BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 08 - 12:30 PM

BB,

Your question is not answer-able because it deals 100% with hypotheticals... If I change the wording of the question and throw it back into your court you cannot answer it either... You are just playing childish rhetorical games...

No did intended... It's just the way it is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:20 PM

Bobert,

Then how can you claim that any specific number are due to the US invasion? Since we invaded, you seem to claim all deaths are our fault- yet the past statistics of that country indicate a higher death rate when Saddam was in power. You are saying we should not have attacked and let a larger number of people die?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:23 PM

As Amos was a bit coy about giving us the meaning of "estimate" here it is:

estimate - noun
a guess of what the size, value, amount, cost, etc. of something might be

estimate - verb
to guess the cost, size, value, etc. of something

So what you and Bobert are basing your claim that "Upwards of a million Iraqs have now been killed" is a GUESS. Which if any had bothered to read The Lancet Article would have been obvious as in thet article the introduction clearly stated that "Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE died".

If you are going to make statements on numbers of fatalities the least you can do is base them on something better than a GUESS.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:23 PM

hypotheticals????

"the researchers estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis had died who would not have died had the death rate remained at pre-invasion levels. Roughly 601,000 of those excess deaths were due to violence."


Yet you will not allow the discussion of the "pre-invasion" levels?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 02:01 PM

T:

Don't be boring. An estimate is a guess based on rational premises, extrapolation, or reasonable probabilities. A guess is something you pull out of your ass.

What IS your problem?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:20 PM

It is still a guess not a fact so stop presenting it as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:29 PM

Oh, T, are you all puckered up? The order of magnitude is correct, and if it is even a whole factor of 10 off the ground truth, do you think that modulates the stupidity and immorality of the situation one whit?

It does not, my friend.

If it were only ten thousand, or two million, the equiation of this false and bloodyminded decision does not change its ugly colors or its rotten odor one scintilla.

Would you get a better view of the iceberg if I moved your deckchair a bit this way. sir? You can hear the band better from here, too...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:57 PM

BB,

Go argue with the source I provided...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 05:43 PM

What me all puckered up Amos!!! I'm not the one with a thread of damn near 800 posts the majority of them mine, practically all of which are pointless cut'n'pastes banging on about how the President misrepresented rfacts to Congress in order to get approval to invade Iraq.

But we see here that both you and Bobert are not above misrepresenting facts yourselves when it suits your purpose. Now I'd just call that downright hypocritical.

Don't care what the number is Amos but if you're going to quote it get the damn thing right, or as near right as can be managed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:55 PM

Well, T, excuse me. The source given above, as I pointed out, does in fact "estimate", using an earlier "rigorous cluster study" as a baseline, that the total deaths are over one million.

The Lancet study which first came up with the baseline figure was heavily flamed by people who dreamed of war but not of the horrors of it.

I do not know of any better estimate, given the chaos of war.

But as Bobert says, go to the page and argue with them about their methods.

I am truly sorry that you relish war so much, but that is your worry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:32 PM

Yeah, T... I mean, this has become a tiresome exercise in futility and whether it's 300,000 or 1,200,000 it doesn't really change the conversation, does it??? Back when I was sayin' 100,000 you spent way too much energy attacking those figures as if I knew every one of those Iraqis personally and had an accurate count... This is beyond a waste of time with you and BB and I won't engage in ya'all's game any more...

And I'll continue to say "upwards of a million" and if you don't like it, tough...

You want to debate somethin' then lets debate the real reasons why Bush ordered the invasion... No, not to phony baloney UN resolutions crap that could become an endless academic exercise in further futility but the real reasons... You know what they are... The are based in a neocon philospohy of a "new world order" that has now shown to have more holes in it than Swiss Cheeeze... And then there is Bush who has never really succeeded at anything other than stealing 16 million bucks from the tax payer of Arlington, Texas who wanted to show his dadddy that he could do something "right"... Wrong againg, George...

But academic exercises have grown tiresome...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:50 PM

Remember, an estimated death is not an actual death. Pol Pot did nothing wrong in Cambodia, because no one can show me 4 million certified death certificates. In fact, Saddam was not doing anything wrong before we invaded. If you are going to claim that he was, you better show me the death certificates for all those Shiites.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 08 - 01:01 AM

Re Pol Pot and Saddam you don't need death certificates TIA the contents of the mass graves told the story and provided the numbers plainly enough.

