest petr, who had no problem at all with the point that I was trying to make - In fact he actually commented upon it as did Wolfgang, as did MGOH. Only Ron Davies took it up and has been waving it as a flag ever since.

Without any shadow of a doubt "The Surge" has succeeded. I do not give a flying fuck if people wish to attribute it to Al-Sadr, or Sunni Tribal Leaders or whatever. That is all purely conjecture, the fact of the matter is that additional US forces were required, they were supplied and desired result was obtained - That folks was "The Surge" and it damn well worked, be honest enough to admit it, every statistic available supports that, please be honest enough to give credit where credit is due.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 08:51 PM

The German surge worked when the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto rose too, Teribus. To paraphrase what you said, "Additional forces were required, they were supplied and the desired result was obtained." (from the German point of view) So "let's give credit where credit is due", right?

The only question is, who was really the injured party in that circumstance? (obviously the Jews were) Who is the injured party in the invasion and occupation of Iraq? (the people of Iraq are) How you see that, though, for most persons, depends strictly on where their instinctive loyalties lie. Most persons never think beyond their instinctive loyalties which they have inherited through birth and cultural background, and those loyalties are usually based on national identity, party membership, or religion.

All people in a war are "the good guys" from their own point of view, whatever it may be. Depending on how many others involved in the conflict see it their way, they will either win or lose their cause in the end.

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

Yes, the surge of American tax dollars to pay people not to shoot at Us has indded worked... Problem is that it is bankrupting the US Treasury... How many thugs are there out there who want on Unclle Sam's payroll not to shoot at US???

This is the dumbest thing that has ever occured in our history and it sets a very bad precedence... Purdy soon we'll be payin' our own people not to shoot at US... Then it will be the little old ladies who volunteer at the local hospital... And the Boy Scouts... And, and...

This is such a load of crap it isn't hardly worth discussin'...

T... You outta be ashamed of yerself...

Oh, I forgot... You aren't an American taxpayer... Well, I am and I hate the fact that I work hard to pay these friggin' taxes which are in turn turned over to aq bunch of Iraqi thugs... Screw them... Let them got out and work half as hard as I work... We have done nothin' but establish a new Iraqi "welfare class"...

No, we ain't got no money for our own poor but, by golly, we gotta give my tax dollars to Iraqi mobsters????

Beam my ass up, Scotty... There is no intellegent life left here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 09:14 PM

Sorry, but I can no longer resist:

The war it is over, the surge has succeeded
Al Qaida is covered with sadness and gloom,
They were defeated and miserably treated
And Sidi al-Masir is awaiting his doom.

To the tune of "Bold Robert Emmett"....

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 10:02 PM

Teribus,

The surge can't be said to have succeeded until the Iraqi government is a peaceful ally against Iran. That's the Bush/McCain definition of victory over there. When it happens, feel free to gloat. Until then, you are just blowing smoke.

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

"...additional US forces were needed". Not established. Al-Qaeda's stupidity and Petraeus' intelligence--especially in rejecting Teribus' idea that the Iraqi Sunnis deserved nothing--they were like Nazis at the end of World War II--were enough in themselves--especially combined with Petraeus' realization that he had to get the US forces out of their heavily fortified comfort zones--to actually fight side by side with Iraqis.

I realize I was wrong in saying that Maliki had not taken over in November 2006. He took over earlier in the year.   It doesn't bother me to admit my errors.

Some people however, prefer lashing themselves to the mast of a sinking ship, rather than admit error. Case in point: the delightful discussion we had about the Bush Iraq propaganda campaign. As I recall the same poster who sees the Sunnis as 5th columnists went down with his ship, still protesting there was no propaganda campaign.

So sorry, Teribus, that you don't like your words quoted.   By the way, quoting you is not "putting words into your mouth". Perhaps you want to review the meaning of that rather simple English expression.

But there is an option, if you don't really like your words repeated to you. All you have to do actually proofread your contributions, and decide if you really are saying what you want to. And possibly even think--before hitting send.

You don't need to thank me. I'm happy to offer advice, and I hope you take it in the spirit it was intended.

As always, looking forward to your next calm, well-reasoned posting.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Kent Davis
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 12:23 AM

In February, 2007, there were an estimated 3,014 deaths among Iraqi security forces and civilians. In May, 2007, there were 1,980. In June, 2008, there were 450. In July, so far, 282.

In February, 2007, there were 81 deaths among the U.S. military in Iraq. In May, 2007, there were 126. In June, 2008, there were 29. In July, so far, 12.

From iCasualties http://icasualties.org/oif/Default.aspx

Kent Davis

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 02:33 AM

"The surge can't be said to have succeeded until the Iraqi government is a peaceful ally against Iran."

Where on earthe did you get that tripe from Jack the Sailor? Did you just make it up? Because I most certainly have now heard, or read anything remotely like that. But no matter, you will no doubt, from this point forward, quote it as being the fact that it isn't just because it suits your purpose.

Most I suppose will skip over Kent Davis post, after all we don't want actual facts too interfere with such dearly held myths.

