BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 01:15 PM

As a follow-up to Captain Ginger's observations above, I would be curious to get Dickey's and Teribus' opinion about Mark Antony's true feelings for Brutus:

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interréd with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar…. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it….
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral….
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man….
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me."





(from Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare...as if you didn't know that already)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 09:11 PM

TIA--

Don't try Shakespeare on Dickey. WAY over his head.


Dickey--

The obduracy (look it up) of you and Teribus has just crossed the border into pigheaded stubbornness.

Over and over I have told you--Bush did try to link Saddam to 9-11. Not directly--he did not try to say Saddam caused the attacks--but he did try to link the two. Why is that so hard to understand? "Drawing links" does not equal "caused"---but it plants the seed. Even you should be able to grasp that--there aren't even any big words.

"Caused" would have been too blunt. That's not the way propaganda works. As Capt. Ginger and I have tried manfully to make you see. But "there's none so blind as...."

Drawing links is definitely the way propaganda works.

You obviously have not the slightest clue. Once again, your local library needs to see you.

Sounds like you would have been an easy mark for Goebbels.





"I prefer facts...."

Uh, only problem is:   you're dead wrong in your "facts".

I have told you --repeatedly--- that the propaganda campaign lasted from about summer 2002 to March 2003. Why? I've told you that before also--but, taking your reading problem into account yet again--here's the story.

Before summer 2002 the focus was on Osama and Afghanistan. After March 2003 the campaign was over--since the goal of persuading the US public-- to back Bush's war on Iraq-- had been achieved. The invasion had taken place.

So neither your September 2001 poll nor your August 2003 poll are germane. As I've explained before.

So your argument---as usual---fails.

Congratulations, you maintain your perfect record of failure.

Sleep well.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 09:45 PM

But, Dickey and Teribus are honourable men!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 09:50 PM

I would never doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 02:00 AM

Ron will not state whether he believes his own assertions.

I am sure the has the honor to state what he believes in manfully but for some reason he does not.

He is manful and honorable enough to carry out a debate without using personal attacks as a crutch but he does not.

Here are your latest contradictions:

"So neither your September 2001 poll nor your August 2003 poll are germane. As I've explained before."

Where did you mention anything about the 2001 poll? You never explained anything about the 2001 poll before. That is a false statement.

You dodged it up to this point because you cannot explain why the 2001 poll is higher than the 2003 poll. Now rather than explain it which you can't, you claim it is not germane.

Your latest contradictions:

Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:11 PM "trying--skilfully--and very successfully--to draw links between 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam in the minds of the US public."

From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM "As I've said-- more than once, I believe-- it is clear to anyone who can think and read that Bush and co. did in fact carry out a campaign to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 during the above period"

connect, link, tie, link up (connect, fasten, or put together two or more pieces)

Just the use of 9-11 and Saddam in the same sentence was enough, in the minds of a fearful US public, to raise the connection

I do not see the words indirect or indirectly. You are adding this as usual, changing your assertions so you can disqualify the evidence.

At the same time you have no evidence to support your assertion other than to say no one can prove you are wrong. You fail to produce any numbers or stats in support of your assertion while striking out those of others.

Your it doesn't say this but it says that type of argument is nothing but your opinion of what it "really" says.

Now I am waiting for your next posting of personal insults in lieu if facts.

And you are to date, 100% unable to present any evidence to support your argument. That is most likely the reason you refuse to state that you believe them yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 03:05 AM

Dickey, your attention to detail would be admirable if you attended to the right detail. Unfortunately your casuistry, like a lot of ordnance, is rather wide of the mark.

I (and many far finer minds) believe that there has been an implicit attempt by the Bush administration to link 9/11 and Iraq; first in the person of Saddam and, now, to the insurgents. That's the bottom line.

For all your post hoc assertions that fewer in the US public believed this after Bush's pre-war claims were shown to be false, that doesn't go away. You can split as many hairs with Ron as you like, but it remains that the US administration tried to suggest a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Your continued clams to the contrary - while entertaining - are increasingly risibile and risk earning you same 'flat-earthers' foolscap that young Terry and DougR have worn with apparent pride for so long.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 03:41 AM

Still flappin' about Cap'n?

What you and all those "far finer minds" (Now come on Cap'n, don' you be 'ard on yersel' there can't be that many of them) believe, is purely opinion, not fact. Unfortunately Cap'n, just because you believe something don' make it so, a'ter all Cap'n, we 'ad all them folks in Nor'n Ireland believin' that they was protectin' the "people" but in so doin' killed 'em by the thousand, injured and maimed 'em by the tens of thousands - but fact was they was protectin' nobody was they?

And, now, now Skipper, both you and I 'ave been round the world too many times to know that it 'aint flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 04:36 AM

Thankfully, Terry, we have you to provide the facts, don't we? Freshly cherrypicked from Google on a daily basis without a care for provenance, then trimmed and polished to your satisfaction and posted here. Why, I'm surprised the whole western world doesn't listen to you - your powers of argument are so persuasive it would take a fool not to change his mind. But then everyone is out of step except you, aren't they?
Can you provide us with any fact which absolutely proves that there has been no implicit linking of 9/11 and Iraq by the neocons in the US administration and the media?
Thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 10:55 AM

!. Where was the proof that "fewer in the US public believed this after Bush's pre-war claims were shown to be false"?

