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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:17 AM

Excessive use of upper case? HORRORS!

"You refuse to answer - aha - I've won!" RD's tactics in a nutshell.

A pyrrhic is a metrical foot used in formal poetry. It consists of two unaccented, short syllables.

Perhaps the Captain can put aside his facetiousness long enough explain how to prove a negative.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:15 AM

"Maliki took the cool billion and the troops and handed the operation and the money over to Chalabi."

Source please.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:27 AM

You can't prove a negative. That's why it has always been absurd for the war supporters to claim that it is "unproven" that Saddam did *not* have W's of MD.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:32 AM

Please explain that to Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:39 AM

The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage

The following is a sampling of articles published by The Times about the decisions that led the United States into the war in Iraq, and especially the issue of Iraq's weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:51 AM

Iraq claims success with drop in deaths

By KIM GAMEL
Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Baghdad security operation has been under way less than three weeks, but it already has registered a success: a sharp drop in the number of bullet-riddled bodies found in the streets - victims of sectarian death squads.

The number of bodies found so far this month in Baghdad - most of them shot and showing signs of torture - has dropped by nearly 50 percent to 494 as of Monday night, compared with 954 in January and 1,222 in December, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

Since the crackdown was formally launched Feb. 14, 164 bodies had been found in the capital as of Monday, according to AP figures, which are compiled from police reports. The AP count showed 390 bodies were discovered in the same period in January.

"The intensive security measures have forced the gunmen to leave Baghdad and quit throwing bodies in the streets," said Kamil Abdul-Nour, a 42-year-old Sunni teacher. "Still, I am afraid that this phenomenon will appear again if the security measures end," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:56 AM

Key sentnece...
"Still, I am afraid that this phenomenon will appear again if the security measures end,"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:59 PM

So what does that mean to you?

To me it means the security measures are necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:23 PM

So, who was it that just used my handle? Kinda creepy.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:24 PM

As I said, "Maliki took the cool billion and the troops and handed the operation and the money over to Chalabi."

International Intelligence
Published: Feb. 28, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Analysis: Iraq's Cincinnatus option
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE
UPI Editor at Large
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- The late Peter Ustinov once remarked, "Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich..."

"With Ahmad Chalabi -- once described by his neocon friends as the best hope for democracy in Iraq, and now closer to Tehran than Washington -- moving back into the Iraqi political imbroglio, the realists see this as the institutionalization of corruption at the top. Chalabi is now supposed to serve as the intermediary between Baghdad residents and Iraqi and U.S. security forces whose main function is to assess how much compensation the U.S. should pay for damages caused to homes and automobiles by Petraeus' surge."

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/analysis_iraqs_cincinnatus_option/20070227-081023-3620r/

Do your homework and find out more about the 'surge' and who is handling the additional troops and money that are being sent to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:29 PM

My apploogies.

Something wierd is happening on my computer. I know I typed in Dickey on that last post but TIA appeared in the post. Second time today.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:58 PM

Where is Chalabi keeping this cool billion dollars that has been handed over to him? Was it kept in a refrigerator?

"is to assess how much compensation the U.S. should pay" This does not say anything about money being handed to him.

"serve as the intermediary between Baghdad residents and Iraqi and U.S. security forces" This does not say anything about the operation being handed to Chalabi. It sounds like a liason role to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 02:07 PM

Welcome presence

After visiting the clinic, the paratroopers walked a few blocks to the home of the head of the neighborhood advisory council. The children stayed with them, chanting "Hi, mister" as they walked.

"It's like a traveling circus," said 1st Lt. Josh Rowan, a platoon leader in Bravo Battery. "Glad we don't have to sneak up on anybody."

The children might have been so effusive because these are the first American soldiers they could follow. Previous units in charge of the area would ride through in armored vehicles once in a while, but they didn't get out and meet the people.

"They drove the routes, but in terms of actual boots on the ground, they didn't have that," Rowan said. "They've not had a lot of personal interaction with soldiers."