For all the Obama-mania folks, "The Surge" in Iraq was so effective he apparently wishes to propose more of the same in Afghanistan. Let's hear how and why that won't work there.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 09:02 AM

The "Surge" wouldn't have been and wouldn't BE needed if enough force was used in the first place...as the military told the US President before anyone went into Iraq. The US generals were, rightly, concerned about fighting two "wars" at the same time and their fears turned out to be justified.

You can argue historical "what-ifs" all you want, but we live and deal with the here-and-now.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 09:42 AM

Teribus,

While you are bringing up tripe, which part do you not agree with?

You don't think McSame wants peace?
You don't think that they want Iraq to be against iran?

Give us a real laugh. Define "victory" over there that does not include both of those things.

Give us a bigger laugh. Tell us how it could possible be accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:15 AM

"The US generals were, rightly, concerned about fighting two "wars" at the same time and their fears turned out to be justified."

What fears were they? That they were going to gain the upperhand and initiative in both?

Afghanistan:
The number of foreign troops allowed into Afghanistan was controlled not by the USA, or by the UN, but by the Interim Afghan Government led by Hamid Karzai and the Loya Girga of tribal leaders. The first "foreign troops" to arrive in any sort of numbers were Royal Marines Commandos of the Special Boat Service and "Bravo" and "Charlie" Companies from 40 Commando, permission for them to land at Bagram Air Base was granted by the Afghan delegates to a summit conference held at Königswinter in Germany. Their mission was to make the Base secure so that Hamid Karzai and the members of the Interim Goverment could return to Afghanistan. Additional negotiations had to be undertaken to allow the men of 40 Commando to make sure that the route in from the Air Base to Kabul was secure. Later the Commandos were joined by detatchments of troops from US 10th Mountain Division and 82nd Airborne

Iraq:
Numbers on the ground would not have mattered a damn in Iraq in the initial period after Saddam's forces had been defeated.

Numbers on the ground would not have prevented the mass desertion of the Iraqi Armed Forces and Republican Guards/Special Republican Guard Units.

Numbers on the ground would not have swayed the decision by Arab Sunni religious and tribal leaders to boycott the political process that resulted in the formation of the Interim Government of Iraq.

Numbers on the ground would not have swayed the decision by Arab Sunni religious and tribal leaders to initially support the foreign Jihadists and Ba'athist insurgents.

Numbers on the ground would not have prevented but might possibly have accelerated Zarqawi's attacks on Iraqi Shia civilians. Zarqawi and the Ba'athist insurgents discovered at Fallujah that they could not take on US/MNF troops in provinces like Anbar and win.

Numbers on the ground would not necessarily have accelerated training of Iraqi Army and Police Units in any significant way and may well have diluted the impression on the local population that Iraqi Forces were in the forefront of the efforts being made to quell Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, the Ba'athist insurgents and the Shia militias.

Numbers on the ground would not have accelerated the realisation on the part of Arab Sunni religious and tribal leaders that their best interests would be served by joining the political process.

Once that realisation dawned then and only then could the US/MNF troops assisted by newly formed Iraqi Army and Police Units start hitting "hot spots" - That was "The Surge" - And it worked remarkably well.

"The "Surge" wouldn't have been and wouldn't BE needed if enough force was used in the first place...as the military told the US President before anyone went into Iraq."

The military said no such thing, some retired generals might have said that, but General Tommy Franks was specifically asked very early on if he had sufficient troops and he answered in the affirmative. As he was the man in command anything said by anybody else is purely subjective opinion and irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:28 AM

Be a man Teribus. Don't just say other people are wrong. Stand for something. tell us what is right.

If the surge is a success or troops can come home now. Right?

If no when can they come home? Tell us what victory would look like over there.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:34 AM

According to CNN "The Surge" troops are already all home. General Petraeus and GWB have already stated that there will be a draw down of US troops depending upon conditions on the ground and recommendations of field commanders.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:36 AM

And, BTW, what surge other than money...

Troop levels have been at the same level before "The Dumb Surge" (TDS) and things were a mess so don't give me this crap that the TDS has been this great miliatry accomplishment when it hasn't... The TDS has been a business deal and nothin' more and as long as the US taxpayers are willing to funnel their tax dollars to Iraqi thugs thru the TDS then this little arrangement will hold up... But tell the thugs to get off their butts and get a job and the TDS will go down faster than a whale's turd in the ocean...

And you can take that to the bank...

(No, Bobert, bad idea... The banks are crappin' out faster than you can count 'um... Probably safer just "stayin' the course" for another 100 years and let the Iraqis spend our money...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:40 AM

There are a bout twenty thousand more now than when the "surge" began. So obviously they got that wrong.

Teribus. You are claiming that the surge worked. If the surge was not supposed to end the war, what was the point? You and the other Bush worshipers have been saying "when conditions permit." for five years. It doesn't mean anything.

Now tell us. What defines a victory in Iraq? What would satisfy you? How can it be accomplished?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:53 AM

The strategy of taking the ground and holding it have made some difference. But obviously the two largest factions, the Sunnis and the Sadr army, deciding not to fight made a much much larger difference.