As to the Hopkins Study guesswork, I do not have to argue with them or with the site linked to referring to it. IranBodyCount did more than a competant critique of Hopkins figures

You might not know of any better estimate/guess Amos, so why not use actual confirmed figures Amos? Bobert doesn't like those because they don't match his scaremongering and they are not so good for Bush bashing which in reality is all the pair of you are interested in.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 May 08 - 10:40 AM

The estimation method used in that link (provided by Amos) is a bit too creative for my taste (creative in a very verbatim sense too).

But the numbers game here is stupid from both sides: Someone with left leaning has to believe the highest estimate available, someone with right leaning has to believe the lowest estimate available, both of course irrespective of the methodological quality.

But you may want to read an interview with someone who has changed his mind.

I Don't See Anything Good That Has Come from this War (Interview with Lawrence Kaplan)

(Just BTW, J.R. would be overjoyed by the designation of both Obama and Clinton as neoconservative; but that is only a minor part in the interview)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 08 May 08 - 10:46 AM

Amos posted this somewhere else, W-Gang...

I think it is a stretch to put the neocon label on Obama... Clinton??? Maybe...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 08 - 12:13 PM

In the article there is a hard stretch made to redefine neocon, Bobert. Kinda like Ann Coulter's campaign to degrade the definition of the word "liberal" to mean any faggoty pinko socialist commie bastard bleeding heart namby-pamby pussy they want to brand. In the article they try to make the argument that neocons are really the new mainstream center-of-the-road. I don't buy it, but it is just a semantic shellgame in any case.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 08 - 02:46 PM

Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign 466* 08 May 08 - 12:13 PM
Popular views /Bush Administration 1124* 08 May 08 - 12:05 PM

I don't suppose either of these is the one you're referring to, T? Or were you averaging them together?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 May 08 - 03:54 PM

scaremongering?

Are you implying that the Iraq Body Count numbers (documented) are not scarey?

Are they acceptable?... or justifiable?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 08 May 08 - 04:11 PM

Don't ask T hard questions, TIA... His little accountant type mind is not capable of either answerin' them or even comin' close to understanding them... As long as human suffering can be shoved into the back seat whuile T rattles on about UN resolutons he is blissfully happy...

Notice that he doesn't venture too far away from the UN stuff and has never, to my knowledge, openly discussed the real reason as to why the US felt it needed to invade Iraq purdy much unilaterially...

Oh, he'll bring up the Coilition od the Willing (Bullied...) but this was Bush's decision and he made it the day that the Supreme Court overruled democracy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 08 - 04:32 PM

"Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign 466* 08 May 08 - 12:13 PM
Popular views /Bush Administration 1124* 08 May 08 - 12:05 PM

I don't suppose either of these is the one you're referring to, T? Or were you averaging them together?"


Huh??????

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 May 08 - 05:59 PM

Teribus-

You are indeed welcome back, but you'd be even more welcome if you'd tell us how al-Qaeda is supposed to take over Iraq--which is of course the threat held over our heads by GWB and now McCain. If we pull our troops out of Iraq-- (aside from "Kurdistan" where they are actually wanted)--, al-Qaeda is going to take over Iraq, we are told.

Inquiring minds want to know why there is any reasonable chance of this, given that Iraqi Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites hate al-Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 08 May 08 - 07:18 PM

Another question that T won't or can't answer...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:19 AM

Well thanks very much for that Ron.

"you'd be even more welcome if you'd tell us how al-Qaeda is supposed to take over Iraq" - Ron Davies

Where and when did I ever say that al-Qaeda is supposed to take over Iraq Ron? If that is what GWB and McCain are saying then I would suggest that you ask them. This being election year at least the latter should be communicative enough for you to get some sort of answer.

Any fool could see however that premature withdrawal of MNF troops from Iraq would be viewed by Al-Qaeda as a victory for them and a defeat for the US. Would that hearten them? Most certainly. Would that damp down any ambitions that they might have? Very much doubt it. Would it prevent further attempts to strike the US as a supposed root cause would have been removed? Most certainly not.

By the bye just reported by BBC, that the current head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Masri, has been captured.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:52 AM

Teribus--


I'm aware of the news about al-Masri. And as you know al-Qaeda uses the franchise model, not the IBM one. It is not at all clear that removing the CEO   (or division chief for Iraq) will make much of an impact. But I have been making my argument for months about the senselessness of the assertion that al-Qaeda is about to take over in Iraq--for the reason I cited.


So please be good enough to tell use whether you agree with my argument or not--rather than dodging the question by passing it on to McCain--who may possibly not answer my question.

You have been one the strongest supporters of a continued large presence in Iraq. I say it is no longer necessary---and only was ever necessary if you accept that GWB had grounds to invade in 2003. Which is also specious.