2. Where is the proof that "it remains that the US administration tried to suggest a connection between 9/11 and Iraq."

Your argument is opinion and you try to defend it by claiming that facts to the contrary are false. Where are you facts other than to say "somebody sad there is a propaganda campaign" which in itself is a propaganda campaign.

I have not heard anybody anywhere on TV radio or in print say they were convinced by Bush that Saddam was involved with 9/11 or that he would be involved in future terrorist attacks.

All of the blame for bad information about WMD's is being placed on Bush in an attempt by others to exonerate themselves of any fault on their part.

If you prefer say so evidence by "finer minds"over facts, explain this:

On Jan. 29, 2001 the Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous — or more urgent — than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 12:14 PM

Dickey, ol' bean, you've lost me completely now. Calm down, take a deep breath and just try to write one sentence at a time!

You were flinging around opinion polls, one of which said fewer Americans believed Iraq was responsible for 9/11 in 200 and whenever than did in 2001. I gave a possible explanation as to why.
As for facts - well, my love, they are rarer than opinions in this thread. They're like Saddam's WMDs.That's why the Bush apologists prefer to deal in suggestions. And the suggestions of a connection are legion. Just Google "Iraq" and "9/11"; you'll find neocons in the administration and the media making implicit suggestions all over place.

Reread my posts, wipe your eyes, clear the froth from your lips and think, old chap, there's a dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 02:16 PM

'old 'ar there Cap'n, that there be a damn fine question or your'n. Mayhap it came about from you associatin' wi' them thar "finer minds". Y' know what they says Cap'n, "Throw enough cow shit at a barbed wire fence - some of its goin' to stick". Now what was that there question agin' Cap'n? Oh yes:

"Can you provide us with any fact which absolutely proves that there has been no implicit linking of 9/11 and Iraq by the neocons in the US administration and the media?"

Now Cap'n would that there implicit linking be the type where stuff gets linked together like when they "neocons in the US administration" when axed by them thar media types if Iraq had anythin' to do with 9/11, and them "neocons in the US administration" says, "Lord luv us, no, no such thing." That the sort of thing you be alludin' to Cap'n. Cause if so, since them thar events of 9/11, I've heard them thar "neocons in the US administration" come out wi' such-like on loads of occasions. So many times, Cap'n, that it makes the likes of us poor simple sailors wonder when them thar media types is goin' to stop askin' questions of them thar "neocons in the US administration" that they already have answers to. Could them that media types be a trifle 'ard of 'earin' Cap'n?

Oh, by the bye, Cap'n, seein' as how you mentioned thinkin'. Remember what that fella said who taught you to ride that horse, "Leave the thinking to the horse Captain Ginger, it's got a bigger head". Good advice if'n you don't mind me sayin' so Cap'n. Mind you mixin' with all those "far finer minds" must get your family's brain cell overheated every now and then.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 02:41 PM

Terry, poppet, you're becoming a tad incomrehensible. I'm hearing shades of dear Robert Newton with a few too many yo-ho-hos and bottles of rum. Maybe it's time to let the parrot on your shoulder have a say in the thread - in English this time.
Anyway - and do forgive me if I've misread your last post, I was momentarily distracted by some cove asking me to give a black spot to Blind Pugh - I'd suggest this; ask someone a direct question and (one hopes) they'll respond with an approximation of the truth, however mumbled, muttered and evasively delivered. Give 'em a soapbox, however, and dear old Dame Truth is left looking rather threadbare.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 11:10 PM

Dickey--

Here's a bit of unfinished business.

Remember I asked you to tell me which of the following was the stronger denial. You must have forgotten to do so--more pressing matters-- like pillaging old data bases for more red herring--must have distracted you.

But here they are again--an occasion for a little lesson in propaganda for you--in case you don't make that library visit soon.

I have to say I'm rather pleased by the way the second one came out -- (not that I endorse the sentiment, of course)--though I must acknowledge my debt to Mr Blair--in the 31 Jan 2003 press conference you are so proud of--for some of the phrasing.



By way of illustration--showing how context can drastically undercut a statement:

Is Dickey an amazingly credulous right-wing fool who has not the foggiest notion how propaganda works, and should know better than to joust with his clear intellectual superiors--who can and do ridicule him at every opportunity and slash his feeble arguments to ribbons effortlessly?

1) No, you're completely wrong.

2) I can't make that claim. The one thing I would say however, is that we have never yet seen him make an argument which any rational person would accept. Because, you know, it appears Dickey has just a passing acquaintance with a dictionary, has just discovered how a calendar works, and parrots uncritically the current Bushite line--whatever it happens to be. And he seems to think that he can take a statement out of context and never be challenged by his debate opponents.