Coincidental with the "surge" was the idea that the US would leave if things became peaceful. Remember the loss of Congress by the war party in 2006? The Iraqis could read the writing on the wall. To say the least it is difficult to sort out the influence of "the surge" from other factors. It is also impossible to claim that there has been any real progress until the militias have been disarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 12:14 PM

You won't get a definition of victory from any of these folks, JtS, other and some generalized definition that allows them to claim victory when they feel like it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 02:11 PM

"Now tell us. What defines a victory in Iraq?" ~ JtS

Well, perhaps we can all try that one after you answer the following questions:

                What defines a victory in the "War on Drugs"?

                What defines a victory in the "War on Terrorism"?
      
                What defines a victory in the "War on Crime"?   

                What defines a victory in the "War on Poverty"?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM

JTS: The purpose of the surge was NOT to end the war. It was designed to drastically reduce the violence with the hope that the Iraqi Parliament would get better organized and that the Sunnis might join Iraqi and coalition forces against al-Qaida. The surge was successful and the Iraqi Parliament has met all but three of the 18 original benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress. The fact that the Sunnis turning against al-Qaida contributed greatly to the success of the surge is history.

The Arizona Republic, in it's Thursday edition, carried the New York Times Op-Ed written by Obama last week, and today the one they rejected written by Senator McCain. It's too bad the "Times" chose to show it's true colors (left-wing)and rejected McCain's article. It deserves to be read by anyone who wishes to read it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 03:28 PM

You can read the article Doug. So can anyone who wishes to read it. But it is plain to see that it not up to the standards of the New York Times. But McCain's attack on Obama, which contains nothing new and no viewpoint other than "Obama is bad", is available on the Drudge website, where it belongs.

Doug, I am not interested in those phony wars. I'm interested in the real shooting war in the middle east and and getting us out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 08:09 PM

"There are a bout twenty thousand more now than when the "surge" began. So obviously they got that wrong."

Well let's take that one first. Easily explained as some units rotating into Iraq are larger than those formations that they are replacing. That rational enough for you?

"Teribus. You are claiming that the surge worked."

Yes it most assuredly did, please provide me with any evidence to the contrary.

"If the surge was not supposed to end the war, what was the point?"

This coupled with the following shows that you are either extremely naive or have the attention span of Goldfish:

"You and the other Bush worshipers have been saying "when conditions permit." for five years. It doesn't mean anything."

Eh No Jack "The Surge" was not supposed to end the war. And "when conditions permit" means exactly what it says. Get out of thinking that what your country is engaged in is some sort of reality TV show, it isn't. While the USA was getting its ass kicked in Vietnam the UK actually defeated a communist inspired and backed insurrection in Malaya, Oman and in Borneo. That took time Jack the Sailor and the UK withdrew "when conditions permitted". In the case of Malaya that was after seventeen years.

By the Bye Jack the Sailor, I know that you are Canadian, but it took the US military about twenty years to get over Vietnam, and that was with a conscript Army. Follow Obama's lead with regard to Iraq and the "professional" Armed Forces of the USA will never trust another administration.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 08:43 PM

You are living in a dream world, T...

There were lots of military folks who said "No" to invading Iraq way back in '02... The trust is lost because of Bush...

You folks are a scream... You spent 6 years blamin' all of Bush's mstakes on Clinton and now we are down to you guys blaming his current mistakes on Obama...

Do you folks ever admit that it is possioble that yer guy, BUsh, screwed up all by himself???

(What a rediculous question, Boberdz...)

Oh yeah, I forgot for one minute that you folks have the ability to think independently... My bad...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 09:08 PM

>>, but it took the US military about twenty years to get over Vietnam, and that was with a conscript Army. Follow Obama's lead with regard to Iraq and the "professional" Armed Forces of the USA will never trust another administration.

They'll get over it in five minutes. They'll place the blame where it belongs, on Bush and Cheney.

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".

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:41 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: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:19 AM

"Real Democracy"???

Hahahahahahaha...

I mean, what would you know about real democracy, Sawz??? Me thinks it wouldn't hurt you at all to revisit some of Thomas Jefferson's writings if you think what we have is real democracy... It's far from that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:20 AM

Yeah....(Ha! Ha!)...that's what I'm saying. Save us from our free health coverage and other horrible stuff like that. I'd much rather be presently owing the medical people here $800,000 for my Dad's fatal liver illness than being out of debt, because they treated him at no charge. How dare they not charge me the full fee!???

I'd also love to see our cities bombed and wrecked, and American tanks and troops all over the place here, shooting down those socialist fools who would resist and showing us a better way to live.

What's holding you back? Don't you like us as much as you do those lucky, lucky people in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:56 PM

Bobert: I mean, what would you know about real democracy, Sawz??? Me thinks it wouldn't hurt you at all to revisit some of Thomas Jefferson's writings if you think what we have is real democracy... It's far from that...

Quoted for the truth: and to think what potential the declaration of independence had.

As a great thinker once said "The last and greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams".