But the question now is: is the continued presence of a large US military force in Iraq necessary in your judgment or not? Yes or no.

No "War and Peace" -like tome is needed to answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:56 AM

Yes

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:48 AM

Apparantly the capture was of another bloke with a similar name, according to later reports. Pity.

What would the consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq be, T?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:59 AM

You tell me Amos, or Ron, or Bobert, or Danavan, or Barak Obama, anyone in fact who keeps banging on about bringing the troops home NOW. I'd be delighted to hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:59 AM

There Ron, we both have things to look forward to now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:18 AM

It was not al Masri after all.
Not THE al Masri anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:40 AM

I agree with both Amos and Keith - What a pity, but if not today, then maybe tomorrow, or the next day, etc. Time is not on the man's side.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:46 AM

Well, I have too little data to make aprofessional estimate. But if you want a SWAG, here's what I think would happen.

The Northern Kurdish region would stabilize with occasional hiccups caused by the Turkish Kurdistan movement.

The main power centers of Baghdad, Basra, etc. woud split into warring faction -- not just Shiite v Sunni, but also tribal groups seeking fame and honor and dominance and revenge.

The central government would have two choices. One would be to unite all the armed elements into a strong army which dramatically suppressed violence, insurgence, and even disagreement.

The other would be to fall apart and give way to tooth and claw evolution -- after a century or so of ongoing bullshit, some form will evolve that will stabilize the region. A strong leader, a monarch or dictator, would emerge if allowed to. OR the individuals of Iraq will find their own voices and stand up for mutual aid and common consent and a democratic gnostic republic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 11:18 AM

Leading to War is an extensive film documenting the twists and turns arriving at the present state of affairs in Iraq.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:02 PM

Amos,

Thanks for your views and predictions in your post of 09 May 08 - 10:46 AM, but I note that you only cover the possible consequences in Iraq.

The effects of "bring the troops home NOW" (Premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq) would be a great deal more far reaching than that, for many many countries in many many different ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:47 PM

PRay, T, explicate. I asked you the question in the first place because I wanted to know how you saw it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 May 08 - 04:57 PM

The terrorists will follow us home no doubt. On foot?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:30 PM

I just saw Robert Redford's movie, Lions For Lambs.

I highly reccomend it.

I really liked the scenes with Senator Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:38 PM

OK Teribus--

Thanks for the unusually direct and clear answer. See, you can do it when you have a mind to.

Next question: Do you believe that if the US troops left Iraq-- (aside from "Kurdistan" where they are actually wanted)--that al Qaeda would take over Iraq?

Again: yes or no.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 08 - 05:02 AM

Hang on a bit Ron, you seemed to have completely ignored the question I asked you.

Oh I forgot, you have to get somebody to tell you what to say first. That's OK, for that will give me something else to look forward to.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 May 08 - 04:26 PM

Scott McClellan (remember him? former Bush loyalist who was deep in the inner circle as White House Press Secretary) says of Iraq in his soon-to-be published book that "...Bush and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."

Okay, so pretty much everyone (except maybe the current inner circle) acknowledges that there really *was* a propaganda campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 06:32 PM

The inner circle report that they are very puzzled by McLellan's disloyalty. I guess they never heard the old metaphor about rats and sinking ships. At least, like Nixon's lawyer John Dean (author of "Blind Ambition") he is trying to make up for his past falsifications in the public arena.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 08 - 07:56 PM

How comes that alot of us folk singers somehow figured this out way back then and it's news now???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:43 PM

OK Teribus--

Sorry I didn't address your question as to consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq.

Tell you what, I'll answer your question, and you answer mine.

Mine is very specific:   Given that Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds loathe and despise al-Qaeda, how is al-Qaeda going to take over Iraq?---though this is exactly what we've been threatened with by GWB and now McCain.




As to my thesis on the outcome if the US brings its troops home now:

1) I never said all troops should be brought home. I have always insisted that since US troops are actually wanted in "Kurdistan", we should maintain a large presence there--but only there.   Among other things this will dissuade any future Turkish government from drastic action in "Kurdistan" against the PKK--and thereby help stabilize the area.


2) We should however withdraw all combat troops from the rest of Iraq. GWB invaded Iraq after the spectacularly successful propaganda campaign discussed in this thread--and recognized by all literate beings---now including GWB's former press spokesman.

As I and many others have said for quite a while--and now Scott McClellan also admits--the Iraq war was unnecessary. There was no excuse for it--and there still is no excuse. And it was foisted on the US public by means of a despicable propaganda campaign.

