BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:15 AM

"we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group"

Not true, this is what is CLAIMED by anti-Bushites, and NOT what was actually stated by the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:06 AM

"An asymetric attack on mainland US involving WMD provided to an international terrorist organisation by a rogue regime or government hostile to the USA. Please note Bobert I have not mention a specific weapon in the identification of that threat, I have not mentioned a specific international terrorist group in the identification of that threat and I have not mentioned a specific rogue regime of government in the identification of that threat."

Okay, but; in order to "eliminate" that "threat", we sure as hell attacked a specific regime because we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group. So *your* lack of specification means "fuck-all". (BTW, despite our clear political differences, I do like that phrase of yours).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:12 AM

"Eventually you'll have to learn that there is a huge difference between al-Qaeda and the vast majority of Iraqi Sunnis--and the conduct of the former is making the gap a chasm." - Ron Davies

You mean something like could have been stated by an observer in May 1941 -

Eventually you'll have to learn that there is a huge difference between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom of great Britain --and the conduct of the former is making the gap a chasm.

But what happened Ron - Operation Barberossa - Germany attacked Russia and all of a sudden The UK & the USSR were allies.

Troops out now = Civil War in Iraq

Civil War in Iraq would be a confrontation primarily between Sunni Arab and Shiia Arab, with the Kurds possibly remaining on the sidelines. It was under those circumstances that Saudi Arabia stated that they would aid the Sunni Arabs in Iraq and outnumbered, as they would undoubtedly be in this civil war, like the UK in 1941, I do not believe that they would give a toss about who jumped in to help them.

By the bye Ron, you never did give me a time reference for "Al-Qaeda taking over Iraq" - Immediately? Short Term (5 - 10 years)? Long Term (10 - 20 years)?

"Iran has very good, defensive reasons to want to control the Persian Gulf" - Dianavan.

She most certainly has Dianavan, but if you believe that oil is expensive now, just wait until Iran controls the Persian Gulf.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:45 PM

Teribus--

Temper, temper, little man.

And I'm so sorry to tell you you're still wrong about the Saudis and al-Qaeda. You must be even less aware than I had thought not to realize that the current Saudi regime feels as much--or more-- under pressure from al-Qaeda as the US does.

When you look for simplistic interpretations of international affairs, you need look no further than your mirror.

Eventually you'll have to learn that there is a huge difference between al-Qaeda and the vast majority of Iraqi Sunnis--and the conduct of the former is making the gap a chasm.

I know you like to look at international relations in simple black and white terms. Shiites in Iraq good; Sunnis in Iraq: bad.

But if you ever hope to start to understand what's going on over there--and I'll have to say, your progress is painfully slow--you'll have to realize that most Sunnis want what most Shiites and Kurds want--peace and the improving economy that comes with it. The Sunnis in Iraq are not, contrary to your strongly held misconception, like the Nazis in Germany in 1945.

I repeat--and your sputtering in opposition, while mildly amusing, is somehow bereft of any facts: al-Qaeda will not be the beneficiary of any pro-Sunni moves by the Saudis.

And since no national state wants to support al-Qaeda, and neither Shiites, Kurds nor Sunnis in Iraq want to support it either--thanks to its thuggish "Puritanism"--there is no danger of al-Qaeda taking over in Iraq.

Therefore, the US can--and should--bring its combat troops home from Iraq--now-aside from in "Kurdistan" where they are wanted and serve the purpose of deterring any rash Turkish moves in trying to combat the PKK.

Your amorphous threats that this move will mean US self-destruction are somehow not convincing. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that your attitude is totally lacking in any factual basis or logic.

Or perhaps it's something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 09:06 PM

Well said, bobert.

teribus, just looking at the map tells me that Iran has very good, defensive reasons to want to control the Persian Gulf (at least those waters on their border). They have the most to lose by allowing anyone else to control it. They have a long history with Arab invaders and aren't about to give up anymore control of their land and their resources. They are constantly threatened by the Arabs and more recently, Israel and the U.S. There is a very good reason they prefer to be called Persians.

Try, if at all possible, to see both sides of the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:03 PM

"What Obama has said over and over is that in taking our eye off the real threat in Afganistan and invading Iraq we have left our country more vulnerable, not less..." - Bobert

Is that what he has said Bobert?? If so I am now more convinced than ever that this "Presidential hopeful" is definitely as stupid as "Peanut" Carter and a damn sight more dangerous.

"The real threat in Afghanistan"??? - What threat in Afghanistan Bobert? The reality of the situation is that you have in Afghanistan and along the Afghan/Pakistan Border a bunch of geriatrics hiding in holes in the ground. Osama Bin Laden is now an irrelevance, he has been for years, his confirmed death or capture has long since been relegated to the "nice-to-know" category.