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:07 PM

So when can we get all of our people (including private contractors) out of there? If Iraq is such a smashing success, we are no longer needed there.

I'd like to hear a response from the average Iraqi in the street to what is said in Sawzaw's article.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:40 PM

Word on the street is that Dick Cheney is down to his last $19.5M so maybe we should just invade Canada for him??? I mean, he will clean up with the stock options he has with Halliburton and, of course, Halliburton is the only corpoartion in the universe that knows how to drive trucks, build new schools and cook meals so they will get a fat no-bid contract and we won't have to worry about poor ol' Dick in the bread lines...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:41 PM

"
"Amos, can you explain to us exactly how today Al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a threat to the United States of America? It is also abundantly clear that Iraq has posed no threat to the United States of America since March 2003."

I don't believe it! Something Teribus and I can agree on.

None of these organizations and religious groups are a threat to the U.S. Iraq has
never posed a threat to the US even before March of 2003. Al-Qaeda is another name
for "communist" which was the key that Joe McCarthy turned in the U.S. Fifties.
The Taleban and Al Qaeda are not the same.

What poses a real threat to the U.S. is the hysteria and warmongering that is going on
with crazy Tea Partiers and members of the U.S. Senate and Congress who are making political capital out of war. Also, the corporations such as Blackwater and so many others who thrive on bloodshed and bullying.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 07:35 PM

"Word on the street is that Dick Cheney is down to his last $19.5M so maybe we should just invade Canada for him???"

You'd better do it for him - with his aim he would probably sink commercial traffic on the great lakes before conquering Minnesota!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 09:08 PM

Yeah, Royston, we don't want no trigger-happy-blind-Dick fightin' no wars fir US... Bad enough that he bullied George into invadin' Iraq... Might of fact, I think blind-Dick oughtta just be wheeled into a nursing home where he can't hurt anyone else...

(He might stab a nurse with a dinner fork, Boberdz...)

Oh yeah... Be sure that he gets ***THE*** pink pill (wink, wink...)

Bye, Dick...

BTW, ya' all... All that "The Surge" was was a "surge" of our tax dollars flyin' outta the treasury to pay Sunnis not to shoot at US??? Go figure??? And so the Tea Party folks think it was like, what??? I million GIs comin' over the hill with M-16's a'blazin' like from some 50s war movie??? Hmmmmm??? Me thinks there is merit to the theory that our forefathers did have sex with buffalo...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 01:44 AM

"real democracy" That's when Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.

Bobert is just upset cause the terrorists didn't win.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 11:56 PM

Iraqis may prove war was a mistake worth making
March 8, 2010

An Iraqi man places his votes in the ballot box at a polling site in Tikrit, Iraq on Sunday, March 7, 2010 during the country's much-anticipated parliamentary elections. (AP Photo/ Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Justin Merriman)

The Iraqi people have proven to be a tenacious bunch.

Our forefathers had to wait 12 years after the Declaration of Independence to have their first direct congressional elections. The Iraqis have now completed their second legislative elections in just seven years.

It would not have been possible without the unstinting sacrifices of the American military and the support of the citizens of the United States. But neither would it have been possible without the sheer cussedness of the Iraqis.

Iranian meddlers and al Qaeda terrorists tried to delegitimize the 2005 elections by suppressing participation through threats and violence, but almost 80 percent of the electorate turned out. By the time this year's elections came around, Iranian-backed opposition leader Muqtada al-Sadr told his Shiite followers to go vote and not get left out of the new government.

There were more than two dozen Iraqis killed in Election Day attacks, but after the past seven years, it takes a lot to rattle these people.

Turnout estimates will take time and the ruling parliamentary coalition is still shaping up, but the signs are that Iraqis voted in large numbers and that the new government will have a broader political base than the current one -- maybe no big deal by American standards, but quite a feat for the first Arab democracy.

America's founders fought an eight-year war that killed 25,000 of their countrymen -- 1 percent of the total population of our fledgling republic -- in order to be free.

Iraq has seen 9,400 men in uniform killed since the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein's regime. That's not even half of a 10th of a percent of the nation's population of almost 24 million.

That's because 4,379 American troops were killed and 31,693 more were wounded trying to rescue Iraq.

But it's also because the civilian population of Iraq has absorbed so much of the blow. Estimating the number of Iraqi civilians killed by terrorists is difficult, but there is broad consensus that more than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed during the post-invasion insurgency.

American history has no parallel to that kind of civilian sacrifice.

Baghdad alone lost almost 30,000 of its 6.5 million civilian residents in the first three years of the allied occupation. Losing so many people so fast in a city the same size as the Dallas metro area means that every family paid part of the human price.

As for the financial price, we've footed the tab.

We have spent $700 billion on our Iraq democracy project -- as much as the Bush-Obama bailout package.

We fought the entire Second World War and funded the Marshall Plan at a cost, in 2010 dollars, of about $3 trillion. So at least on a per-person-liberated basis, Iraq has been our most expensive nation-building project ever: about $30,000 per Iraqi.

We have spent more than $257 billion blowing up and rebuilding Afghanistan -- about $22,000 per Afghan -- and the administration will have to spend at least an additional $100 billion on the second Obama surge.