Now it should be obvious which of these is the stronger denial. Obviously the first--and it should be extended by something along the lines of "Dickey is in fact quite astute, politically aware, well-read, and easily able to hold his own in any discussion."

The second is supposedly a denial. But, as Capt Ginger has pointed out "I can't make that claim" is a very weak denial--implying that at some point in the future I may be indeed able to make the claim.

But it's what follows which demolishes the "denial"--listing some weaknesses which Dickey allegedly has--with no examples given to back up the allegations.

Hence a "denial" which in fact is fatally weakened by what comes after--planting in the reader the idea that the writer actually believes what he says he denies.

Point being: this is analogous to what Bush and Blair did in the press conference of 31 Jan 2003.

While ostensibly finally severing any ties between Saddam and the 11 Sept 2001 attacks--and thereby implying to the audience that they need have no fear that Saddam would be involved in anything similar---Blair actually, in the very next paragraph goes on to speculate--in fact to blatantly predict--that Saddam will link up with the next 11 Sept 2001--style terrorists. Thereby strongly associating the 11 Sept 2001 attacks with Saddam in the minds of his audience.

By chance? If you think so, I still have that bridge I can offer you--at a knockdown price--(as soon as I take Teribus' name off it).
--
This is one of the ways propaganda works---and the Bush regime used it extensively-- (another example being Teribus' favorite Meet the Press-- with Cheney--18 Sept 2002.) Again a "denial" fatally undercut by what followed immediately. Teribus loves the first sentence by Cheney--something to the effect of "I can't say that". But for some reason he chooses to gloss over what follows immediately--which again severely weakens "I can't say that".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 11:28 PM

The Cheney "Meet the Press" was from 8 Sept 2002 (not 18 Sept).

And the actual quote--Teribus' pride and joy-- by Cheney is: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that."

However, in the very next paragraph, Cheney goes on to detail several possible connections between Saddam and 9-11.

For some inexplicable reason, Teribus has never been quite as enthusiastic about that part of Cheney's answer. Can't understand why.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 03:02 AM

Ron:

As I said before you wrote some denials in the name of "we" as if you are authorized to speak for someone else. Am I supposed to pick the larger untruth or the lesser untruth?

Answer: neither of the above

Tell me which is the more obtuse, Ron Davies or Catpain Ginger?

You can continue your lesson in propaganda, you are well experienced in it yourself.

I see you are getting so worked up and desparate that you are ratcheting up your personal attack method of trying to prove that your dream is reality. Maybe soon you can confess what you beleive.

As of the present, you don't believe your own arguments and I am in agreement with you there because I do not believe them either.

Captain:

After reading you confused and inconclusive reasoning, you have lost me too. Perhaps some clear eyed reading of this, which is you favorite form of "evidence" will give you the clear unconfused picture you seek:

On Jan. 29, 2001 the Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous — or more urgent — than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 07:13 AM

The process Ron is called "Sorting the wheat from the chaff". Not only are you totally incapable of doing that, you actually accept whatever chaff others tend to add without, by your own admission, bothering to read, or listen to the original text.

Now then Ron the Cheney "Meet the Press" interview you refer to in your post. Just to let everybody know:

1) What was the subject of the interview, what was the topic under discussion?

2) Had that matter been investigated fully, or was it still under investigation?

3) What was the question that Cheney answered, "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that."

4) What was the date again that Cheney made that clear denial? I take it that you accept that Cheney at that time was a senior member of the Bush Administration.

You have singularly failed to put forward any form of rational arguement to support your case - Guest Dickey on the other hand has done so comprehensively. Witter on Ron, continue with your personal attacks, all they do is illustrate the weakness of your arguement.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 11:27 AM

Now I know that Ron is not going to provide the information requested, so here is the part of the interview that Ron says I am so reluctant to bring into the broad light of day:

From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:

Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"

Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

Russert then asked on the 2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did APPARENTLY travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least ONE OCCASION, we have REPORTING that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi Intelligence Official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, WAS HE THERE OR WASN'T HE THERE, again, it's the intelligence business."
Russert: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?"
Cheney: "It's credible. But, you know, I THINK A WAY TO PUT IT WOULD BE IT'S UNCONFIRMED AT THIS POINT."

The big difference between us Ron, is that I find it incredibly easy to understand what the Dick Cheney is saying in that interview. You apparently do not.

The timing of the interview is within the time period in which you claim that no member of the Bush Administration categorically denied that any link between the 911 attacks and Iraq. Well Ron in the course of that interview broadcast on 8th September, 2002, any member of the American population listening to the programme would have heard Dick Cheney say on two occasions that there was no link between the 911 attacks and Iraq.

It is obvious from what your Vice-President is saying that the subject of Atta's visits to Prague are still very much under investigation - that Ron, is why he has to be careful about how he answers the question. The outcome of that investigation is as yet not known, therefore there was nothing in this "new information" that would prompt the Vice-President from changing his mind about the answer he gave on 16th September, 2001:

"Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

That was broadcast on 8th September, 2002 Ron - Now what part of that answer (No) do you not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 04:02 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
86.138.172.84 Date: 02 Feb 07 - 03:55 PM

Teribus...Do you ever get the feeling that there's nobody there?