Abu Muhanned is the head of the nine-member council in Rabi. He greeted soldiers at his home down an alley off the market street in a dark blue dishdasha — the ankle-length Arab robe — and bare feet. A cigarette burned to the filter was stuck in his hand.

As the paratroopers entered, he slapped them on the back and ushered them into his living room. Rowan and the others sat down on long couches. Muhanned settled his large frame into a plastic chair and lit another cigarette.

Then he proceeded to describe a neighborhood where peace is tenuous.

There have been few problems, he said, but militia groups from Sadr City and other neighborhoods travel through, sometimes making trouble. Muhanned's son was forced to live in Syria after he refused to join a militia.

"I've talked to my area and told them the American Army has come to save the Iraqi people," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:59 PM

No problem on the ID thing Dickey, I thought it might be you, but didn't want to accuse.

On the shakey security. If it is working right now, I am glad for the Iraqis and for our people over there. But I do not want an open-ended commitment of our troops to maintain the security. We have been there four years, and it has only gotten worse. What should make us optimistic now? And if this is working, why was it not done 4 years (and thousands of casualties) ago?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 04:29 PM

Yes, Chalabi could be called a liason. He will assess damages and award Iraqis compensation with American dollars that were supposed to accompany 'the surge' of American troops. Maliki agreed to this while telling Sadr to stay out of the way.

Trouble with this plan is that Chalabi cannot be trusted and U.S. troops will need the help of Sadr's army to stop the Sunni insurgency. It seems to me that the new Iraqi govt., with the help of the Mahdi army, could probably handle the Sunni insurgency but Bush doesn't want to admit that the solution is to allow Iran to help Iraq. This would look like defeat.

Instead, Bush prefers to keep the conflict going until nothing remains of Iraq but the possibility of an independent Kurdistan and war with Turkey and an independent 'Shiastan' and a U.S. war with Iran.

What is the point of the U.S. being involved at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:20 PM

Exactly Dianavan. The Syrians and Saudis are funding the Sunnis to fight the Shi'ites who are funded by Iran. And there are rumours (and evidence according to Seymour Hersh) that we are also funding the Sunnis so that the Iranian-sympathizing Shi'ites won't control Iraq. But, the Sunni jihadists are our sworn enemies, and the ones causing the vast majority of US ("coalition") casualties. So, the mission of our troops is exactly what? Looks to me like they are there solely to make it appear to US voters that "we are winning". Winning looks a hell of a lot like feeding young people to a meat grinder while politicians prattle and preen about issues that they are surreptitiously creating. Oh, and meanwhile, their friends make a hell of a lot of money supplying the war and the poorly-if-at-all-accounted-for "reconstruction". It's a win-win-win for everybody outside the borders of Iraq, and a lose-lose-lose for those poor souls within. And the relatives of many of those in country have a hard time dealing with the fact that the folks in the meat grinder are there serving the greedy personal interests of fools, and not a "noble cause". And before any of you "support the troops" people jump on my ass for saying it, you should realize that I've got troops there myself.

End of rant. Late night frustration. Goodnight.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:55 PM

Do you really believe "Bush prefers to keep the conflict going until nothing remains of Iraq"?

Would the conflict end if the US leaves?

Muslim extremists, al-Qaeda and Iran want to keep the conflict going.

From someone who has a son in Iraq:

"My son reported to me that he has come under attack on almost a daily basis this last month. I was on the phone with him briefly this morning, and he had just been attacked about an hour previously, and had not slept in about 20 hours because of the increased activity in his area. I think based on what he is telling me that the enemy is shifting focus from civilian targets to our troops so that they might potentially cause more casualties to us, knowing that it will cause a political backlash at home. Thank you libs for getting us into this mess by supporting our enemies! They have learned well that they only have to get the media to focus on the negative to achieve their objectives, a sure bet when libs control the military budget, the media and our congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 03:07 PM

Arizona legislator back at Capitol after Iraq duty

"...state Rep. Jonathan Paton on Tuesday was still getting his bearings after returning from Army Reserve duty in Iraq...

