 sj |
||
|
||
BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:19 PM Well, well, well... According to soon-to-be Secretary of Defense Gates during his Senate confirmation hearing today, the US is losing the Iraq war... Hmmmmmmm??? Can this possibly be right??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Phil Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:29 PM Yes, makes any sensible person wonder why it has taken all this time to admit what everyone on the planet knew already, except the two major clowns Bush and Blair. They do indeed have blood on their hands |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:31 PM Vietnam deja vu. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,KB Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:34 PM I'm afraid it may turn out much worse than Vietnam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Amos Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:48 PM The Iraq war against who? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:59 PM Well, yes, it is a far more dangerous situation than Vietnam was, that's for sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bill D Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:11 PM Whether you think we will win the 'war' or lose the war, we have spent money we don't have to do things that don't need to be done ...for people who are not sure they want our 'help' anymore. ....It WAY beyond "ridding the world of a dictator" or "bringing democracy to Iraq" now, and DEEPLY into "cover your ass with self-deception".......a horrible parody of "The Emperor's New Clothes". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Shields Folk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:14 PM How can the US of A expect to deal with anything or anyone in the middle east without first dealing with Israel/Palistine? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Rapparee Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:46 PM I seem to remember Saddam Hussein saying, way back in 1991, that if the US attacked Iraq the result would be worse than Vietnam.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Shields Folk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:51 PM Saddam Hussein what a wonderful man. Clearly he is the victim in all this! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:55 PM Well, Rumsfeld thought he was wonderful when he was killing Iranians for them. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Richard Atkins Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:52 PM Having marched in London against the war in the first place, voters still voted Blair and Bush afterwards. why dont they think for themselves. Time for them to rethink their error then ,on both sides of the pond. American voters have done so this November. UK to follow I hope! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Peace Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:56 PM The problem in the Gulf War is that Stormin' Norman wasn't given the green light to proceed beyond the UN mandate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:00 PM Only slightly tangential to this, but related to the 'terrorism thing' - there is an Aussie citizen still held after 5 years without trial - his Aussie lawyer is going to the Federal Court saying that the actions of Little Johnny have been illegal, as they are playing politics in in not working to have their citizen dealt with 'fairly' as Britain did, etc.... should be 'interesting'.... :-) especially since these 'Military Commissions' are not considered legal for US citizens, only for foreigners.... LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Shields Folk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:01 PM I must admit I supported the war to remove Saddam from Iraq, I'm not so comfortable with us lot there in his place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Richard Atkins Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:30 PM Peace change is to was and I agree your valid point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:30 PM Excuse me if I rain on your parade just a little, but Gates did not (repeat, did not) say the US was losing in Iraq. He said that we are not winning in Iraq, but that is not the same, as losing. We are, I would submit, in a current stalemate which could go either way. Where we are losing, however, is here at home, with interpretations as above. Thank you for you time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Richard Atkins Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:44 PM John your right saw Gates on TV yesterday. Not Winning is the one! Have seen negative similar ones from Blair. Is Mr Bush going to follow ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:56 PM The only real difference with Vietnam appears to be the rate with which the disillusionment to the lies has set in... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 06 - 09:38 PM Maybe John from the Sunset Coast would like to define what winning this war would look like??? Then, perhaps we can re-examine why "not winning" doesn't mean losing??? Stalemate??? Hmmmmmmmm??? Upwards of 600,000 dead and another 100 a day, chaos, instability, a war based on lies and what we have here is a stalemate??? Hmmmmmmmm, part B... Maybe a definaition of stalemate is in order, also... Einstein said that repeating a bahavior expecting defferent results is "insanity"... What we have here is "insane" foriegn policy... Not a friggin' stalemate... And worst part about this "insane" forieng policy is abnother of Einstein's observations that a problem cabnnot be solved with the conscoiusness that created it so... ...we are screwed!!! Insane foreign policy and no truely new paradigm... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: NH Dave Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:41 PM I think winning would be us leaving Iraq after insuring that their police and military are interested in and capable of keeping a peace on their own; not just a bunch of Shi'ia militia eager to take on some troublesome Sunnis just down the road, or a group of Sunni militia or police willing to keep the peace, as opposed to nailing a local bunch of troublesome Shi'ites. In short, Iraqi forces working for the betterment of their country, not to settle individual feuds or bad blood. Perhaps we needed a Saddam Husein in Iraq, a Joseph Stalin in Russia, or a Joseph Tito in Yugoslavia to keep all of these unhappy religious and ethic groups in line. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:47 PM Stormin' Norman would have ended up in the same shit. Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the winners in WW1, along with other artificial 'nations'. Lines were drawn on the map by French and British politicians, and natural relationships destroyed. The only way to keep the three elements together is with a rigid dicatorship, but we can't put humpty back together- we kicked out Saddam, destroyed his army and police, and wrecked the infrastructure. If things had been left alone to evolve, in time the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, already becoming resigned to living and working together under Saddam, might have eventually developed a vital country. It was beginning to look like that could have happened in time. Democracy has to evolve, not be imposed at gun point on cultures used to different ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:58 PM Back during the Gulf War Stormin' Norman may not have gotten the green light to go into Baghdad from Bush the Elder because.... Perhaps because he realized that although Hussein was a bad bad man, he was at least a stabilizing force in the country and taking him out might've led to something similar to the current sad state of affairs in Iraq now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ebbie Date: 05 Dec 06 - 11:10 PM Did you see the Bill Moyers PBS television documentary last night? An Iraqi who on former visits had been adamant on staying and seeing the 'war' through to the other side says now that at the first opportunity he will leave, for Syria. He said that, bad as it was, it was NEVER like this under Saddam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:50 AM "Upwards of 600,000 dead" Where on earth did you get this figure from Bobert? Could 500,000 of those be from the, by now, widely and totally discredited Lancet article? They got their numbers, not from any serious study but by batch sampling in specific areas then applying that to the entire country. Better go to the antiwar site IraqBodyCount Bobert, every death they record, they check on, two sources being required, their worst case figures include incidents where only one verified source exists - Their worst case figure is somewhere around 56,000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:55 AM Sorry Bobert, but I forgot to add - The Lancet article at no time ever said that 500,000 Iraqi civilians had died. What the article actually said was that up to 500,000 Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE died. Bit of a difference there Bobert, sort of like me buying a Lottery ticket and stating I have won the lottery, truth is that having bought the ticket all I really can say is that I MAY HAVE won the lottery. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:32 AM Be careful Teribus, half taking back your words like that - we may begin to believe that you are slowly maturing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Georgiansilver Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:37 AM Does anyone remember the uniformed spokesman who declared that thousands of Americans and allies would lose their lives and could never win the war?...Was he right ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:41 AM Not at all Foolestoupe, I just never believe a word Bobert says. Just take a look at his opening post: "According to soon-to-be Secretary of Defense Gates during his Senate confirmation hearing today, the US is losing the Iraq war..." Now at NO TIME AT ALL during his Senate confirmation hearing did the soon-to-be Secretary of Defense Robert Gates say anything like - "the US is losing the Iraq war...." He was asked if he concurred with the current military commanders estimation of the situation - i.e. "We are not winning the war against the insurgents but at the same time we are not losing it" Dr. Robert Gates agreed with that assessment. Different thing entirely to, "the US is losing the Iraq war" and in fact there is a statement there to the effect that the soon-to-be Secretary of Defense Robert Gates believes that the US is NOT losing the Iraq war, or more correctly the war against the insurgents. But what Bobert has done serves as a good example of where the so-called lies and propaganda claims come from - It's from people reading into something, something that is not there and never was there. They read what they want to see as opposed to what is actually being said. The worst has been the spin put on things by the media in both Britain and in the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:12 AM Yes Teribus, and the US 'never lost the Vietnam war' either... they just bravely ran away BEFORE their loyal local allies were defeated... like they will do in Iraq too... Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:15 AM "a good example of where the so-called lies and propaganda claims come from - It's from people reading into something, something that is not there and never was there. They read what they want to see as opposed to what is actually being said." Pot ... kettle ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:59 AM OK Foolstroupe, either yourself or Bobert go through the transcript of the hearing and prove me wrong, show me where Dr. Robert Gates stated that "the US is losing the Iraq war". I can listen to something and know what is being said, I can read something and determine what being said. In no way could I translate - "We are not winning the war against the insurgents but at the same time we are not losing it" into - "the US is losing the Iraq war". Maybe you and Bobert can, and all that suggests to me is that your comprehension skills are somewhat lacking. By the bye Foolstroupe, in most situations involving an armed insurgency there is rarely, if ever a successful military victory. The conflict is usually fought to a stalemate situation in which the insurgent side recognises that it is pointless to continue the armed struggle and opts for dialogue and political compromise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:20 AM It has become de rigeur for Bush supporters to couple the phrase "widely discredited" with the Johns Hopkins/MIT/Mustansiriya University study (published in The Lancet). But statisticians defend the methodology, and it is exactly the type of sampling used by pollsters on all parts of the political spectrum. The figure has been publicly challenged, but not by scientists and not by people armed with conflicting data or methods. It has simply been called "not credible" by a) Bush, b) Bush appointees, c) Military spokespeople who work for Bush, d) political commentators who habitually defend Bush, and e) internet forum participants with pro-Bush axes to grind. Comparisons above between the Lancet number and the Iraqbodycount number are apples to oranges. Iraqbodycount lists ONLY deaths that have been positively confirmed by multiple independent sources. Of course that number will be far less than the Lancet number that clearly (and quite openly) stated that it was attempting to estimate the total deaths across all of Iraq -- confirmed and unconfirmed. Does anyone, anyone, anyone (other than Bush, and thos that depend on him for their jobs -- including the big T) think that there are no deaths other than those confirmed? Nobody has died anonymously? No bodies have been rendered unrecognizable? Nobody has been quickly buried by family (as is the middle eastern custom) before it could be properly "confirmed"? Now - as to whether Bobert made up any numbers... the Lancet study concluded that the range of estimated casualties is 426,369 to 793,663, with a probable best-estimate of 601,027. Not too damn far from Bobert's figure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:41 AM Yo, T-Bird... As for you little hair splittin' academic exercise see my 05 Dec 06 09:38pm response to yer buddy, John the Sunsetter... Oh, John isn't yer buddy??? Hmmmmmmm??? Seems to think like you... You know all semanticly but semantics got you and yer buds Bush and Blair in a mess of trouble during the mad-dash-to-Iraqmire so ya might want to rethink hangin' onto purely academic arguin' points while real events are happening all around you... Or not... ibid of the Einstein comment in regards to insanity... of, BTW, the death total was acually put at between 600,000 and 650,000 and from what I heard on NPR after it was made public is that a number of scholars from Johns Hopkins had examined the methodology and found no glarin' errors... But of course you are wiser and infinately more academically qualified than a bunch of coneheads from Johns Hopkins... Not... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:57 AM Yes exactly Guest TIA, it is a method used by pollsters, "Batch Sampling" does not and cannot EVER give you anything other than the roughest of estimations - It cannot in any way be treated as any sort of serious study or attempt to quantify civilian casualties. If they were to perform the same exercise in relation to drugs and gun crime in the UK and applied the "Batch Sample" from Mosside to the entire country Britain would be depicted as a war zone with 50% casualties, where those still alive were cruising around in stolen cars carrying out drive-by killings - i.e. the results would be completely disproportionate and completely unrepresentative - False picture. By the way TIA you didn't chose to comment on the difference in the report stating that XXX Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE DIED, compared to Bobert's blank statement that XXX Iraqi DIED. I believe that there is a difference in those two statements don't you? But I do believe that if you are going to quote a report - You are under some obligation to quote it correctly - True? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Wolfgang Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:29 AM The figure has been publicly challenged, but not by scientists (TIA) Completely wrong. You mean you have not read the critique in SCIENCE? You have not read about the influence of "main street bias"? You have not read that sampling was mainly restricted to urban areas? You have not read that sampling was not equally distributed across the country, drawing less samples from the quiet Kurdish areas than they should have in proportion to the population there? The figure has been challenged publicly by scientists. You may not agree with the critique, that's alright, but you should not state as a fact what is plainly wrong. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Wolfgang Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:38 AM link to pdf of just one paper critical of the Lancet study Webpage of one scientist critical of the Lancet study Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Wolfgang Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:47 AM Press release of the Iraq Body Count about the Lancet article In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:08 PM Pleased to know there was only a few thousand killed in Iraq, I will sleep easier tonight, thank goodeness for the Mudcat experts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:09 PM What did the man say last night, this war against terrorism will go on for 40 years, again, that`s a relief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: dianavan Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:02 PM Teribus says, "The conflict is usually fought to a stalemate situation in which the insurgent side recognises that it is pointless to continue the armed struggle and opts for dialogue and political compromise." What does that say about Iraq? Are we winning or losing? After all these years and the many deaths of countless civilians, I'd say we are at a stalemate. I do not hear anything about the insurgents putting down their arms in hope of a compromise. How long do you think it will take to open the dialogue that should have taken place before the U.S. decided to go it alone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: akenaton Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:14 PM Teribus is so full of shit!! He squirms and twists meanings "US is not losing the Iraq war, its just not winning the Iraq war" A couple of days ago he spent a lot of time trying to convince myself and others that there was no Iraq War at all!! What happened to that book of facts Teribus, you seem in a bit of a muddle without it. Were in the shit up to our necks, and if you want my opinion, we wont be looking for PEACE any time soon. Were just about ready to jettison all pretence of democracy freedom and International law and make a grab for what we wanted in the first place and were denied. Could be endgame for us all, just to save an economic system which divides enslaves and impoverishes 99% of the worlds population..Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: autolycus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:27 PM I say 'a plague on everybody's house' because most people believe in violence as a solution whether it is war, corporal punishment, discipline, hanging, punishment, a smack round the mouth depressingly etc. etc. The rest is mostly debating the numbers of angels on the pinhead, by analogy. We have government of the damaged, by the damaged, for the damaged. And there's money for colonising the moon, with Mars the longer-term aim. To slightly vary the wise words of the comedian Rebecca Front, we'll arrive on another planet one day, and demand regime change the following day. On so on to our oblivion. And all because we are not prepared to face our individual selves. Oh, and just as a reminder, it was the West that a)armed Saddam in the first place and b) gave him the money to buy the beastly arms. Gives a fresh meaning to reaping what you sow. Lots of love Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:47 PM We tried to tell George that way back in 2002, but George didn't listen. He thought 9-11 gave him a blank check, so he took advantage of that to try to finish his daddy's war. His daddy was wise enough to quit when he was ahead, but Georgie wasn't. Now look at the mess we're in. How do we get out, doing the least amount of damage possible - and how much is it going to cost us? I told you so, George. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Phil Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:53 PM We should pull the Troops out now, let the Iraq's sort out the problem. Bush made a catastrophic error by invading in the first place. Time to admit He was wrong, swallow his pride and resign.... But he is like our own Clown Blair, living on another planet........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,petr Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:48 PM the US pretty much started losing the war - the day they allowed all that looting of the hospitals, museums, and utilities. I think the Iraqis could form their own conclusions when they saw US soldiers guarding the OIL ministry , while the watersupply and filtration complex was destroyed. at first Rumsfeld argued there was no insurgency, then Cheney said almost 2years ago that the insurgency was in its 'final throes' now they are debating whether or not there is a civil war, and whether they are losing. Semantics aside, the situation is long out of their hands. according to Peter Galbraith who's spent a lot of time there it will break up into at least 2if not 3 regions. Kurdistan is defacto independent since 91 and the Kurds will not disband the peshmerga who are currently the strongest and disciplined army in Iraq. WHether the rest breaks up into Sunni and SHia regions remains to be seen, however its ridiculous to hear how Bush will talk tough with Maliki, because the Iraqi govt really has no power over the different factions. The SCIRI party(supreme council for Islamic Republic in Iraq) and Moqtada Sadrs Mahdi army militia (both Pro-Iranian and heavily financed by Iran) are not likely to disband or give up any advantages they have. The IRaqi army whatever there is exists mostly on paper. (When the govt. called for an audit, one third of the payroll was refunded since 1/3 of the army didnt exist) Never mind that Shiites will not serve under Sunni officers or vice versa. Currently there is very little security, while Americans stay in heavily fortified bases and international visitors only venture out with a small army, Baghdad is the most dangerous city in the world. Daily there are dozens of bodies of young men turning up- tortured with power drills and executed. (LAst february there were 20young men found together with their id cards on their chest - all murdered because their name was Omar- a reference to some leader in the past) The educated and professional class is leaving Iraq in droves. THe US couldnt provide security with a 150,000 troops its hardly likely they can provide security while talking about withdrawing. Although they should move to a base in Kurdistan which is very pro-western and they request a US base. WHile the Sunni insurgency has no chance of winning it, to provide security in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle would require far more troops than the US has there now. Its time the US give up on trying to keep Iraq together, it was never a 'stable country', and dont make the same mistake like Europe and the US did trying to keep Yugoslavia together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:52 PM Today george bush looked old when speaking of the Iraq Baker report. It was as if he finally understood what eveyone else in the world has understod for many years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:05 PM Well, it sure would be a bitter pill for him to swallow, wouldn't it? I doubt that anyone can sort it out except the Iraqis themselves, and whether they can or not remains to be seen. They'll get their chance when the Americans and British leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:05 PM The Exodus from Iraq is 100,000 to 250,000 a month now. The country (formally Babylon) is now permanently destroyed, looted, ransacked and devoid of its enlightend citizens. What is the minimum punishment for those who not only let this happen but made this happen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: ard mhacha Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:15 PM There are only two people on the planet that believes Bush`s road to disaster in Iraq was a great achievement, Teribus and the Pres, the long-winded know all, still persists, even after the US now admits to the invasion being a complete wipe-out. Teribus you were so wrong, it is now an embarrassment, bye bye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:39 PM If I was an Iraqi, I'd sure as hell have tried to leave by now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Divis Sweeney Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:47 PM Just watched the television news and getting bloody sick of seeing US soldiers screaming into the faces of local Iraqi people who haven't a clue what their saying and kicking in doors old shacks of houses that you could blow down with your mouth. Is part of the GI training to shout "Go go go" and "Kick mother f...ker ass" ? I have memories of soldiers doing this on ordinary people at first hand and memories of how they reacted and how it was counter productive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:54 PM I suppose that in order to divert attention from the bloody mess in Iraq they could always invade Iran ... Yes, I really do think that out 'glorious leaders' are that stupid! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:20 PM Yo, T-Bird, I was all prepared to give you another blast but seems like I was late to the table as many others have beaten me to the punch... But What Ard mhacha said at 5:15, purdy well sums it up... You have and continue to be wrong... You seem to think that if you argue semantics and meaningless details that this will make you right but that dog don't hunt... ...'cause yer still wrong... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:22 PM "OK Foolstroupe, either yourself or Bobert go through the transcript of the hearing and prove me wrong, show me where Dr. Robert Gates stated that "the US is losing the Iraq war". [snip] and all that suggests to me is that your comprehension skills are somewhat lacking." Simple Logic - with the US 'cultural philosophy' as rammed endlessly to the rest of the world "If you are not a winner, then you are a loser - and you're all losers, cause the US is the ONLy winner"... "By the bye Foolstroupe, in most situations involving an armed insurgency there is rarely, if ever a successful military victory. " I don't know why they say you are stupid mate... you do seem able to grap basic facts... "The conflict is usually fought to a stalemate situation in which the insurgent side recognises that it is pointless to continue the armed struggle and opts for dialogue and political compromise. " ... except in Vietnam, when the US - and rest of 'the free world' - "bravely ran away"... oh... and now in Iraq, cause in spite of the US Govt deliberately trying to hide the endless stream of body bags, "there has just been too much American blood shed"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:40 PM " There are only two people on the planet that believes Bush`s road to disaster in Iraq was a great achievement, Teribus and the Pres," I rather doubt that Bush actually believes that any more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:44 PM Rouse Rouse Achtung Allen zie Rouse secret prisons yes, torture yes, retribution killings yes but I don't see US troops putting millions of Arabs on a train to their deaths. We have depleted Uranium for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:46 PM See Donuel, It can be done much more efficiently nowadays... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM No, no, depleted uranium, accordin' to the Bushites, is good fir ya'... Might of fact they are tryin' to get it into pill form to sell in the health stores... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:33 PM An' jus' in case ol' T is gettin' ready to play that "stalemate" card again the Iraq Study Group today has used the term "dire" in reportin' the US's position in Iraq... "Dire" according to Webster is "arousing terror or causing extreme distress; dreasdful; terrible"... Hmmmmmm??? Doesn't really sound as if it's a tie game to me... But the T-zer has a funny way of lookin' at stuff... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,petr Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:29 PM the US is losing - depends on what your definition of 'is' is it is not just the case of an insurgency. The French thought they won the Algerian insurgency but they were wrong. Whenever you have a land held together by force such as Saddams Iraq, or the former Yugoslavia, or the Soviet Union. When the force holding it together is gone, there is always a power struggle. In 91 When Cheney was asked by reporters why not go all the way to Baghdad and topple Saddam, he said (correctly) that there would be a power vacuum and an internal struggle and the US would be caught in the middle. There was also the danger of Shiite trying to establish an Iranian style Islamic republic (also what is happening). But what do you expect when two months before the invasion Bush didnt know the difference between Shiite and Sunni? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:19 PM Perhaps we could get one of George's relations to fix the voting machines in Iraq........worked in Florida. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Paul from Hull Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:26 PM Guest Petr, it was 2 YEARS after the invasion, & he still didnt know the difference between Iran & Iraq.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,Gza Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:35 PM Well, that's understandable isn't it? There's only a one letter difference between the words Iran and Iraq, after all. Give the poor man a break! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Dec 06 - 04:39 AM "Give the poor man a break! " But isn't that thing on top of his shoulders already broken? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:46 AM Akenaton, there is no "War" in Iraq, there is a duly elected Government and a duly mandated UN Force in Iraq both of whom are currently combating an insurgency, but there is no "War" civil or otherwise being fought in Iraq other than the ongoing war on terror. Terminology regarding the Senate hearings can be accredited to those participating in those hearings do not attribute them to me. Dianavan asks how we're doing, let's see by the end of January 2007 more than 50 % of the 18 regions that make up Iraq will be under sole control of the Iraqi Authorities including all police and security matters, which in comparison to Greece at the end of the Second World War means that Iraq is slightly ahead of schedule, by about a year. Probably by March next year Iraq's second largest city will be handed over to full Iraq Authority control. My best guess is that in the South the British will have withdrawn apart from training and support duties by summer 2007. autolycus - 06 Dec 06 - 03:27 PM Oh, and just as a reminder, it was the West that a)armed Saddam in the first place and b)gave him the money to buy the beastly arms. Neither a) or b) as stated above is correct - Anybody want to dispute that? Between 1973 and 1990 Iraq was the armament industries best market. Now according to the figures published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Iraq's main suppliers of weapons during this period (i.e. point a) above - those who armed Saddam in the first place) were as follows in descending order of importance: - Russia supplied 68.9% of all arms (From 1973 to 1977 Russia was their sole supplier) - France supplied 12.7% of all arms - China supplied 11.7% of all arms - "Others" supplied 4.8% of all arms - Egypt supplied 1.3% of all arms - USA supplied 0.5% of all arms As for Ivor's other contention b) above - Sorry Ivor, Iraq's weapons were purchased with oil deals made by Saddam that ripped-off the Iraqi people and did great damage to Iraq's oil reservoirs. Any here remember who were the most vocal in the debating halls of the international community in support of Saddam in 1990 and again in 2003 - any doubts take a look at the vested interests depicted above - that will provide you with an answer. The mutterings of Bobert and Ard Mhacha aren't even worth addressing, but it is noted that defence of the 600,000 dead Iraqi figures seems to have diminished in the light of fact and reason. If you are going to quote figures to back up an arguement at least get the damn thing right. Impossible for both Bobert and Ard I know, but they do inject a bit of humour into proceedings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Paul from Hull Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:55 AM *LOL* Foolestroupe! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Folkiedave Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:11 AM You mean Rumsfeld only managed to sell 0.5% of the arms that Saddam bought? Pretty poor selling I'd say. And of course it depends how you define "arms" Here is another view: From a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December 2002. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme. The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq. The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'. It claims the US ministries of defence, energy, trade and agriculture, and the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, supplied Iraq with WMD technology. Germany, currently opposed to war, is shown to be Iraq's biggest arms- trading partner with 80 companies selling weapons technology, including Siemens. It sold medical machines with dual-purpose parts used to detonate nuclear bombs. The German government reportedly 'actively encouraged' weapons co-operation and assistance was allegedly given to Iraq in developing poison gas used against Kurds. In China three companies traded weapons technology; in France eight and in Russia six. Other countries included Japan with five companies; Holland with three; Belgium with seven; Spain with three and Sweden with two, including Saab. The UN claims publicly naming the companies would be counter- productive. Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991. All trade in WMD technology has been outlawed for decades. UNSCOM found documents showing preparations by the Russian firms Livinvest, Mars Rotor and Niikhism to supply parts for military helicopters in 1995. In April 1995, Mars Rotor and Niikhism sold parts used in long-range missiles to a Palestinian who transported them to Baghdad. In 2001 and 2002, the Chinese firm Huawei Technologies sent supplies to Iraqi air defence. Foreign companies supplied Iraq's nuclear weapons programme with detonators, fissionable material and parts for a uranium enrichment plant. Foreign companies also provided Iraq's chemical and biological programmes with basic materials; helped with building labs; assisted the extension of missile ranges; provided technology to fit missiles with nuclear, biological and chemical warheads; and supplied Scud mobile launch-pads. Nearly all the weapons that were supplied have been destroyed, accounted for or immobilised, according to former weapons inspectors. Now perhaps you would like to justify the cost of the Iraq War to the USA as your economy weakens and the once almighty dollar crumbles in value? Tell me what you intend to do when your currency becomes worthless? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: ard mhacha Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:41 AM Teribus you are holed below the waterline be British and go down with dignity, you seemed to be a man of many snorts, too many by the fruitless bombardment of facts that don`t mean a thing. Bush was a pitiful sight trying to reply to the Gods of US politics, and you thought the man did well, even Blair has given up the ghost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:43 AM "the Gods of US politics" LOL, well done Ard, I did say that your babble tended to inject a bit of humour into any thread - "the Gods of US politics" indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,petr Date: 07 Dec 06 - 12:33 PM there is no 'war' in Iraq, oh I forgot it ended when they toppled Saddams statue. Somebody ought to tell that the families of the 13 US soldiers who died yesterday. What Iraqi army? It exists mostly on paper. ALthough there is the Kurdish Peshmerga and Kurdistan, there is Moqtada Sadrs Mahdi Army militia. (Which by the way the US completely underestimated when they shut down Sadrs newspapers and tried to arrest him. When he mobilized his militia they so interrupted the US supplies that Bremer had to institute rationing in the Green zone.) There are other militias as well. None of them are about to be disbanded and merge into an all Iraqi army. And as the US talks about withdrawing, how are the going to bring about more security with less troops, when they arent able to provide it now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 07 Dec 06 - 05:23 PM Well, well, well... Seems that not only is the t-bird in denial but that somehow he thinks some of this stuff is funny... For the life of me I can't find any humor in deaths of over 600,000 people motivated pretty much by the Bushite's desire to hold power... And, T-zer, while we are at it perhaps you'd like to take on the Johns Hopkins folks who have come up with that number??? Resorting to the ***prove it*** defense is a tad below yer standards if you think that one poor ol' hillbilly has the time or background to take a study conducted by folks who are at the top of their fields at Johns Hopkins and prove them correct??? I believe that you have been tutored in the Old Guy Debatin' School... BTW, not only did the Iraq study panel use the word "dire" but also used the word "deteriorating"... Logic would suggest that if yer position is deterioratin' that a "tie game" is quite illogical... Perhaps, rather than burn up bandwidth with usless and irrelevant facts and non facts, perhaps you could, in your own words, explain how "dire and deterioratin" suggest some kind of stalemate??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bill D Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:25 PM guys...it don't matter about the exact number of how many are dead. TOO many.....and it is useless to quibble over semantics about whether "not winning" = "losing"....it is, simply, a big mess because we (meaning Republican strategists) either didn't understand Iraqi politics, or failed to get GW to listen to them. We took the lid (Saddam)off a cauldron where the major groups hate each other and care more about Sunni or Shia 'power' than about Iraq as a country. And on top of this, most of BOTH groups have come to dislike US and assume that our presence there is a major reason a lot of their friends & relatives are dead!....And no one could see this coming? We have been at this longer than WWII. We can barely IDENTIFY the enemy. We have troops on their 3rd deployment, enlistments way down, and mountains of equipment piled up in Alabama, waiting to be refurbished from desert fighting,....we are spending 5-6 BILLION a month...(week?)1 to have a damned STALEMATE? THAT seems a lot like 'losing' to me...but who am I to 2nd guess all those experts? 1 remember the words of Everett Duerksen..."A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon we're talking about real money!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:32 PM But, Bill, it's not all bad. Think of the money the arms industry has made. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:34 PM "Akenaton, there is no "War" in Iraq" No War, right..... "The exact conduct of war will depend to a great extent upon its objectives, which may include factors such as the seizure of territory, the annihilation of a rival state, the subjugation of another people or recognition of one's own people as a separate state. Typically any military action by one state is opposed, ie is countered by the military forces of one or more states." .... which blithely sidesteps "Civil War"... unless one define "state" as any group of people led by leaders, or even any group of would be leaders fighting on behalf of their assumed followers.... Notice that this definition cutely avoids the concept of anybody being hurt or dying... Some people must be bald, the way they want to split hairs... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bill D Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM You gotta understand the *rules*...if you manage to define cleverly, you get to do anything you wish! "Heck, no...we aren't fighting a 'war'...'cause we didnt DECLARE a war! Therefore we can't be losing a war. We are just...ummmm...helping a bunch of nice folks to recover from a dictatorship and guiding them toward democracy! (Never mind that most of them can barely comprehend 'voting' for anyone except members of their own sect.)" who, me? Cynical? Naaawwww.