Listen, hear how quiet it is....nothing but the soft sound of one hundred tiny snores.

The joke's over, theres no more milage in this subject, the GUESTS have all gone and this place has reverted to a geriatric social club.

Teribus, get out your Zimmer and dive in.....Ake

---

Christ! that was me.....Not Christ, me Ake!

Hope somebody doesn't scrub my post.
I suppose technically I'm a dreaded guest...Isn't it a lot of pish...

---

This is getting bloody ridiculous!!
I've had my post scrubbed, because I forgot to login.
Joe... I had my name tag at the bottom could you put my post back please?

It's the only decent thought I've had all week!...and it has an important message for Teribus, who seems on the verge of losing his marbles...Ake

---

deleted messages copied and pasted in here.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 02:45 AM

It's gone quiet Ake because Ron & Co have run out of road, just like they did on the original "propaganda campaign" thread.

Having shifted ground and moved the goalposts three times, Ron & Co have still not managed to come up with anything that supports their contention.

"It's the only decent thought I've had all week!...and it has an important message for Teribus,"

What Ake, you mean the only decent thought apart from your "Tormenting Teribus" mail. Can't remember who said it, but it was something about "Getting attacked by Geoffrey Howe in Parliament is like being mauled by a dead sheep". Being subject to "Tormenting" at the hands of such as yourself falls into the same category. If all you can contribute to the thread Ake is a personal attack then that tends to reinforce the point I have made above.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 07:13 AM

It wasn't a personal attack Teribus, in fact I admire your indefatigability.

But grinding the spirit out of the discussion by posting dozens of "facts" which are open to different interpretations, doesn't seem like much of a contribution to me.

This being a forum designed to appeal to lovers of a "higher form" of music, one would think that the arguments might contain more in the way of original thought.

However as I still believe your stance to be one big joke on your part, I suppose your tactics serve the purpose admirably.

    Meeeeeeeh!!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 07:27 AM

And by the way Teribus, there is only one "contention" which really matters.
The war has been a disaster for the Iraqis and for the West,and a recruiting sergeant for Islamic fundamentalists....As "Ron & Co" pointed out well before this madness started....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 04:46 PM

Thank you for that breath of fresh air, akenaton. You may, however, be wasting your fragrance on the desert air.
For myself, I have to confess dis town is wearisome sometimes, particularly when it comes to slapping down young Terry's excesses. There's a list of questions as long as a gibbon's arm that he's refused to answer, and yet each time he comes back with another finely crafted tissue of farragoes. He really is one of life's great procrastinators, tirelessly grinding out piffle to justify the unjustifiable like some diligent little reichssekretärin...
And yet...
And yet, however, I do believe that the wee lad's on the verge of the big one.
If the Patent Office and certain investors smile on our little matelot, he'll be bothering us no longer and will instead be sharing mutton pies with the great and the good. It appears that, between shifts on the forecourt, young Terence has perfected a foolproof technique for extracting sunbeams from cucumbers. Watch this space!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 05:21 PM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 07:32 PM

The presence of U.S. troops are only fuelling sectarian violence.

How is sending more troops to Bagdhad going to stop a truck with a ton of explosives?

Who is going to protect the Kurds and the Turkomen in Kirkuk?

I think Iraq needs the help of the Iranian army and while I do not agree with the religion of the Mullahs, I find the ongoing civil war totally unacceptable. Let Maliki and al Sistani deal with it in their own way.

A hasty retreat is long past due.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 07:44 PM

oops - forgot to provide a link re: Baghdad an Kirkuk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6391788,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 07 - 03:18 AM

Absolutely priceless, the last six posts, from which we get:

Akenaton - Personal attack

Carrots - Meaningless tripe

Dianavan - Totally in favour of of welcomong another army of occupation into Iraq.

Hilarious, but bloody alarming to think that these people may be "educated" adults.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 07 - 03:31 AM

"welcoming"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 07 - 03:34 AM

Only because the Iranian Army knows the territory and understands the culture. None of which can be said about the U.S. or the Brits.

Besides that, Maliki is already supported by al Sistani. Maliki only pays lip service to Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 04 Feb 07 - 04:10 PM

"Iraq needs the help of the Iranian army"

Brilliant.

Iraq already has the help of Iran, wanted or not, to exterminate the Sunnis and drive out the US and take control of the government.

I fact Iran is most of the problem.