...Paton entered the Army Reserve in 1999 and subsequently became an officer. Now a 1st lieutenant, he volunteered to be mobilized for deployment. He underwent training at Fort Benning, Ga., and Fort Huachuca in Sierra Vista, Ariz., last summer, after the 2006 legislative session ended.

He said during the interview that he still supported the mission in Iraq but believes the U.S. should have deployed more troops initially to secure the country.

He also said that the current surge of U.S. forces should be given a chance to work. The Iraqi army would collapse within a week if the U.S. military pulls out and the result would be an ethnic cleansing-style blood bath, he said.

"All the deaths that we've seen would be a footnote and our country would be held responsible for that, and I don't think our reputation would recover," Paton said."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 04:19 PM

"the enemy is shifting focus from civilian targets to our troops so that they might potentially cause more casualties to us..."

Thank goodness for that. At least the troops have the opportunity to defend themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:53 PM

"Thank you libs for getting us into this mess"

I had plumb forgotten whose idea this was. I know the neocons did their best to talk us out of it, but we went ahead and invaded anyhow. Damn that was stoopid.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:31 PM

Well there you have it, Senator (Sniff) Byrd, Bobert, TIA, dianavan, Arne, Ron Davies, et al.

When the going gets tough the tough run for it.

What was the motto of the 7th Cavalry again? - Oh Yes!

"Let's get the fuck out of here"

By all means return to the good ol' post-Vietnam Jimmy Carter days - Internationally you lot were a complete and utter laughing stock.

Current situation is as follows:

- Right, or wrong, you are in a fight that actually was not of your choosing. None of you lot are actually involved in it. So far all you have been hell bent on doing is to give succour and comfort to the enemy.

- All those, who, you hope will win the next Presidential election have been toddling around prevaricating over current financial allocations and troop levels to meet the needs of American servicemen engaged in an existing conflict, doing their best to undermine the efforts of those very servicemen engaged in combat.

- All the "usual suspects" and their "trendy" fellow travellers have completely missed the point that the terrorists declared war on you long before the present President of the United States of America declared War on Terror.

By all means pull out of Iraq, pull out of Afghanistan. That will not lessen the threat one iota, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or Afghanistan, you are, and always have been, the enemy, long before the attacks of 11th September, 2001 - They were only the first ones on mainland America that actually got through and succeeded, they had been trying with varying degrees of success for more than a decade before that.

Enjoy, the first thing that Sharia Law will do is shred that "Constitution" that you all seem so concerned about.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:08 AM

Tia left out the part ot the quote that implicates her and the other peace mongers:

"by supporting our enemies"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:34 AM

In Iran, urban refugees debate return to post-Saddam Iraq

"The Iraqi population in Iran is varied, but can be divided into three main groups: the Iraqi Shiite Muslim Arabs; the Sunni Muslim Kurds; and the Feili Kurds, Shiites with Iranian ancestry. All fled Iraq to escape persecution under Saddam's regime....
...Ashraf and Roghay's families have settled in Doulatabad, an almost exclusively-Iraqi neighbourhood in the south-eastern corner of Tehran's sprawling metropolis. The local shopkeeper says that in the past few weeks, the talk here has been about nothing but the news from Iraq, and the hope that soon it will be possible to go back. He himself wants to stay in Tehran. He explains that although he was born in Iraq, he is of Iranian ancestry. He has lived here for 23 years, set up a business and raised a family. He says Iraq is only a memory, there is nothing for him to go back to. But he knows he is an exception. All his customers, he notes, want to go back to Iraq.

And so does Mohafaq Al'Ali, another shopkeeper in the neighbourhood who fled Iraq in the early '80s. As an opponent of Saddam's regime, he refuse to join the army in its war against Iran, and chose to take refuge in Iran instead. He, too, has a prospering business. But he says that with Saddam gone, it is now time to go back and help rebuild Iraq. He adds that he made sure that when his children were growing up, they spoke only Arabic at home so that they would be able to reintegrate well in Iraq when the time came."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:46 AM

Dickey - You really don't get it.