There are half as many Afghans as Iraqis, but they are spread out over a country that is 50 percent larger and has neither a middle class nor a history of central government. President Obama may yet take the title of most ambitious nation builder away from George W. Bush.....

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:41 PM

Of course the Iraqis are tenacious people. They have no choice. Any populace becomes tenacious under those kind of circumstances that Iraqis have faced. People tend to rise to the challenge offered.

This can be seen in war or any other extreme situation.

Multi-party elections do not a democracy make...although they do make the outer appearance of a democracy.

You don't have a real democracy until a government actually represents and responds to the genuine interests of its general populace.

Sadly, I know of no place where there is a real democracy right now. No place anywhere in the world. There are just a whole bunch of places maintaining the superficial appearance of a real democracy, but in every case what they really are is: rule by an elite and wealthy few, for the benefit of an elite and wealthy few, over the many who voted them in because they were offered no one else to cast a vote for!!!!

View this video:

Mouseland

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:37 PM

The terrorist ain't thrown in the towel yet, Sawz... Might of fact, they are doing quite nicely with their newest chapter, the Tea Party... You are a little quick to rush to judgement... No "Mission Accomplished" banners needed yet...

And let's keep in mind that the terrorists aren't exactly lefties... They are righties.... So I don't see why you think I want the righties to win... If anyone would want them to win I would think it would be you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:44 PM

And you are telling us we need to buy guns to blow away the tebaggers before they blow us away, right Bobert?

Them Al Quaeda guys and Taliban guys are against the US war just like you Bobert. They ain't thrown in the towel and neither have you. You root for them to kill Americans and hope they win so you can egotistically say you were right.

Iraq War Drama 'The Hurt Locker' wins six Oscars, including history making best picture and best director for director Kathryn Bigelow

Kathryn Bigelow dedicated her Best Director award to "the women and men in the military who risk their lives on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world." When she came back to receive a second Oscar statuette for co-producing the year's Best Picture winner she once again made a dedication "to men and women all over the world who wear a uniform, but even not just the military HazMat, emergency, firemen. They're there for us and we're there for them."

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:01 AM

They (the soldiers in the war zones) are not there for you.

They're there for a bunch of banks and big oil companies and military contractors. They're being used, they don't realize they're being used, and they are dying for nothing.

And that is the case in most wars, so it's really nothing new. The only soldier who fights for something worthwhile in a war is the one who defends his own home ground and the land he was born on against an occupying foreign invader.

Avatar should have won best picture this year. The reason it didn't was because the fascists who run the military-industrial system you cheerlead for simply couldn't bear to have a movie win which is directly opposed philosophically to the fascist empire building your terrorist armed forces do around the world...so they pulled some strings here and there to make sure.

No, they had to have a film win that glorifies your terrorist armed forces...and that was "The Hurt Locker". They desperately want you to keep believing the myths they have told you all your life.

You don't get it. I don't expect you to.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:23 AM

So, Sawz--you're fully behind the glorification of war? Let's go in there blazing and take them bastids out, eh?

'Course, there will always be a little collateral damage, but, hey, you can't make an omelette...ya know what I mean, man?

Seems pretty clear you're all for it, and know deep in your heart that it--the great bloodbath of man's mutual destruction--will always be there for you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:52 AM

I can see LH and Amos are heartbroken because the terrorist they have been rooting for didn't win. Sorry guys.

Iraq vote a setback for Al-Qaeda
Mar 9, 2010 AFP
BAGHDAD - AL-QAEDA in Iraq suffered a major blow after Sunni voters largely ignored its death threats and turned out in force to cast their ballots in a crucial weekend general election, observers said.

Electoral authorities have put the final turnout in Sunday's vote at 62.4 per cent, and Sunni participation was seen as a defining aspect of the ballot, especially in traditional Al-Qaeda strongholds.

In the run-up to the vote, the Islamic state of Iraq (ISI), the Qaeda front in the country, threatened on a jihadist website to kill all Iraqis, and especially Sunnis, who went to the polls.

'The Islamic state declares... a curfew on election day... throughout Iraq and especially in Sunni areas,' US monitors Site quoted ISI as saying in an Internet posting.

The Qaeda front warned that anyone who defies the curfew will 'unfortunately expose himself to the anger of Allah and then to all kinds of weapons of the mujahedeen.' As polling centres opened in Baghdad early on Sunday morning, the capital came under a hail of bomb, mortar and rocket attacks that killed 38 people.

But Sunni Arabs, who had massively boycotted the last polls in 2005, were undeterred, with 70 per cent of the electorate voting in Diyala and Salaheddin provinces, 61 per cent in Anbar and 67 per cent in Nineveh. -- AFP

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 01:03 AM

You're quite right that your jarhead terrorists aren't winning. But they haven't realized it yet. That's why they are still occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. They can't win, because final victory there is impossible. They can win many individual battles, though, and I expect they'll win a great many...just like they did back in Vietnam.

You can do that when you have the world's largest military machine at your disposal.