Revision of Iran's Middle East Policy Is Long Overdue
"By Nader Habibi Payvand's Iran News 2/2/07

Iran's current Middle East policy includes several key elements:
a) support for Hizbollah and Hamas,
b) strategic alliance with Syria,
c) close ties with several Shi'a factions in Iraq,
d) assistance to Shi'a militant groups,
e) opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace initiative and support for armed struggle against Israel,
f) opposition to the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and other Arab countries. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 04 Feb 07 - 04:38 PM

Oh, Terry - I seem to recall your being adamant that in no way was the Iraq problem anything like a civil war.
In the light of the current US intelligence appraisals, would you care to add that to the list of issues you refuse to discuss, my little evasive poppet?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 07 - 04:39 PM

No fear of confusing your good self with an educated adult Teribus, I think you may have found your niche with "Dickey".
"Dickey" by name and dickey by nature.

It is unusual however to find two deniers of what has been clearly a gigantic political blunder, posting in the same forum.

I can't understand your position, if you really have one.
Everything which the anti -war crowd warned would happen has come to pass; and at a time when the West is vying with China for political influence, we scupper our credibility by our actions in Iraq.

Even putting the best possible spin on it and supposing that it was necessary to react strongly to the criminal actions of 9/11, our choice of target was abysmal.
In fact we have scored a direct hit on our own credibility.

Allthis sits beside the deathand destruction caused by our ill-considered actions actions..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 05 Feb 07 - 12:06 PM

With Terry and Dickey, we've almost got a quorum for the Flat-Earth Society.
Bless 'em. And, let's face it, this place would be much duller if everyone agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 12:27 AM

Would the all knowing, all seeing peace mongers here please outline what they believe the current state of affairs would be if Sadam Hussein had not been toppled?

Emphasis on believe so we know you are sincere.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 02:58 AM

US Intelligence Assessment Point 1:
"A US intelligence assessment on Iraq says "civil war" accurately describes CERTAIN ASPECTS of the conflict, including intense sectarian violence.

**However the report, compiled by US security agencies, adds that the controversial term does not adequately sum up the complexity of the situation.**

The National Intelligence Estimate gives a bleak assessment of Iraq's future unless the violence is stemmed.

The White House described the report as "tough but fair".

The document uses "civil war" to describe elements of the conflict, including "the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence and population displacements".

"However, the report points out that the conflict also includes Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and widespread violence by criminals."

Note the use of the word "conflict" Carrots, does not refer to that conflict as "civil war", although some it describes some aspects are LIKE a "Civil War". There is a difference.

US Intelligence Assessment Point 2:
"US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the term "civil war" over-simplified the situation."

One of the bits that our good Cap'n, omitted to mention.

US Intelligence Assessment Point 3:
"US national security adviser Steve Hadley said the report was "a tough look at Iraq", but did not contradict the president's plans to send 21,500 additional troops."

I hope all the Democratic Party hopeful's for Presidential Nominations are paying attention, after which ever one is elected, he/she will find themselves as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA.

US Intelligence Assessment Point 4:
"The document argued against a quick withdrawal of US troops, saying it would fracture the Iraqi army, strengthen al-Qaeda elements in the country and significantly increase violence."

I believe the above has always been one of my contentions, certainly not a view held by the anti-Bush lobby.

US Intelligence Assessment Point 5:
"The report - the first National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in more than two years - also says Iran and to a lesser extent Syria are contributing to a worsening of the situation."

These are the people that Dianavan wants the Iraqi's to invite in to solve Iraq's problems - Best check with the Lebanese with regard to what sort of "help" you get from the Ba'athist regime currently in power in Syria.

So all-in-all Carrots nothing much there to make me change my mind as to whether or not Iraq has "slipped" into a state of "civil war" - it hasn't, could do, but it hasn't as yet.

Good question asked there by Guest Dickey, be interesting to see what, if any, response he gets to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 03:18 AM

Terry, I don't think you've hear me calling for an immediate withdrawal of US troops, have you?
Such a move would indeed precipitate bloodshed on a dreadful scale. Having completely wrecked the infrastructure, failed to install an effective administration and factionalised thousands with its disastrous invasion, the US has no option but to hang on and try to clean up the mess it has created.
It will cost the lives of many more American youngsters, and man, many more Iraqis, and the standing of the US internationally will remain at a nadir for many years to come, but it's tough shit for the Bush administration.
The only hope that I can see is for a new administration to make a 'clean break' with the infantile policies of the Bush presidency and hope that various factions can be brought to negotiate a settlement which will enable, eventually, US troops to come home without creating a bloody mess.
Such a move will have to involve the wider Middle East, and particuarly address the legitimacy of Hamas, the continued funding of Israel, perceived bellicocity towards Iran and the toadying to a vile Saudi regime.
Quite simply, the US has to persuade the world that it really doesn't want to swagger across the globe like a testosterone-fuelled LAPD cop swinging a night-stick, invoking Christianity and denigrating differing viewpoints in pursuit of nothing more than its own self-interest.
Such shows of military machismo may give chairborne warriors like Terry and Dickey a bit of a stiffy, but they don't do much for the poor sods involved.
The US has to wake up and work with the UN instead of pissing on it from a great height. To start spending money on aid rather than weapons. And to sever once and for all the ties between policy-makers and the neo-cons who dragged the country into this mess in the first place.
It is rather sad how the rest of the world regards the USA now, and it's an attitude that brings out the worst in the redneck element - 'We don't want to be liked by faggot liberals...we're the boss...' and other pathetic posturings seem to have become all too common.
Interesting to see what the Chinese make of it in the medium to longer term.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:30 AM

No comment or answer for Guest Dickey's question then Carrots?