In the aftermath of 911 all of the intelligence agencies and the entire security apparatus in the US were tasked with evaluating and identifying the greatest threat that existed in the world to the United States of America. Did they come up with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - No they did not. What did they come up with? - An asymetric attack on mainland US involving WMD provided to an international terrorist organisation by a rogue regime or government hostile to the USA. Please note Bobert I have not mention a specific weapon in the identification of that threat, I have not mentioned a specific international terrorist group in the identification of that threat and I have not mentioned a specific rogue regime of government in the identification of that threat.

If, journalist Ahmed Rashid stated, "If the US had stayed focused and used a fraction of the resources that it is spending in Iraq that Afganistan could have been turned around in 5 years". Then I would venture to suggest that Ahmed Rashid is talking out of his arse, and that he wants to sell his book to a bunch of impressionable prats who want to crow about how their President got it wrong - Unfortunately for Mr Rashid and the impressionable prats, your President hasn't made such a bad job of things according to latest figures and reports.

"Instead, the Taliban has resurged." - Really Bobert?? Does Ahmed Rashid provide any evidence of this resurgence? Chased out of the very last town they controlled in Afghanistan earlier this year, since the beginning of 2007 they have lost over 7000 men, in fact their losses are so damaging that they have given up direct attacks on ISAF and US Forces:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/01/military.afghanistan1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/2062440/Afghanistan's-Taliban-insurgents-'on-brink-of-defeat'.html

"Iraq has been a complete and utter failure from every perspective..." - Eh apart from the fact that things seem to be getting better and better every day Bobert - Oh Bummer!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:48 PM

What Obama has said over and over is that in taking our eye off the real threat in Afganistan and invading Iraq we have left our country more vulnerable, not less...

On a recent book by journalist Ahmed Rashid entitiled "Descent into Chaos" he says that if the US had stayed focused and used a fraction of the resources that it is spending in Iraq that "Afganistan could have been turned around in 5 years. Instead, the Taliban has resurged."

Iraq has been a complete and utter failure from every perspective...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:06 PM

Question 1 - "What 'country' do you think wants control of the Persian Gulf Region?"

Well quite a few down through the ages. Russia has longed for a warm blue water port since the time of Peter the Great, and post WWII they would have dearly loved to have enticed Iran or Iraq into being their puppets. The US spoilt their plans for Iran in 1953, and Saddam would have suited them had it not been for his rather reckless foreign adventures. More recently Iraq tried in 1980 when they attempted to knock out Iran, and currently Iran seeks to control the region.

Question 2 - "I would consider this 'backing', wouldn't you?"

Well no Dianavan I would call what your Wikipedia cut'n'pastes describes as mutual self-interest.

Question 3 - "who do you think backs al Qaeda?

Not a clue Dianavan but if you know please pass the info on otherwise you might find yourself in trouble. But my guess would be Sunni sympathisers around the World, Drugs, Guns, smuggling and extortion

Question 4 - "al Qaeda has most of its training grounds along the Afghan/Pakistani border."

Where they are losing over 7000 of them killed in Afghanistan since 2006. Where else are Al-Qaeda operating Dianavan - in Iraq where they have been driven out of every urban safe-haven that they had except Mosul and currently there is an operation in progress to deny them that city. Out in the countryside in Iraq Dianavan they will be like fish out of water, figures for Iraq Dianavan were over 4000 dead in 2007 alone. Al-Qaeda has been marginalised in Iraq they are firmly on the back foot and the same situation is coming to pass rapidly in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 01:02 PM

"US foreign policy and national interests align themselves with those of Saudi Arabia in that neither country wishes to see any one country in control of the Persian Gulf region."

What 'country' do you think wants control of the Persian Gulf Region?

"The United States and Saudi Arabia share a common concern about regional security, oil exports and imports, and sustainable development. Close consultations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have developed on international, economic, and development issues such as the Middle East peace process and shared interests in the Gulf. The continued availability of reliable sources of oil, particularly from Saudi Arabia, remains important to the prosperity of the United States as well as to Europe and Japan. Saudi Arabia is one of the leading sources of imported oil for the United States, providing more than one million barrels/day of oil to the U.S. The U.S. is Saudi Arabia's largest trading partner, and Saudi Arabia is the largest U.S. export market in the Middle East.