One day you may get to work for them yourself, Sawzaw, turn me and Amos and various others here in as "subversives", and get yourself a nice medal to show the grandkids.

Hail to the Chief, old chap.

Al Qaeda is nothing. They barely even exist. Your enemies are the people who are fighting to get foreign troops out of their country, and you will never see the end of them.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 01:14 AM

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/8-weeks-on-Nato-admits.6102256.jp

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:25 PM

So WTF does all that mean LH? Jar head Canadians are terrorists?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 07:51 PM

The last war that was actually won was WW II... Since then, even the '67 June War, have been winnerless wars... They have just conusmed alot of the world's human and natural resources...

And as for the term "terrorist"??? This ain't nuthin' but a PR term that plays well before a control group... Not much different than selling toothpaste ot soap powder...

I mean, let's get real... If it's 2003 and yer living in Baghdad and there are bombs falling all arounf you who is "the terrorist"???

No, I'm not for any terrorists, be they ours, theirs, or whomevers... War is terribly fucked up and those who order it up are always the ones who refuse to fight in them... Always!!! Goes back to Biblical times... Jesus talks about it in Mathew... Calls the folks who order up the wars hypocrits... Right here in the Bible...

No matter... No I'm not for the Taliban and LH ain't for the Taliban and Amos ain't for the Taliban... What I have pointed out isd tyhe the Taliban is alot closer in philosophy to the Christain Right than it is folks on the left, be they Christain or not... The Taliban wants to impose its conservative avlues on everyone... Sound familiar... They would be the first to assisinate an abortion doctor... Heck, they have been known to kill women for very minor things that the men think is offensive... These folks are alot like our Tea Baggers... Very intolerant and very ignorant... Just liike the Tea Baggers... Like the right wing... Not too enlightened, thse folks... Purdy danged backwards... Sound familiar???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:03 PM

WOW!!!

I'm not sure how this occured but I go off to to a few things and comne back here and there is a new "window" open at the bottom of my computer screen entitled "Mudcat Cafe' messa..." and it is has nuthin but Sawz 3:25 post asking what LH meant by his "jarhead Canadians"...

Never had anything like that happen and maybe someone more familiar with in the ins and outs knows but no matter...

What LH is talking about is excatly what I just posted about... I mean, it's like one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter... So what LH is sayin' is that to folks who are being shot at by a Canadian "jarhead" (slang for marine) that the jarhead is the percieved terrorist... Everything is relative dependin' on who happens to be the shooter and the shootee...

Still not too sure how that thing happened with a seperate window with just that post... Maybe soemthin' new, I donno... Don't have time to figure the ins & outs of computers...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:55 AM

Elections signal progress in Iraq

The results of Sunday's parliamentary elections in Iraq are important. As the votes are being tallied, at stake is what kind of character the country's fledgling democracy will assume or, indeed, whether that democracy will endure or give way to a new religious and sectarian dictatorship.

Just as important as the election results is the fact that, once again, Iraqis voted in large numbers, defying threats and acts of violence to participate in their nation's open and competitive electoral process. At least 38 people were killed in Baghdad, the New York Times reported.

Even so, voter turnout was heavy. Fewer ballots were cast Sunday than in the first post-Saddam parliamentary elections held in 2005. Still, a healthy 62 percent of eligible voters went to the polls. This time, there was intense politicking for votes of the majority Shiite population. And, critically, members of the Sunni minority that largely boycotted the 2005 elections were active participants in this round of balloting.

That's a positive sign for the future of Iraq. The more people who are committed to resolving ethnic and religious conflicts through the political process, the less acceptable violence and intimidation will become.

A secure and stable Iraq is still far from being a certainty. What security and stability that does exist was purchased at great price by the United States, which has lost more than 4,300 military personnel over the course of the seven-year conflict.

Sunday's election was a milestone of progress for Iraq. It represents another sign that democracy is taking root in the country.

It also suggests that the ongoing drawdown of American forces, with the departure of combat troops scheduled for the end of August, is on course and that the future of Iraq is increasingly in Iraqi hands — as it should be.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 01:02 AM

"it wouldn't hurt you at all to revisit some of Thomas Jefferson's writings if you think what we have is real democracy"

Well I took your advice Bobert and I learned something:

Thomas Jefferson on the Af****n Race

To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 07:32 AM

Good work, Sawz... You got an stick a *gold start* on yer "I-learnt-up-somthin'-new" chart, however...

...we weren't excatly talkin' about Tom's views on black folks or slavery but his views on, ahhhhhhhh, democracy...

So, while ya' get some credit for trying to do yer homework, ya done the wrong assignment??? I just don't know what we are gonna do with you, son???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 12:14 PM

"Jefferson made clear that he believed that blacks were inferior to whites."

I did what you asked and according to his writings, your hero Jefferson was a racist and a bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 12:20 PM

Sawz:

This is relevant to his influence in founding a democratic republic...how?


A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 12:25 PM

How History is rewritten:

Obama January 2007
We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

Obama September 13, 2007:
After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we're back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he's been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people & our troops.