As to your rant:

"I don't think you've hear me calling for an immediate withdrawal of US troops, have you?"

True - Now who said that YOU did?

"Having completely wrecked the infrastructure,"

That was done during "Desert Storm" by Coalition Forces and further worsened by Saddam Hussein in its aftermath. The 2003 campaign targeted very little of the infrastructure of Iraq due mainly to the fact that the MNF commanders knew that they would rely on such to be intact and in place in order that their own troops could use it - that was not the case during Desert Storm, such use was not envisaged.

"...failed to install an effective administration"

Sorry old son that was not and never was to be the job of the US, that was something that the Iraqi people had to do for themselves. Many anti-war protesters on this forum are down on record as saying thet the CPA was here to stay, when that passed into history as predicted and on time, the next cry was that the "puppet" Interim Government of Iraq would remain in place and do the bidding of the USA, a constitution was drafted and approved and finally democratic elections were held (According to Jimmy Carter) and an Iraqi Government was elected to replace the Interim Government - Not to point out the obvious, Carrots, but it is their job to install an effective administration.

"...and factionalised thousands with its disastrous invasion,"

Iraq was factionalised at its inception - period. Saddam Hussein held it together in latter years by killing on average between 154 and 282 Iraqi's every day, the country was united by terror.

"...the US has no option but to hang on and try to clean up the mess it has created."

I believe that has always been completely understood from day one and has been accepted by anybody who has got any clue as to what this has been about (I believe that my own prediction on timescale was somewhere between 15 to 20 years).

"It will cost the lives of many more American youngsters, and many, many more Iraqis,"

Possibly.

"....and the standing of the US internationally will remain at a nadir for many years to come, but it's tough shit for the Bush administration."

And where was it before Carrots? I once asked before could you see anybody attempting a Tehran Embassy heist today? With Jimmy Carter as President, I'm amazed that it didn't happen every week. Another couple of questions for you Carrots, how many US Embassies have been bombed since 911? When and how many were bombed before 911? ANYBODY on earth now knows for certain that NOBODY can attack, or threaten to attack the United States of America with impunity, because they clearly understand that retribution will follow fast and hard.

"The only hope that I can see is for a new administration to make a 'clean break' with the infantile policies of the Bush presidency and hope that various factions can be brought to negotiate a settlement which will enable, eventually, US troops to come home without creating a bloody mess."

As has been clearly pointed out on this thread, the identification of Iraq as a potential threat to the US and the desirability of Regime Change in Iraq, where all inherited from the previous Clinton Administration. The attacks of 911 and the subsequent re-evaluation of threat caused the current President to do something about Iraq. He went to the UN, telling them very clearly, you act to resolve all outstanding matters or we will do it without you.

"..the legitimacy of Hamas,"

Until such time as Hamas unequivocally recognises Israel's right to exist, no-one can recognise the legitimacy of Hamas, as Israel, as a sovereign state, is recognised by the UN and is protected by the Charter of the United Nations - The ball is in their (Hamas's) court and has been for over a year now, high time that the "leadership" of Hamas started demonstrating and implementing some (leadership, that is).

"The US has to wake up and work with the UN instead of pissing on it from a great height."

Eh? No, Carrots - It is high time that the UN, or more correctly, the member states of the UN should get their noses out of the trough and start the attempt of living up to the ideals of the organisation that they are so keen to be a member of. Kofi Annan - Darfur - greatest single human tragedy facing mankind - that said how many years ago Carrots? - Now exactly what has the UN done about it? - Damn all, and it's not going to do anything either.

"It is rather sad how the rest of the world regards the USA now,"

Very little difference really Carrots, there are a few who have realised the massive contribution that the US in the past has contributed to the freedom of the world, there have been the same few who have given the USA credit for the contributions made to various disasters. There have always been more who denigrated the US and attempted to pull it down, pointing to the thousands killed because of US "meddling", while quietly ignoring the millions killed because of Soviet or Chinese Communism "meddling" during the "cold war" era. The USA has always been envied, Carrots, often hated even, but please don't ever kid yourself that it has ever been loved by the world.

"Interesting to see what the Chinese make of it in the medium to longer term."

Certainly interesting Carrots, if it were the US cosying up to the "dictators" of Africa and elsewhere, the likes of Ron Davies, Dianavan and yourself would be up in arms about it - OK for China though, as somehow that is to the detriment of the USA and should be universally welcomed.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 10:29 AM

So, Terry, it looks like we agree that the infrastructure is f*cked, that there is no effective administration, that the place is hideously factionalised, that the death toll looks likely to rise inexorably and that the US looks like being bogged down for years to come with few friends in the region.
Well, apart from that, you think the Iraq adventure has been a jolly good thing, eh? America is now secure from attack, wash hands, toys away, Endex, eh? The operation was a complete success. Unfortunately the patient died.