In addition to economic ties, a longstanding security relationship continues to be important in U.S.-Saudi relations. A U.S. military training mission established at Dhahran in 1953 provides training and support in the use of weapons and other security-related services to the Saudi armed forces. The United States has sold Saudi Arabia military aircraft (F-15s, AWACS, and UH-60 Blackhawks), air defense weaponry (Patriot and Hawk missiles), armored vehicles (M1A2 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles), and other equipment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had a long-term role in military and civilian construction activities in the Kingdom. The U.S., as part of the Gulf Security Dialogue with individual Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, has announced plans to sell advanced, primarily defensive, military equipment to GCC members, including Saudi Arabia, to support the efforts of these countries to increase their capacity for self-defense." - from Wiki

I would consider this 'backing', wouldn't you?

...and teribus, who do you think backs al Qaeda?

Its certainly not the Shiites.

In fact, teribus, al Qaeda has most of its training grounds along the Afghan/Pakistani border. Why not base your theories in reality instead of chasing phantom threats? It seems you are more interested in reputation than you are in reality.

When are you going to realize that playing alpha dog will not bring peace to the Middle East?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 05:52 PM

The make up of all the muslims in the world Dianavan is that 85% of them are Sunni and 15% are Shiia - If you then took a "representative" group of 100 muslims Dianavan how many would be Sunni and how many would be Shiia - Do the maths yourself.


"If the U.S. backs the Saudis" - Does the US back the Saudis Dianavan?

The Saudi's do not back Al-Qaeda, they have publically stated that they would back the Sunni minority in Iraq, matter of public record no secret there.

"The relationship between al Qaeda and the U.S.?" - That of quarry and hunter - so far the hunter has done quite well.

"If the Saudis back the Sunnis in Iraq, where were they when the U.S. ousted the Sunnis from control in Iraq?" - The US did not oust the Sunni's from control in Iraq Dianavan. The US ousted the Ba'athists from control in Iraq - Bit of a difference.

US foreign policy and national interests align themselves with those of Saudi Arabia in that neither country wishes to see any one country in control of the Persian Gulf region.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 01:39 PM

"I have already pointed out to Ron that out of any 100 representative group of muslims asked 85 will say that Al-Qaeda did it, 15 will say that the Medhi Army did it with the backing of Iran." - teribus

Where in the world did you come up with this little tidbit?

and teribus...

If the U.S. backs the Saudis and the Saudis back al Qaeda, what does that say about the relationship between al Qaeda and the U.S.?

If the Saudis back the Sunnis in Iraq, where were they when the U.S. ousted the Sunnis from control in Iraq? Your argument seems to support the idea that this is really a war between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. being fought in Iraq or has it become the U.S. and Saudi Arabia against Iran? Make up your mind. Either way, it makes no sense for the U.S. to be there. Let the Saudis fight their own wars. They make strange bedfellows. By your own account, its hard to know if they are friend or foe.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 06:44 AM

"Premature withdrawal from Iraq would presage a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan." - teribus

"Speculation on your part," - Dianavan

It most certainly is Dianavan, now examine the grounds for stating it as a possibility shall we:

- US cuts and runs from Iraq in order to satisfy the "Get them out NOW" brigade. How do you think that would effect Jihadist recruitment Dianavan?

- As the sectarian civil war erupts in Iraq, everybody and their dog will be claiming credit for having routed the mighty US. I have already pointed out to Ron that out of any 100 representative group of muslims asked 85 will say that Al-Qaeda did it, 15 will say that the Medhi Army did it with the backing of Iran.

- US runs the current military effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq from where Dianavan? CENTCOM at MacDill AFB, in Tampa, Florida, although a forward headquarters has been established at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar to serve American strategic interests of the Iraq region.

- I would say that with the US Forces out of Iraq, in such a way that it can be presented as a defeat to the people in the region, pressure will be on those small Emirates currently providing the US with base facilities in the area to withdraw their consent for those bases and request that the US remove themselves from their sovereign territory.

- Main air support facility for strikes into Afghanistan is where Dianavan?

- The US is going to keep Carrier Strike Groups and Amphibious Assault Groups in the Persian Gulf, Dianavan? If so for what reason?

- US now out of the Persian Gulf Region, their nearest base, or at least until 2016, would be Diego Garcia.

- Having been perceived to have been defeated in Iraq by Al-Qaeda, Dianavan. How would the people of Pakistan view that? What sort of stance would they want their Government to take?

- All operations in Afghanistan are totally reliant upon over-flight right of access, that can be withdrawn at any time.

- "From my point of view, if the U.S. had stayed in Afghanistan instead of expanding to Iraq, the war on terrorism would probably be over by now." - From your point of view Dianavan you were solidly against any action being taken in Afghanistan at all.