The reason they want to go home is that the Shia and the Kurds now have the power in Iraq but Bush doesn't want the Shias in power because they are backed by Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:42 AM

Implicates us in what pray tell?

"getting us into this mess"?

Bullshit.

We, and millions of others worked damn hard to keep us from getting into this mess. And you and your ilk called us naive or traitorous, and ridiculed our predictions of what would happen if we went in.

We were right.

You and yours were wrong.

End of story.

I'm done with you and your war boy crowd.

Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:56 PM

Accused of being "peace mongers". Somehow I think we can live with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 01:20 AM

TIA:

Please predict what happens when we get out. Something a little more detailed than a one word answer.

Dear al-Qaeda:

Just hang on a little longer and the Democratic US congress will hand you your victory.

signed:

Libs

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

"Peace-mongers" eh Ron?

Let us all in on the secret Ron, who are you going to negotiate your "peace deal" with?

As all such negotiations must involve compromise, unless of course your intent is one of unconditional surrender to the terrorists demands, what are the things that you, as chief negotiator for the "Peace-mongers", will be fully prepared to compromise on?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:33 AM

It seems to me that everybody but the peacemongers and the Jihadists want this plan to work.

Operation Baghdad Enters Week Two
The best part of the results is still the return of displaced families to their homes; the latest count for this shows that more than 600 families have returned so far.

Al-Sabah reports that yesterday alone 327 families returned home and that the scene of vans loaded with furniture of refugees leaving Baghdad is no more. There were times when the average was around 20 a day. The 327 figure brought the total to more than 500 families across Baghdad.

Al-Hurra TV aired a report on the story and interviewed some of the returning Baghdadis, one man said "those who returned earlier and saw the change in the situation called us and encouraged us to return, and I too will encourage the rest to come back". The report showed those families asking the army to stay and not abandon their neighborhood, and showed the officer in charge giving his number to the locals so that they can contact him directly in case of emergency.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 01:15 PM

whopee-doo

3.8 million Iraqis have been displaced since the U.S. invasion, but 500 have returned.

You must be overjoyed, Dickey.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:59 PM

Cat got your tongue Ron?

How many exiled Iraqi's returned to Iraq during Saddam's reign dianavan? I can remember two rather high profile Iraqi's who were members, albeit by marriage, of Saddam's family - they ended up dead, by means that were somewhat less than pleasant - All of this of course you pointedly choose to ignore - True?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:14 PM

"How many exiled Iraqi's returned to Iraq during Saddam's reign dianavan?"

Probably quite a few Baathist and secularists (pro-Americans) and maybe a few Sunnis. I don't really know if anyone was exiled prior to Saddam. Moslem Fundamentalists did not enjoy the wide acceptance that they have now. Thats why the Shiites are now returning to Iraq.

It is the Sunnis who have fled since the U.S. invasion. 3.8 million of them. These are Saddam's people, mostly baathists. I hope they all move next door to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:38 PM

That was 500 families. If there are 4 people per family that's 1000 per week or 365,000 per year.

So how many Iraqi families returning in the last two weeks since the surge (which you claim Maliki does not want) would impress you?

What is your benchmark number for whatever you are trying to prove?

What is your point anyway?

All I see to your posts and threads is hate, hostility and high school mentality tit for tat.

Sunnis had no reason to flee under Saddam's rule because they were the ones on top, screwing over the Kurds and Shia.

With Saddam out of power, they lost their power and started an insurgency. They blew up the Golden Mosque and started the secular violence with the Shia that has caused them to flee.

By the way I don't wish anything on you but a better disposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 10:27 PM

I am reminded of the advice Dianavan passed on to me.....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 01:49 AM

The Golden Mosque was blown up after the U.S. invasion.

It is you who are trying to make a point about the number of Iraqis returning. My point is that they have a long way to go considering the U.S. invasion displaced 3.8 million Iraqis.