In answer to Dickey's question, I simply don't know. Unlike you, I don't have an opinion on everything, My knowledge is finite.
I could be a smart-arse and say 'it depends' when trying to say what Iraq would be like if there had been no invasion; it depends on the sanctions, on whether or not the US engaged properly with the UN (instead of pissing on it from a great height), on Saddam's health, on the oil for food programme, on the corruption of a host of American and European parasites involved in the programme, on Ahmedinejad...on a host of things.
I really don't know.
What I do know is that the neo-cons' plans for Iraq appear to have gone well and truly awry because no twat in the administration actually thought things through beyond the military phase. Lots of enthusiasm for the bangs and bombs and things that dampen your gusset, but not a lot of thought as to consequences.
Anyway, it's nice to agree on something once in a while poppet.
Pip pip!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 11:00 PM

Iraq PM urges start to Baghdad crackdown

"...Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki complained Tuesday the long-awaited Baghdad security operation was off to a slow start and warned that insurgents are taking advantage of the delay to kill as many people as possible..."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 10:41 AM

No Carrots, I'm afraid we don't agree on much at all:

"...we agree that the infrastructure is f*cked,"

Correction, the infrastructure WAS f*cked, it is now in the process of being restored and improved upon, but that doesn't hit the headlines does it Carrots? And the likes of yourself ignore the information when presented with it. All this restoration and improvement was something that seemed to have slipped Saddam's priority list in the eleven post Desert Storm years he had gathering in the oil revenue of Iraq through the smuggling operations that he was running. That netted him a tidy sum that he spent on what Carrots?

Food? - No
Medicine? - No
Medical supplies? - No
Civil Engineering Projects (Infrastructure)? - No
Circumventing UN Sanctions? - Yes
Harassing and deceiving the UN Inspectors? - Yes
Purchasing weapons? - Yes
384 Rocket Motors? - Yes
Numerous Presidential Palaces (Immune from UNSCOM inspection)? - Yes
Creation, Training and Arming of a Special Security Force (Fedaheen Saddam)? - Yes

"...that there is no effective administration,"

Well Carrots, show me somwhere that has an effective administration. I know you rabbit on a bit about China and it's glories and aspirations, but when all said and done you wouldn't get thousands of people standing in lines to try and get into China would you? I don't think that they have much of an illegal alien problem? In fact if memory serves me correctly from my time out in Hong Kong it was quite the reverse, the Communist Chinese Authorities seemed to have a great deal of trouble keeping their people in.

"...the place is hideously factionalised,"

Stating the obvious Carrots, it has been fractionalised, hideously or not, since 1922. Not such a bad thing though Carrots, the UK has been hideously fractionalised for a damn sight longer than that, but we still manage to rub along don't we?

"...that the death toll looks likely to rise inexorably"

Ah yes Carrots the blinding truth of it? as your mother came to term Carrots you could be given two cast iron guarantees:
1) You will be born.
2) You will die.

"...and that the US looks like being bogged down for years to come with few friends in the region."

As has always been the case, or hadn't you noticed Carrots?

"Well, apart from that, you think the Iraq adventure has been a jolly good thing, eh? America is now secure from attack, wash hands, toys away, Endex, eh? The operation was a complete success. Unfortunately the patient died."

I see that you have adopted the "fellow travellers" habit of putting words into other peoples mouths then taking them to task over them. Ron Davies did it much better, old fruit, didn't have any effect though, added nothing to his line of reasoning once exposed for what it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 12:43 PM

Christ on a bike Terry, two days and that's all you can manage?!? I wouldn't mind, but you've fudged, ducked and refused to answer a whole host of other questions, so I expected better of you this time.
*tsk*.
Must try harder, flower.
But, hey, the way you describe the place, Terry, the new Iraq does sound like a paradise on Earth, what with all the reconstruction, the good government, the lack of violence and the overall feelgood factor! When are you moving out there, old fruit? There are plenty of empty properties, and some of them even have water and electricity for a few hours a day.
You really, really don't get it, do you. I personally know five people who have spent upwards of three months in Iraq over the past three years. Three are in the military, one in the police and one is a civilian.
Two of them still believe that it was right to invade and topple Saddam, but even they think we have f*cked up hugely in the aftermath.
And would you believe that none of them shares your rosy view? They are all of the opinion that no serious thought was given to what to do with Iraq when the Saddam was overthrown, and that major mistakes have been made. They all see the situation getting worse, not better. More and more reconstruction money is going on security and less on infrastructure. A security system where the police themselves are acting as gangsters and kidnappers and carrying out sectarian murders on a scale that makes Northern Ireland look like a Quaker haven.
But, hey, perhaps you are able to take a loftier view by virtue of the infinitely more valid experience of polishing your arse while Googling official press releases. After all, actually talking to people involved in Iraq would ruin your objectivity, wouldn't it?
Judging from your comments, can I assume that you really would try to play your fantasist's joker and argue that Iraq is in better shape and a safer place to live now than it was in 2002?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 10:11 PM

"I prefer facts like that poll that shows the the number of people believing there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 went down during the time of the supposed propaganda campaign instead of up."