The Iraqis can--and will--work out their own problems (aside from the Kurds in "Kurdistan", which I've spoken about above.)

3) Anybody who predicts dire consequences from a US withdrawal needs to be specific in exactly what those would be--with facts and evidence.

If that's what you predict, we need those facts and evidence.

The ball is in your court.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: kendall
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:32 AM

This scare tactic about the terrorists following us home... we invaded Mexico, Spanish territory, Germany, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Granada, the Dominican republic etc. and none of them followed us home. Seems to me that if we stop walking all over the Arabs they will have no reason to "follow us home"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:57 PM

OK Teribus--

Still waiting patiently for your words of wisdom.

I've answered your question. Time for you to answer mine:

Given that Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds loathe and despise al-Qaeda, how is al-Qaeda going to take over Iraq?-which is, of course, what we are constantly being threatened with by GWB and now McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:02 PM

How neat and tidy, Ron. But like Amos, your answer only seems to cover Iraq. Have a good, hard think about it. I could envision wide reaching consequences of a premature departure of US troops from Iraq that would in all likelyhood result in a major global as opposed to a minor regional conflict.

John McCain is right on the money when he states:

"To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.''

Now to answer your question: "Given that Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds loathe and despise al-Qaeda, how is al-Qaeda going to take over Iraq?"

1. Your question starts off with the false premise that Al-Qaeda is universally loathed by all parties in Iraq. If it can be presented in any way, shape, or form that Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has forced the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, then Al-Qaeda will have all the friends they need in the region and elsewhere in the "Islamic" world the US will find itself with none.

2. As to "how is al-Qaeda going to take over Iraq?" probably the same way as a minor Sunni Group did over 50 years ago. All in all there are between 1 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims world-wide, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world, of that number approximately 85% are Sunni and 15% are Shiia. So while the Shiia may be in a majority in Iraq they are vastly outnumbered elsewhere. If in the extremely bloody "civil war" that would undoubtedly erupt if the US forces pulled out prematurely, it looked as though the "Sunni heroes" who vanquished the forces of "The Great Satan" were being slaughtered and subject to defeat at the hands of Shiia supported by Iran, I venture to guess that Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq would not lack sufficient funds or volunteers to swing the matter their way. It would take time, but the UN wouldn't be able to do anything about it and neither of course could the US.

From your answer to my question:
"1) I never said all troops should be brought home. I have always insisted that since US troops are actually wanted in "Kurdistan", we should maintain a large presence there--but only there.   Among other things this will dissuade any future Turkish government from drastic action in "Kurdistan" against the PKK--and thereby help stabilize the area.

2) We should however withdraw all combat troops from the rest of Iraq."

I do not for one minute think I have ever read anything so ridiculous in my life!! Have you looked at a map?? Who's your military advisor General Custer?? How the hell do you supply them? How would you reinforce them if needed? How would you evacuate them when the time came? The idea is absolutely preposterous.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 30 May 08 - 02:18 PM

"The Pentagon documents leaked to the Washington Post regarding Zarqawi have revealed that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fabricated."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2275

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 May 08 - 04:54 PM

Bobert;
Damn good question above...
In the wake of the Mcllelan revelations, Bushies, and the MSM are all covering there asses and saying "...but we were just going by the information we had at the time...everyone was wrong!"
Bullshit. Clearly a number of aging folkies and 36 million of their closest friends (number of people worldwide who protested the war in early 2003) were not taken in. The protest in Rome on February 15, 2003 is listed in Guiness as the largest anti-war gathering ever (about 3 MILLION people). All those Italians weren't wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:17 AM

Teribus--

You would venture to guess that al-Qaeda in Iraq would have enough support to take over in Iraq if the US pulled all combat troops out except those in "Kurdistan"--mainly because the Iraqis would be so impressed that al-Qaeda had driven the US out.

Sorry, that doesn't pass the logic test.

You conveniently forget that there is a good reason why al-Qaeda is loathed by Iraqis---their attempt to enforce their particular brand of Islam on any unbeliever--and that means any Moslem who doesn't kowtow to their Islamic Puritanism. And they enforce this by murder, maiming etc.

That's the way they are--I'm surprised an international affairs expert like your good self doesn't realize this.

And regardless of whether the US is there or not, al-Qaeda will behave the same way to their fellow Moslems--and continue to alienate them as a result.

Therefore there is no danger that they will be able to take over in Iraq.

You have provided precisely zero evidence to back up your contention that they could take over Iraq--"venture to guess" I'm sorry to have to tell you, does not really count as evidence.