The Shiites are returning to Iraq, the Sunnis are moving to your neighborhood. I'm sure you will greet them with open arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 01:56 AM

Ron, who are you going to negotiate your "peace deal" with?

As all such negotiations must involve compromise, unless of course your intent is one of unconditional surrender to the terrorists demands, what are the things that you, as chief negotiator for the "Peace-mongers", will be fully prepared to compromise on?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 10:31 AM

Teribus-

So sorry you seem to disagree with the anti-war posters being labelled "peace mongers" (sic). However, as a typical Bushite, it seems your reading skills also need a bit of work---guess whose comment the "peace mongers" was? None other than your (current) faithful companion and lap-dog, Dickey. Perhaps you'd like to take it up with him.

As far as the Iraq situation is concerned, sure is fascinating that somehow the earlier-cited issues---- of Sunnis being able to trust the police, and being guaranteed more oil than would accrue to them from just the "Sunni parts" of Iraq--- are now considered crucial issues. Now who has been talking about them on Mudcat for over a year--and who has been denying that the Sunnis deserved any consideration? Clue: for the latter, please look in the mirror.




Dickey--

You should be aware that when you bring up a historical issue, as you did in the case of the Cuba missile crisis, you should be prepared to discuss it. Your statement that you "don't care" about how JFK had the missiles removed is very revealing--but does not help a discussion. And in fact it shows no willingness on your part for anything but kneejerk jingoistic (look it up) response. Not name-calling, just fact. If you disagree you are welcome to provide evidence that yours is not a knee-jerk jingoistic response. I will be glad to listen.

Not angry, just disappointed in you. I have no objection to a lively historical debate--but you have 1) no knowledge and 2) no interest even in learning. Again, not personal attack--just an observation--as proven by your record here so far. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

There are many enthusiastic, if amateur, historians on Mudcat, who are more than willing to research historical issues. If you are not, you'd best not bring them up.




And, by the way, nobody is requiring you to prove positively that there was no propaganda campaign between summer 2002 and March 2003. However, it's you and your mighty leader, Teribus, who allege there was never a propaganda campaign to get the US public to back Bush's planned Iraq war. But as usual, your argument about "proving the absence" is a red herring (look it up).

My point is that neither you nor Teribus can provide even one clear quote from a member of the Bush regime refuting a link between Saddam and 9-11. While we have provided many by figures of the Bush regime linking the two--especially implying or predicting that the next 9-11 style attack on the US would be supplied by Saddam--with his WMD's.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 10:37 AM

"clear quote", that is, during the propaganda campaign. Which was--altogether now, with feeling--between summer 2002 and March 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 01:24 PM

Ron: You say that I "allege there was never a propaganda campaign"

I allege that I have seen no evidence of a propaganda campaign.

You allege you have presented evidence. I allege the only thing you have presented is personal opinions which is not evidence.

Whatever you allege about JFK is of no concern to me. What he did was beneficial to the US and you grudgingly agree.

Jingoisim is indeed a legitimate term. It is the use of bullying tactics between countrys and the bullying goes both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 01:28 PM

Yes Dianvan, The Golden Mosque was blown up by the Sunnis after the U.S. invasion.

What's your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:01 PM

Dickey - It is you who are trying to make a point about the number of Iraqis returning. My point is that they have a long way to go considering the U.S. invasion displaced 3.8 million Iraqis.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:28 PM

Yes Iraqis are returning and there is a long way to go.

How many were displaced iraqis returned before the invasion?.

What caused the Sunnis to flee?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:49 PM

I don't really know if anyone was exiled prior to Saddam. Therefore I do not know how many returned when Saddam was in power. My guess is that Sunnis (Baathists) and secularists may have supported Saddam.

Many Sunnis have fled because of the U.S. invasion and the overthrow of Saddam because it created a backlash from the Shiites (expecially the Fundamentalists).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM

You have ducked the question Ron:

Ron, who are you going to negotiate your "peace deal" with?