...Cutted and pasted just to point out that this bit of silliness, at least, has been abandoned for the past week. There may be a tiny shred of comprehension in two quite unexpected places.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 08:17 AM

Talking of fudging the issue and ducking things:

Question 1:
"All this restoration and improvement was something that seemed to have slipped Saddam's priority list in the eleven post Desert Storm years he had gathering in the oil revenue of Iraq through the smuggling operations that he was running. That netted him a tidy sum that he spent on what Carrots?"

No answer from the font of all wisdom and rational thinking - Question ducked.

Question 2:
"Well Carrots, show me somewhere that has an effective administration."

No answer to this one either - Question ducked.

Couldn't care less how many people you "know" who have been in Iraq, I take it that your point of view would dictate that their opinions are much more relevant than people that I know who have served in both Iraq and in Afghanistan and are currently there now.

Fact still remains old fruit, that during Saddam's time around 3,000,000 people fled the regime and the country was held together by unbridled terror. No matter how bad things might appear to be viewed through the eyes of the western media which is predominantly anti-American and always has been, for the average Iraqi there now exists the prospect that things are going to get better, that is something that they have never known before. With Saddam left in place things were only ever going to get a damn sight worse, particularly when you considered the likely line of succession.

Had nothing been done about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, if the world had followed the UN's course of abandonment of responsibility, sanctions would have disappeared long ago, Iran's nuclear programme would have triggered a second Iran/Iraq war and the region would be in flames. Please don't chatter on about the UN's weapons inspectors being "allowed" to do their jobs, without first giving credit to the man who got them invited back into Iraq - George W Bush. Hell would have frozen over before they would have been allowed back in if that invitation had been left up to the Government of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 11:44 AM

Q 1: Self aggrandisement and all the wrong things. Much like Ceaucescu.
Q 2: In terms of keeping its population protected and providing a reasonable infrastructure, any country in Western Europe, the USA, Scandinavia, Australia. You name me anywhere in the developed world more dangerous to live than Iraq.

And if you do know people serving in Iraq, why don't you ask them if things are getting better or worse instead of selectively regurgitating partisan press releases Googled from the web? My friends are pretty candid in their views that things have got significantly worse since 'Mission Accomplished'.
As for your confident predictions, let's wait and see, eh Nostradamus? Your track record on predictions hasn't been too good to date, but there's always a first time.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 01:41 PM

Why restrict it to the "developed" World Carrots? Or do you feel that if situations are compared taking the whole of the world into consideration, the examples you seek might throw up the names of a few places where the UN has failed completely.

Darfur? one hell of a lot more people have been killed and displaced there compared to Iraq. Somalia? even the elected government cannot take its place because it is too dangerous. DRC? Rwanda? Ivory Coast? Sierra Leone? Nepal? All shining examples of what the United Nations can accomplish.

No matter how bad things might appear to be viewed through the eyes of the western media which is predominantly anti-American and always has been, for the average Iraqi there now exists the prospect that things are going to get better, that is something that they have never known before. That Carrots is an improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 03:48 PM

"for the average Iraqi there now exists the prospect that things are going to get better, that is something that they have never known before. That Carrots is an improvement."
What a load of bollocks!!
Do you include Iraqi women in that statement, do you include religious minorities?
Would you like to live in an Islamic republic? because whether you like to admit it or not ,that is what we have created...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 04:16 PM

Well said, Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 04:33 PM

Aye, Teribus should stick to doctored "facts".
When he starts on the old philosophy his VPL starts to show....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 05:04 PM

Trouble is, the silly little poppet can only repeat what he's read in press releases; you can't really blame him. It's a bit like rebuking a parrot for profanity.
Dear Terry hasn't yet grasped that the 'official' line isn't always the right one. Perhaps it has to do with 'issues' concerning discipline as a child.
Shall we play a little game - let's find all the questions that Terry finds too embarrassing to answer.
For starters - how many blank bullets in a firing squad, Tel?
(more tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow...)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 08:53 PM

akenaton - 08 Feb 07 - 03:48 PM

You have obviously not read the constitution that the Interim Iraqi Government drew up and agreed.

As to living in an Islamic Republic, I believe that it is the clearly stated aim of OBL that we should all be living in an Islamic Caliphate subject to Sharia Law, as I have told you before - Over my dead body.

akenaton - 08 Feb 07 - 04:33 PM

Which "facts" were doctored?

Captain Ginger - 08 Feb 07 - 05:04 PM

Why restrict it to the "developed" World Carrots?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 11:02 PM

Evidently the all knowing, all seeing, Monday morning quarterbacking Peace mongers here do not know what Iraq would be like right now if Saddam were still in power.

Perhaps they can tell us what they believe the state of affairs will be in Iraq if the US pulls out immediately.

Again, don't skip the "I beleive" part.