July 2008
Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

Obama January 5, 2008:
I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.


Biden February 11 2010
"this could be one of the great achievements of this administration."

Reporter to Robert Gibbs February   2010
Robert, the Vice President last night said that Iraq could end up being one of the President's great achievements. Given that the Vice President was in favor of a partial partition of the country and the President opposed the surge that helped stabilize it, how is that one of the President's great achievements?

Gibbs:
Well, putting what was broken back together and getting our troops home, which we intend to do in August of this year.Obama press secretary robert Gibbs

Reporter:
But the Status of Forces Agreement to bring troops home was signed before the President took office.

GIBBS
Something that -- something that I think the political pressure that the President, as a then-candidate, helped to bring about.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 12:31 PM

Noting that people change their opinions as events unfold, none of what you cite is a patch on the towering deceptions of such statements as "I'm a uniter, not a divider" by the man who produced the biggest schism in the national psyche since the Civil War...



A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 04:41 PM

Well Amos I think that General David Petraeus must absolutely silently kill himself with inner laughter everytime he meets Joe "wrong-again" Biden.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:49 PM

People change history to cover up for their fuckups.

Also known as CYA.

You use Bush who did not change his mind as a smoke screen to cover for a whiney, weazely, flipflopper who tries to claim credit for what Bush did by claiming he said something different from what he actually said.

Bush was right about the surge and Obama was flat ass wrong but he is too arrogant to admit it.

Remember when Obama was chest beating about Guantanamo? Executive order signed January 22, 2009 to close Guantanamo within a year? Sorta over due now isn't it?

McCain said he thinks the new president may have been hasty in the decision and should have taken the time to consider everything associated with closing the camp before forcing himself into a timetable.

Specifically, McCain said he thought Obama needed to consider what would happen to the prisoners held at Guantanamo before ordering the facility to be closed.

"So, the easy part, in all due respect, is to say we're going to close Guantanamo," McCain said. "Then I think I would have said where they were going to be taken. Because you're going to run into a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem here in the United States of America."

Obama was flat ass wrong and McCain was right.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 11:02 PM

My Sawz, you sound so bitter and angry.

Closing Guantanamo was a right action, but you are absolutely 100% correct that the follow-through should have been thought through first.

As for the Surge, don't get too stuck on the Right Wing Mythology; remember that the locals had a LOT to do with the changes that occurred in Iraq at the same time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:06 AM

Amos:

When was Guantanamo closed? When did Obama follow through on his big chest beating promise?

McCain was 100% correct that the follow-through should have been thought through first.

Why do you think I am bitter and angry? You sound like an Obama brown shirt or maybe even a Chavez red shirt, willing to take a bullet for the chief no matter how bad he fucks up.

The locals did have a lot to do with the surge being a success but how does that correct Obama's mistake and allow him to take credit for some one else's plan that he opposed?

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

Harry Reid 4/19/07 press conference:
"this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything"

Harry Reid on PBS 12/21/07:
"The president said, "Let's send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves." We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that."

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 11:57 PM

Bill Clinton on NPR

....Clinton said that the general's much-discussed wish for more troops is based in part on the success of the "surge" in Iraq.

"But let's remember why the Iraqi surge worked," Clinton told Linda, for a story due to air on tomorrow's Morning Edition. "It worked because the United States and our allies performed well -- but they performed well in partnership with the Anbar arising ... with the Sunni Iraqis being sick and tired of what al-Qaida in Iraq did and willing to put their own necks on the line."....

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 01:38 AM

Go Google "Sunni Awakening" you self-proclaimed expert on everything.

Good God. Now I remember why I don't come here much anymore. There are lots of good thoughtful folks, plus the the four- or five-member asshat club.

Sigh.

Go ahead, delete the post. I won't even notice....

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 02:31 AM

TIA - the asshats don't actually CONTROL the rum, although they think they do, and they try damn hard as well... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 07:00 AM

Whats the difference between an Ass hat and a Jar head? ...

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 07:30 AM

The funny thing about ass-hats is that they are not content to just reveal themselves in current threads so they revisit old ones to further reveal themselves...

The must think that folks here are the same moron in the street who is too busy bustin' his butt making a living to undertand what the components of "The Surge" were... Problem for the ass-hats is that folks here ***are*** paying attention...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 09:40 AM

"you self-proclaimed expert on everything."

Moi? You seem to have a grudge because the surge, according to several prominent people. worked. I merely posted what Bill Clinton said.

You can post anything you want.

You might want to tell us what would have happened without the surge.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 04:11 PM

The goal here is perpetual war. The Afghan war is the longest in history for the US and it isn't over yet. Why is that? What's so great about the "surge"? What happened with the surge is that it prolonged the war.

There are those who want and like war.

60 cents of your tax dollar goes to support the Iraq and Afghan war.

Don't look under the curtain.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 09:03 PM

No, Sawz... Just the things I know about... As fir "The Surge" I would doubt that if you were to ask a 100 people what the tactical components of it were that you'd find 5 who had any idea other than the PR on it which was merely "more boots on the ground"... That was a very simplistic answer then and it's no less a simplistic asnwer now...