- "Withdrawl from Iraq could free U.S. troops to fight the terrorists on the Afghan/Pakistan border where we know they are trained." - So an army that has just been defeated in Iraq is going to be welcomed into another country in the region to do what Dianavan - lose again? Remembering of course that the US now has full-time "professional" armed forces, have you got any idea what the premature withdrawal from Iraq would do for morale throughout the armed services of the United States of America - Hint a similar retreat from Afghanistan in 1988 finished the Red Army - but they were conscripts. Can you explain to me why the US armed forces sent to Afghanistan would trust their "Commander-in-Chief" and Congress back home in the good ol' USofA not to leave them hanging out to dry the moment things began to look tough?

- "Don't you think this is more logical than fighting a phantom, al Qaeda, threat in Iraq?" - No I do not think it more logical, Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has been marginalised and are increasingly finding themselves being shut out in the cold. That has come about through the Sunni population turning against them, exactly as I told Ron Davies years ago. Al-Qaeda has found themselves in this position because they were sucked in to fighting battles on ground that was not of their choosing, they lost the initiative. Premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq hands the initiative back to them and the undoubted civil war that would ensue would give them every opportunity to repair their tarnished image in the eyes of the "Islamic" World.

Yes I think that if the US withdrew from Iraq they would also have to draw stumps in Afghanistan, the big question of course, the more important consideration, would be the extent to which nuclear armed Pakistan would be destabilised in the process - Another thing that General Davies has not considered.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 07:29 PM

Hey Ron my simplistic little international expert:

"as for your theory that because the majority of Islam is Sunni, they will make common cause with al-Qaeda: how popular is al-Qaeda with the Saudi regime? With the Egyptian regime? Etc." - The Saudi's said that they would support the Sunni's didn't they? They won't give a damn whose fighting alongside them Iran is their enemy.

Ever heard of that old dictum - The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Now to put that into perspective Ron. Saudi Arabia doesn't give a flyin' fuck about what happens in Iraq as long as Iran does not come out the winner. That you complete and utter pillock is why they are currently aligned with the US as far as general policy goes in the region - HAVEN'T YOU BLOODY GOT THAT - Or are you just too thick to realise it. The Sunni rulers of Saudi Arabia will not let the Sunnis in Iraq fail and will support whoever is fighting for them because unlike you Ron they are realists.

The basis of this realism stems from this fact - If the US withdraw from Iraq prematurely rather a large number of states within the region are in deep SHIT, now they realise that Ron - YOU on the other hand have not given it a minutes thought, you have been too busy abandoning US troops as a throw away gesture in "Kurdistan".

Hey Ron wake up smell the coffee - believe it or not pal - you - the United States of America - are in a fight for your lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan - It is a fight that you must win - acknowledge that reality and get to grips with it, or alternatively stand back and watch your own self destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:14 PM

"Premature withdrawal from Iraq would presage a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan." - teribus

Speculation on your part, teribus.

From my point of view, if the U.S. had stayed in Afghanistan instead of expanding to Iraq, the war on terrorism would probably be over by now. Withdrawl from Iraq could free U.S. troops to fight the terrorists on the Afghan/Pakistan border where we know they are trained. Don't you think this is more logical than fighting a phantom, al Qaeda, threat in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 11:54 AM

Still having problems with comprehension, eh Teribus?

To pick just one of your innumerable--I'm sorry to say--reasoning flaws:

"The Saudis will support the Sunnis". Uh, I never said they would not. But they will support the non-Al-Qaeda Sunnis--which is the overwhelming majority of Sunnis in Iraq. There are fewer al-Qaeda fans every day-- not because of any supposed success of the "surge" but because of how al-Qaeda treats its fellow Moslems. What do you think the so-called "Awakening" is?

Al-Qaeda will not be the beneficiary of any pro-Sunni feeling on the part of the Saudi regime.

Or perhaps you can come up with evidence that the Saudi government backs al-Qaeda. I can be patient. But good luck--you might possibly have a problem, since such evidence does not exist.

There is a difference--a huge difference between normal Iraqi Sunni citizens and al-Qaeda. That's what you don't seem to understand--though I've been trying to explain it to you for years.

Therefore there is no danger of Iraq being taken over by al-Qaeda. And US combat troops can--and should--leave "rump Iraq".

It's back to the library for you--and don't forget to research how propaganda works.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 10:33 AM

Ron, Oh, Ron, you are an absolute star

"The difference between Sunni and Shiite." - Well Ron you sure as hell don't know the difference, Ever worked out there Ron??? I have on a number of occasions

"Tens of thousands of Iraqis rallied against a proposal to keep US troops in Iraq after the UN mandate expires." - This signifies what exactly Ron - Don't struggle, I'll tell you - The Square Root of fuck-all.