As all such negotiations must involve compromise, unless of course your intent is one of unconditional surrender to the terrorists demands, what are the things that you, as chief negotiator for the "Peace-mongers", will be fully prepared to compromise on?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:48 AM

Dianavan:

Was this exodus of the Sunnis before or after they blew up the Golden Mosque?

Was the Backlash against the Sunnis before or after they blew up the Golden Mosque?

Your guess is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 10:33 PM

Dickey--

1) re: propaganda campaign--you're splitting hairs--absurdly. Shows the bankruptcy of your position.

2) JFK: you have no interest in digging below the surface in any issue, it seems. As I thought. Many of us have interest in history. You have none.

QED


3) jingoism--you're wrong-- (situation normal)--better look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 10:46 PM

Teribus--

Interesting that you now don't deny that the issues of whether the Sunnis can trust the police and whether they feel they get a fair shake on oil distribution income--not just based on "Sunni parts" of Iraq--are crucial.

It's taken you over a year. But finally you're starting to recognize reality. Congratulations. Maybe you're not a military fossil --as irresponsible parties have suggested -- after all. ( But don't worry--I know those "parties" well--and you can be sure I'll look out for your best interests.)

There's hope for you yet.

Your "negotiating" is a bit premature. We'll have to see how things shake out--after the
Americans leave. I've already told you-- in January-- how things were likely to go in Iraq--and so far the predictions seem to be panning out. But remember what happens later--unless the Sunnis are satisfied with the answers to the above questions---as I've been telling you for a few eons, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:17 AM

Ron:

1)Where is the evidence you claim to have provided? All I see is your hair splitting personal opinions.

2)You are bullying and just waiting to attack any response I make with your disqualifying tactics.

3)I presented what I found as requested by you. As usual you disqualify any response and use personal attacks in a vain attempt to support your position.

Ron Davies: "Perhaps you can tell us why Cheney's answer on 8 Sept 2002 to the question "Has anything changed in your mind?" was not a simple "No, sir."   With no following song and dance starting "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this...

Ron was asked if he was glad that JFK kept nukes out of Cuba.

Can he tell us why his answer was not a simple yes or no with out a following song and dance starting " You are truly pathetic, I'm sorry to say. Any sensible American would be glad the missles were removed from Cuba. I modestly claim to be a sensible American. Obviously the missles had to be removed. My only point--which you continue to ignore--is that JFK foolishly and needlessly ran the risk of Khrushchev's turning the deal down--and thereby risked nuclear war-- by his (JFK's) stubborn insistence in refusing to make public the agreement that resulted in the missles being removed from Cuba. That deal was: Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:06 AM

Dickey - If you are talking about the al-Askari mosque, I don't think anyone has claimed responsibility for the bombing. Why blame it on Sunnis? It could have been Shias or it could have been unnamed men dressed like the Iraqi army. Whoever did it, wanted to see civil war.

Like I said, mostly Sunnis have fled post-Saddam Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:57 AM

Missed the point Ron, possibly deliberately. The "Peace Mongers" as represented seem to have the daft notion that the US has been picked out as enemy of radical Islam because of Iraq, and that if it had never happened all would be rosy in the garden. You are gravely mistaken, the terrorists declared war on you long before the present President of the United States of America declared War on Terror.

By all means pull out of Iraq, pull out of Afghanistan. That will not lessen the threat one iota, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or Afghanistan, you are, and always have been, the enemy, long before the attacks of 11th September, 2001 - They were only the first ones on mainland America that actually got through and succeeded, they had been trying with varying degrees of success for more than a decade before that.

Now then Ron, as you were definitely against taking on your enemies in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And as you are a dedicated "Peace Monger" please answer the question:

As the US, who are you going to negotiate your "peace deal" with?

As all such negotiations must involve compromise, unless of course your intent is one of unconditional surrender to the terrorists demands, what are the things that you, as chief negotiator for the "Peace-mongers", will be fully prepared to compromise on?