Yeah, strings... Ike warned US about what we now have... He warned US that the military/industrial complex, if left unchecked, would damage our country and it's future... Now we're in the midst of it and guess what??? The very people who are pissed off about their taxes being too high are the ones who are always up for a new, shiney war??? Go figure???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 09:31 PM

You guys really need to say which surge you are talking about.

The surge in Iraq was coincident with many other factors which contributed to the reduction of hostilities, but the Bush PR machine tried to cover itself with glory despite that.

The Afghan surge has not succeeded yet.


A

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 02:54 AM

The Afghan "surge" Amos has as yet hardly commenced, the troops assigned in December last year will not all be in place for about another six to eight weeks.

My son who is now out there on his fourth tour tells me that they are still in the process of building up base facilities to receive them.

At no time during the entire time the Soviets were in the country did the "Mujahideen" ever consider their war as being in a "stalemate" condition. At no time did they EVER consider talks or a compromise with the Soviet invaders. The leader of the Taleban, Mullah Mohammed Omar, has been stating that the fighting has been at a stalemate since 2008 and there have been numerous contacts with the various Taleban groups for years.

In the spring and summer of 2006 the "Afghan Taleban" swore that they would destroy ISAF in Helmand Province. This was the Taleban who had rested and re-organised over the border in Pakistan in the three years previous. They were then at their strongest and most capable and they only faced 680 combat troops out of a total ISAF force of 3,300. They failed to destroy, or even discourage ISAF in 2006, so how on earth do they think they are going to succeed against 30,000 ISAF Troops plus an equal number of ANA forces. Security, employment and education will defeat the Taleban in both Helmand and Kandahar, the international community and the Afghan Government can offer the people of those Provinces all three, the Taleban on the other hand can only offer those people a continuation of what they have had to endure for the past thirty years.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 02:54 PM

Amos: "You guys really need to say which surge you are talking about."

When this thread was started there was only one surge.

Bobert: "I would doubt that if you were to ask a 100 people"

You are welcome to your doubts and assumptions and opinions but they do not constitute facts to anybody but you.

I realize that a question such as this is largely a matter of opinion so I have posted here several instances of important people that said the surge worked but you always want to divert the subject into another direction.

Does your opinion matter more than them. Obama can do no wrong in your eyes but when you and he conflict on something you immediately draw the discussion elsewhere rather than having to admit either you or he is wrong.

The only people left that argue against the success of the surge are the ones that so vehemently were against the surge. Then the more it appeared that it might succeed the nastier and more strident they would get. Now all they can claim is the Awakening did it.

Would there have been an awakening without the surge and if so would it have succeeded without the surge?

You can call me mental or stupid or whatever you want but that does not enhance your credibility. Instead, it weakens it.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: gnu
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 04:56 PM

I understand the US is geared up to get Afghanistan surge men, equipment and supplies in place in a limited amount of time during the coming summer and fall. They apparently have a tall order to fill if the surge is to be effective.

The volcanic eruption in Iceland may play in favour of the Afghans.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 07:51 AM

Only if the cloud of ash from the volcano halts air traffic all over the world and that is not likely

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 01:52 AM

Al-Qaida leader captured in western Iraq
2010-04-18

RAMADI, Iraq, April 18 (Xinhua) -- Iraqi security forces captured an al-Qaida leader on Sunday in a raid on an insurgent safe house in the country's western province of Anbar, a provincial police source said.

Mohammed Abed, a leader of al-Qaida militants in Anbar, was captured after being wounded during the raid in the city of Rawa, some 280 km northwest of Baghdad, the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

Based on intelligence reports, a force from Anbar police command raided the house in Rawa in an attempt to arrest Abed who traded fire with the attacking force, wounding two policemen, the source said.

The police also seized 34 blasting caps which can be used in detonating explosive-belts, roadside bombs and car bombs, the source added.

Anbar province has seen deadly attacks in recent months, although it has been relatively calm in the past few years after Sunni tribes and anti-U.S. insurgent groups turned to cooperate with the U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces against al-Qaida in Iraq network.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 04:11 PM

ya hoo mission accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:58 PM

There were no al-qeada in Iraq before Bush ordered up the invasion...

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:24 AM

Maybe not Al-Qaeda as such, but people very closely allied and associated with them. Two that immediately spring to mind are Zarqawi (who ultimately formed Al-Qaeda-In-Iraq) and Mullah Krekar whose group Ansar al-Islam, was "hosted" by Saddam Hussein to foment trouble in the Kurdish North.

In August 2002, while Krekar was in Iraq, the Norwegian government revoked his refugee status on the grounds that he had traveled back to his homeland and spent long periods there directing terrorist activities.

In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region. Before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Zarqawi met with Bin Laden's military chief, Saif al-Adel (Muhammad Ibrahim Makawi) in Iraq, who asked him to coordinate the entry of al-Qaeda operatives into Iraq through Syria. Zarqawi readily agreed and by the fall of 2003 a steady flow of Arab Islamists were infiltrating Iraq via Syria.