"These protesters appear to be followers of al-Sadr. So tell me, how many are al-Qaeda?" - Wow!!! imagine that, staggers back in amazement - Eh Ron as followers of al-Sadr the Iraqi Government is not for one second going to pay the slightest attention to them - irrelevant.

"Face it--if "kudos" are to be shared for driving the US "prematurely" from Iraq, al-Qaeda, which is nominally Sunni, will have to share them with this group--which is Shiite." - Doesn't matter if it is shared Ron, or are you too dim to see that. I'll go over the basics again 1 to 1.8 billion muslims in the world, 85% are Sunni, 15% are Shiia, your premature withdrawal of US troops indicates that the "muslim lads" in Iraq have kicked US Ass big time, my take on that Ron old son is that out of 100 muslims round the wolrd 85 are going to give credit for that to Al-Qaeda and 15 are going to give it to al-Sadr and Iran. If in the ensuing civil war those numbers prove correct in terms of support then the Shiites lose - law of diminishing returns.

"And as for your theory that because the majority of Islam is Sunni, they will make common cause with al-Qaeda: how popular is al-Qaeda with the Saudi regime? With the Egyptian regime? Etc." - The Saudi's said that they would support the Sunni's didn't they? They won't give a damn whose fighting alongside them Iran is their enemy.

"Sounds like you still need to make that trip to your local library. After researching how propaganda works, you can study up on Islam." - Well Ron you sure as hell need to take your own advice, but instead of reading MSM try with a bit of original source material, take someone along that explain it to you andtake it from there.

"The situation in Iraq is not just a rivalry between Sunni and Shiite--perhaps you're unaware. In fact al-Qaeda has been relegated to the status of a bit player. Why? Because of the way they treat their fellow Moslems, trying to enforce their brand of Islamic Puritanism, as I said earlier. Do you need graphic examples?" - Well no Ron, go back to some of my earlier posts where I stated exactly what the Sunni Arabs in Iraq had to do to get onboard the political process - They have done just that. But if the US forces leave prematurely, it will revert to a Sunni Arab v Shiia Arab civil war, Al-Qaeda will come in on the Sunni side and the Iranians may or may not side with the Shiia, they'll have a hard time standing clear, but there is grave internal danger for them getting too involved.

"they (Al-Qaeda) are hated throughout the Islamic world" - hey Ron if they get you guys to scramble back to the god ol' USofA, they will be able to dine out on that until eternity.

"Therefore there is no reason for US combat troops to remain--as potential targets--in "rump Iraq"." - So I see that you have, quite sensibly abondoned your "Kurdistan" Garrison then General Davies, I am pleased about, it's the only shred of commonsense that you have shown in the whole discussion.

I'd still like to hear what your take is on the effects of "Get 'em out NOW" policy back home in the good ol' USofA. My take on the effects are that they would be profound and earth-shattering in terms of everything that you have come to depend upon.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 10:00 AM

Teribus--

Perhaps, like Mr. McCain, you don't understand the difference between Sunni and Shiite.

From the WSJ today: "Tens of thousands of Iraqis rallied against a proposal to keep US troops in Iraq after the UN mandate expires."

These protesters appear to be followers of al-Sadr. So tell me, how many are al-Qaeda?

Face it--if "kudos" are to be shared for driving the US "prematurely" from Iraq, al-Qaeda, which is nominally Sunni, will have to share them with this group--which is Shiite.

And as for your theory that because the majority of Islam is Sunni, they will make common cause with al-Qaeda: how popular is al-Qaeda with the Saudi regime? With the Egyptian regime? Etc.

Sounds like you still need to make that trip to your local library. After researching how propaganda works, you can study up on Islam. Then perhaps you'll start to make sense.

The situation in Iraq is not just a rivalry between Sunni and Shiite--perhaps you're unaware. In fact al-Qaeda has been relegated to the status of a bit player. Why? Because of the way they treat their fellow Moslems, trying to enforce their brand of Islamic Puritanism, as I said earlier. Do you need graphic examples?

As a result, they are hated throughout the Islamic world--and there is no chance they can take over in Iraq. Your scenario therefore fails to even start to meet the plausibility test.

Therefore there is no reason for US combat troops to remain--as potential targets--in "rump Iraq".

And you have given no good reason why they should.

Nice try.   

But you still need an actually plausible scenario.

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

500 Up never had one of those before

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:59 AM

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

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: 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 - 07:56 AM

Yes

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?