You haven't even provided a plausible scenario whereby they could take over Iraq--and I have spelled out exactly why the Iraqis will never let them do it.

Therefore it is time--now--for the US combat troops to come home--aside from a sizable force in "Kurdistan" where they actually want us, and our presence plays a constructive role.

If you don't believe this, let's have a scenario, with some reasonable chance of actually occurring--in which al-Qaeda, with its vicious tactics, will get enough support--from anywhere--to take over Iraq.

So far you've struck out.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:55 AM

Well Ron, apart from your suggestion of placing/abandoning without any hope of supply, reinforcement or rescue, US Forces in a land-locked enclave ("Kurdistan"), this was another "peach" from the same post:

"Anybody who predicts dire consequences from a US withdrawal needs to be specific in exactly what those would be--with facts and evidence.

If that's what you predict, we need those facts and evidence."

"Anyone who predicts dire consequences" - So you are referring to future events here, right? In which case exactly what "facts and evidence" can possibly exist? Your demand is both illogical and impossible to comply with.

"You haven't even provided a plausible scenario whereby they could take over Iraq--and I have spelled out exactly why the Iraqis will never let them do it." - Ron Davies

"You would venture to guess that al-Qaeda in Iraq would have enough support to take over in Iraq if the US pulled all combat troops out except those in "Kurdistan"--mainly because the Iraqis would be so impressed that al-Qaeda had driven the US out.

Sorry, that doesn't pass the logic test."

For a start - No US Military Commander would dream of leaving US troops in "Kurdistan" as you call it, if all other US Forces were withdrawn from Iraq.

Would Al-Qaeda take the kudos and gain credibility if US troops left Iraq prematurely - Of course they would, they would gain enormous prestige throughout the "Muslim World" and milk it to the last drop.

Now Al-Qaeda "taking over Iraq" - What sort of time frame are you looking at here Ron? Immediate? Short-term (within the next 5-10 years)? Long term (within the next 10-20 years)?

If the US pulled out early - or announced a timetable for withdrawal that was not connected to progress on the ground - there would be civil war in Iraq. That takes care of any squeamishness about muslim attacking muslim, and it would be Shiia Arab attacking Sunni in the bun-fight for control. Al-Qaeda would side and fight alongside the Sunni faction (85% of the world's muslims are Sunni Ron - you saying that they would just stand idly by - don't think so)

That takes care of - "And regardless of whether the US is there or not, al-Qaeda will behave the same way to their fellow Moslems". Under the cicumstances outlined above the Islamic heroes who defeated the "Great Satan" and caused him to scurry for home would be viewed as saviours of their muslim brothers fighting against the Shiia. Were there many "foreign fighters" drawn to Chechnya? Balkans? Afghanistan? - Answer's yes Ron, from all over the Muslim World. The same would be the case in a Shiia/Sunni civil war in Iraq.

Slightly wider afield in the area:

- The US would have failed in its main foreign policy objective in the Persian Gulf, i.e. not to permit any one nation in the region to have overall control. Iran would control the Persian Gulf region and all the resources therein, and the UN would be powerless to do anything about it short of declaring total war (with what exactly?) against Iran which by now of course would be nuclear armed.

- At present in the region the US has quite a few friends and bases. If the US pulled out and it could be presented, as it surely would be that they had been driven out by Al-Qaeda, those friends would disappear and those bases would become untenable. The host nations would be inviting self-destruction on themselves if they permitted those bases to remain on their soil. Threats would come from two directions attack by Al-Qaeda, or attack from Iran, either way my prediction would be that the US bases would be closed.

- Intelligence within the area would go from pretty good at present to absolutely zero. The US would go back to the situation engineered by "Peanut" Carter as far as reliable intelligence the larger "middle-east" region would become a "black-hole". From within that "black-hole" all subsequent future terrorist spectaculars against the US mainland could be planned and implemented.

- Premature withdrawal from Iraq would presage a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan. Which would further enhance the reputation of Al-Qaeda.

- Both Jordan and Lebanon would cease to exist as the states we currently know of.

- Situation initially would be highly beneficial to Russia and to China, not so good for any other country reliant on middle-east oil or gas.

- In the intermediate to long term, the prospect of a nuclear attack on Israel, most likely an asymetric attack, would be greatly enhanced.

That is only the middle-east region Ron, any thoughts on what would be the effects on the USA? Europe? Far East? Africa? Those in the US are the ones that really need to be considered, and so far Ron, they are not so much as tiny blip on your radar.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:55 AM

500 Up never had one of those before