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:56 PM "either didn't understand Iraqi politics, or failed to get GW to listen to them." "Out of a 1000 people in the US embassy in Iraq, only 6 are fluent in Arabic"...!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:58 PM The President of the USA isn't fluent in English fer krissake. So why should the embassy people surprise you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:24 PM I'm NOT at all surprised - neither is the 'rest of the world' - this sort of arrogant wankerism stuff-up is what the USA is best well known for internationally, and why some of us just KNEW that the US would stick its dick in Iraq, AND get it chewed, like in Vietnam. What we were trying for at best, and it failed with Fascist Johnny, was to not burn our bridges by tagging along - Johnny still refuses to admit that the US is 'not winning in Iraq'... BTW, Johnny said that "sending troops into Fiji at the request of the elected PM would be an illegal invasion" - ROFL.... All that Hollywood crap about careful US military planning is really funny, you know. The last bit of effective US military planning was WWII D-Day, and don't forget that the English refused to let 'the bloody Yanks' have total charge of that, you know... In the Pacific, the tactic was mostly just an inevitable "roll up the carpet with concentrating superior force on a weak spot". After the 'Axis of Evil' & 'Grand Crusade' stupidities, we are just waiting for "Ooops, what was that damn big Red Button for anyway?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:23 PM If there is no war in Iraq, Teribus, then Bush cannot claim war time powers. So Bush then is abusing his power and must face the consequences. Saying we're not losing, we're just not winning is like saying, "I didn't lie, I merely misrepresented my position." There is no stalemate here. Either we get our victory or we have been defeated. We're the superpower, we have to win. The insurgency only has to fight us to a standstill and can rightfully claim victory. Unfortunately, they have already fought us to a standstill and we still cannot turn this thing around. So we are losing. Because our leaders are too chickenshit to talk about it, I'm amazed at how few here bring it up: if we're going to have a chance, if we're going to continue this good fight, such as it is, we need a draft. We simply must have more people. There simply are not enough. We cannot draw down troops until we have an upper hand which we clearly do not. To get an upper hand, we need a lot more "boots on the ground," as they term it, at any given time. Short of a huge influx of soldiers, the United States will lose this war shortly. We keep saying that the Iraqis need to take responsibility, excuse me? WE need to start taking responsibility. WE invaded them, WE dismantled their govt, their military, their police, their media, their infrastructure. We took away every available weapon they had to stop an insurgency and a civil war then we tell them, "This is your fault because you won't take responsibility for it!" WE were the ones that promised to build a democracy there--it is OUR responsibility to see Iraq out of this brutal dark age we have thrust them and ourselves into. As long as we're too chickenshit to draft people and get bodies over there and start kicking butt and start turning this thing around, it is WE who are not taking responsibility for this debacle and it is entirely the fault of the United States and Great Britain. They're talking about the need to send 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq to disarm the militias. HOHOHO! Dream on! All that would accomplish it getting thousands more troops sent home in flag-draped boxes. Be honest! We need to send 200,000 to 300,000 over there if we're going to have any success disarming militias. Really, we need about 500,000 to do that. Trouble is, that would be unbelievably expensive since the current paltry 140,000 cost us about $6 billion a month. We have spent too much money already and can't afford to spend much more. So what do we do? Our hardware is also running down and wearing out from overuse and we don't have the personnel or parts to fix it. It will cost $17 billion a year for the next several years to repair this equipment and it wouldn't matter if the war stopped at this very minute. My job deeply involves me in this hardware repair effort and it is a lost cause. I wrote the procedures for revamping the humvees to withstand the rigors of Iraq--I wrote them. There were about 88,000 early last year that needed to be rebuilt at the time I wrote those procedures. We have less than 1% of it done. If we double the repair rate next year and no more humvees come stateside for revamping, we will still have less than 1% of them rebuilt. It is a serious, serious, serious hardware and repair shortage we are facing. I mean, it's extremely serious, folks. We need a draft just to get enough people to fix this hardware. Much of it was never meant for Iraq, it was emergency equipment meant for domestic disasters and most of it is now over in Iraq getting beat to shit and then being sent back to the States to sit in some govt lot awaiting repairs that have yet to come. The money isn't there because Bush slashed it to divert more to Iraq where it is promptly squandered and stolen by unscrupulous assholes. You see how this shortage affected our ability to respond to Katrina. You see how unacceptably slow our response has been to Midwestern people who lost power in that snowstorm last week. Some 55,000 STILL have no power and will not have it back before Saturday at the earliest!! It takes great effort from the National Guard to clear the roads so repair crews can get through but few states have enough Guardsmen or equipment to sustain much of the necessary effort. Eventually, it just won't happen at all. We'll be on our own. We are slowly devolving into a 3rd world nation thanks to Bush and his war. We are cowards if we keep expecting only a small segment of the total population to shoulder this war and all the natural calamities we face. Most Guard units today are now rated as "Unready" or "Unsat" (unsatisfactory) because they lack the necessary personnel and equipment to be able to assist in even the least catastrophic disasters. And it's only getting worse by the month. Even then, we'd rather sit in a cold, dark house than do something about our situation. We have to start acting like a responsible nation instead privileged, spoiled, stupid brats whose individual wants and needs matter above the nation's as a whole and we need to start a draft and start showing the world we're serious or the world is going to go on without us. They don't have much of a choice, really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,petr Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:39 PM Unfortunately while America may have the largest military in the world it is not as useful as one might expect since the US populace has a deep aversion to casualties - as well as cost, (Stiglitz the former world bank economist estimates that over the long run the Iraq war is 2-3$ trillion) when it comes to a war of choice. OBviously the NOv election was the real beginning of Bushs accountability moment, and now hes had to submit to adult supervision. Unfortunately there is very little that the US can do regardless what the Iraq Study group comes up with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:55 PM The influx of troops required to add "boots on the ground" comes in the form of Iraqi troops. A US draft would solve absolutely nothing apart from increasing your casualty rates and guaranteeing the defeat of US troops. How long do you think it would take to put those draftees into the frontline? The answer to that would be termed in months not weeks. How effective would they be? Absolutely bloody useless, they would be a bigger danger to your "professional" troops than the insurgents those "professionals" are currently fighting. Please note that while a largely "civilian" think tank suggests an increase in troop levels, not one single military commander on ground has asked for more troops. I would rely more on their judgement of the situation than those of any damn committee sitting in Washington. US with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Vietnam by a far weaker foe. The Soviets with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Afghanistan by a far weaker foe. The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo. Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters - again they are facing professional troops, not conscripts, not draftees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:40 PM And still Bush says "We will prevail". It seems he looks in the mirror and sees Churchill. Anybody else could tell him he's a bit off, to put it mildly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:49 PM I hope that they DO try to reinstitute the draft. That would make this illegal war of aggression so unpopular in the USA that it would definitely cause its failure even sooner. So much the better. The USA is an outright aggressor in this case, and it richly deserves to lose the war and go home in disgrace. And yes, conscript forces would be less effective, just as you say, Teribus. As for the Iraqis, God help them, because they are in deep trouble no matter what happens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:13 AM "US with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Vietnam by a far weaker foe." Yep. But, really, weaker? Militarily, tonnage of bombs, amount of expensive hardware (as judged by the standards of the time, perhaps) - bet they were fighting on their own soil - and remember that NORTH VIETNAM - before external interference and partition, WANTED HELP from ''the free world' and were promised it during WWII, but were betrayed afterwards - so they had the attitude of "f*** 'em all". Don't forget that the French built their big base in the shadow of mountains "that they can never get artillery up there" ... hahahaha :-) The 'South' were a bunch of corrupt warlord puppets, who could not motivate their 'official army' ... oh dear, starting to sound more like Iraq... "The influx of troops required to add "boots on the ground" comes in the form of Iraqi troops." Which are acknowledged to be no more effective than in Vietnam, not counting infiltration by those dedicated to overthrow... "not one single military commander on ground has asked for more troops." Ah - in the beginning, and even BEFORE the invasion, they did, but since the 'political winds' were observed correctly, no sane military commander has since stepped out of line - hence 'no more requests for more troops'.... :-) "The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo." Sorry, I musta grown up on a different planet... "As for the Iraqis, God help them, because they are in deep trouble no matter what happens. " That's about the best that can be said, unfortunately... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:30 AM 282RA - just about the realistic sounding assessment I've heard. Unpleasant reading, but feels spookily more like reality than anything I've heard for a while. al |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:37 AM GUEST,282RA - 07 Dec 06 - 08:23 PM "If there is no war in Iraq, Teribus, then Bush cannot claim war time powers. So Bush then is abusing his power and must face the consequences." Wrong 282RA, the MNF currently deployed in Iraq are there at the invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq and under the terms of a perfectly legal and duly authorised UN Security Council Mandate. The latter has just been renewed and extended until 31st December 2007. So sorry no requirement to claim war time powers and no abuse of power on the part of your President. The Iraqi army currently being trained, who have already taken post in almost half of the country and who for some time now have been taking the lead in counter-insurgency operations is a very different force from the Iraqi Army of Saddam Hussein (Who never trusted his Army anyway). Main difference is that this Iraqi Army is not made of conscripts, they are all volunteers, and despite all the bombings and specific targeting of Army and Police recruitment centres thousands of Iraqi's continue to volunteer. Your President is quite right to state that the US "will prevail" because the alternative does not really bear thinking about. If the civilian population of the United States of America does to US servicemen and women currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq what you did to your conscript army that served in Vietnam. If you succeed in dragging them back home having not allowed them to finish the job, then resign yourselves to the fact that on their return you will be defenceless, because these guys will not be prepared to go in to bat for you again unless it is on American soil where they can see you on the frontline alongside them - of course by that stage it would be too late, you'd already have lost whatever conflict you were involved in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:59 AM "the MNF currently deployed in Iraq are there at the invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq" ROFL.... elected AFTER the invasion..... hahahahahaha! "under the terms of a perfectly legal and duly authorised UN Security Council Mandate" ROFLMAO - passed 'when the war had been won' AFTER the invasion when George Baby told the UN and the rest of the world to eff off and that the US 'would go it alone'... the attempt to get the UN to clean up the mess Georgie Porgie and "kill 'em all" Rummy created.... ROFL... oh please stop... my sides hurt... "despite all the bombings and specific targeting of Army and Police recruitment centres thousands of Iraqi's continue to volunteer." It's the only real way of earning a living honestly in Iraq - sort of a 'suicide army', in a way, really.... "If the civilian population of the United States of America does to US servicemen and women currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq what you did to your conscript army that served in Vietnam." Ah - it was the GOVT who did that - didn't want to praise the soldiers so snuck them in undercover, no parades for 'heroes' etc - because they didn't want to wear the political fallout for having 'failed' after years of loud mouth rednecking and trying to destroy all critics of Govt 'policy'. The loyal "the alternative does not really bear thinking about." Echoes of Vietnam, anyone.... now THAT's a good title for a song... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:10 AM Carry on laughing Foolstroupe, as you obviously haven't got any real contribution to make. It would appear that all that you can do is repeatedly spout the usual left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush nonsensical mantras in the hope that people will be stupid enough to swallow them. When confronted with an alternative/opposite point of view backed up by fact, your stuffed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:14 AM Teribus-- The US "will prevail", you assure us. Gee thanks, that makes it all better. The only thing wrong is that at this point, and probably long since, it has been out of the hands of the "Coalition". How many times do we have to tell you that it is fundamentally a question of IRAQI politics--- before it finally sinks into your giant brain? I've been saying for over a year now that if you don't take Sunnis' wishes into account--specifically their need for oil income and their need to be able to trust the police-- you ensure a bottomless supply of terrorists. Your response is that ALL Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945--and therefore deserve no consideration. As I've said earlier, this is drivel--dangerous drivel. It's your attitude, as manifested by Shiite leaders in Iraq, which makes peace in Iraq--(even the rump state, without the northern Kurdish area, which is gone from "Iraq" for good)--- impossible---ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:21 AM "Carry on laughing Foolstroupe" Just as long as you keep spinnin' 'em Mr T! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:29 AM "the alternative does not really bear thinking about." Ah, but it HAS to be thought about... eventually. Yep - that's the same narrow minded red necked ball clanking dickheadedness that got the Iraq mess started in the first place... but, like in Vietnam, "the alternative" is now par for the course - just how much Trade does the US (and the "Allies of the willing in that conflict") now have with Vietnam (oh, and it's "backer of Terror" - China)? ;-) The same will eventually happen with whatever sort of rubble is left in Iraq too... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:43 AM The problem I see with T-zer's "boots on the ground" being Iraqis is that we keep hearing how the stategy should be to train more "peacekeepers"... Yeah, that may sound good but when you peel off a few layers what it amounts to is basicly training folks to be better killers... I mean, like who trained the malitias??? History is repleat with such exercizes of insanity... Think the Taliban here... While I agree with my bud 282RA that any chance of victory would involve a massive effort both in terms of manpower and equipement I'm rather scepical that even if those sacrifices were made that the chances of winning or even breaking even would be very slim... Sadder yet is that Bush is too stubborn and/or intellectually challenged to hang with a paradigm change and that all but insures that the US/UK ill-thought-out invasion will fail... Even today, Bush holds to his rhetoric about completing a mission which has changed over and over to suit his political situations... The man will say anything... So, I think we are screwed... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Paul from Hull Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:12 AM Teribus, I have no intention of getting into a slagging match here, but I want to take issue with a couple of your points from above. "The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo." Actually, a considerable number of the British troops deployed in the 'Malayan Emergency' were National Servicemen. I think we have therefore to look elsewhere for the reasons for the title of this thread. "Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters..." While I can believe the above, do you have a source for it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:45 AM Well at very least I think Teribus is being unfair. This guy isn't right wing, left wing or whatever - he's trying to think this thing through, and he may be on to something. The way you win a war is to surround your enemy with superior forces and kill him, and a lot of other innocent people. Like the Union army in the American Civil War, or the aliies in WW2. In WW2 of course the Russians did a lot of our dying for us. If you're not prepared to do that, you shouldn't be fighting a war - its not fair to the men who put their lives on the line for your cause. The Germans didn't stop being Nazis because they had a change of heart. They stopped being Nazis, because if we found one being a Nazi, we shot them in public. And we showed them there were was more percentage in doing things our way. But as the guy says - we are talking MASSIVE commitment. Furthermore there is no way you can guarantee democracy is going to deliver you something sane and sensible in the way of government. Malaya being a bloody good case in point. So you can't really with any degree of honesty, promise a stable benevolent government at the end of the road. I don't really think this war was ever about that. It was about showing the world there are pains and penalties if you pull a stunt like 9/11. There is a military response. And I think in a way - Bush's ignorance speaks very eloquently. It says I don't care if you are fundamentalists or not. I get any shit from your part of the world and this shit is what happens. Look out your window at the wreckage and say Thankyou Osama, without you - there would have been none of this. I think America and England will withdraw without creating Utopia in Iraq. And I think the people who thought this one out, won't give a bugger. Mission accomplished, as far as they are concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:44 PM "...there is no way you can guarantee democracy is going to deliver you something sane and sensible in the way of government. Malaya being a bloody good case in point." I don't think you have to go as far afield as Malaysia to get another case in point... Here's a piece by Simon Hoggart in today's Guardian which seems to put it pretty well - Dead fish day "The president looked like a hooked fish with its head hammered by a humane angler. But he always does. Yesterday he looked even worse. He has moved from the riverbank to the fishmonger's slab. After the midterms and the Baker report on Iraq (executive summary: "We screwed up. Now let's get out"), he has been called a dead man walking. Yesterday he resembled a dead fish twitching...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: akenaton Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:15 PM The War was not about Global politics or spreading democracy, it was about domestic politics. America saw Saddam's Iraq as a soft target, an easy way to gain the political initiative and grab a bunch of oil. Blair was even worse...he saw Iraq as his ticket to glory. An easy victory for the Yanks and the guy who stood "shoulder to shoulder" wouild be rewarded. In the UK this conflict was indeed "Blair's War" single handedly he convinced a willing party and many here that he was fighting for freedom. He lied and lied again.....For personal glory. I remember arguing with wld years ago over this point. wld excuses Blair, but most now believe that he should be tried and imprisoned.......The American can do as they like with Bush who is in reality a sad fool. Blair knowingly committed a monumental political crime and should face the consequences. However, solely due to Mr Blair, Labour will be booted out at the next election, and may they never be returned to power until all who are stained by Blair's crime hide under the Labour banner...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:41 PM I found it difficult to ascribe the motives you did so readily to the leader of the party I had voted for all my life. He has said nothing in his own defence. Perhaps there is nothing to be said. I still don't find the alternatives to Labour very palatable. Do you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:32 PM The alternatives aren't very palatable anywhere where the great corporate empire controls all the major parties which you can vote for... "Let's see. Who shall I pick this time? Tweedledee? Or Tweedledum? Or Tweedledummest? Decisions, decisions." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: akenaton Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:22 PM Al...Sorry for seeming to tar you along with Blair, and I probably find all the alternatives on offer even less palatable than you do. The question is quite simple... Was he bad or stupid? The same question I would ask all who supported this war....especially TERIBUS. BUT.....the whole notion of pre-emptive war just because someone thinks it may give personal kudos....like something thought up by some focus group, is to my mind evil incarnate. Something which should not be convieniantly forgotten, or weighed against a few more pennies on the pension, or another week in Tenerife for the nurses. Today Blair lectures our minorities on their behaviour, praising terrorism ect. Yet who will point to his own bloodstained hands and demand that justice is seen to be done .......Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:11 PM >>The influx of troops required to add "boots on the ground" comes in the form of Iraqi troops.<< We've completely dismantled their military. It will literally take years to rebuild it. This is compounded by the fact that the Iraqi economy is a disgrace and most of the people enlisting are doing strictly for a paycheck and have no intention of dying for their country. When the economy is good, you get a better grade of soldier because he's volunterring out of a sense of duty. When the economy is bad, they sign up just to have a job and patriotism and duty be damned. Whent he bullets fly, they flee. It will take years just to comb out the malingerers and the free-loaders. >>A US draft would solve absolutely nothing apart from increasing your casualty rates and guaranteeing the defeat of US troops.<< It's the only chance we have. It is the ONLY option not being explored. Every other has been exhausted and been found wanting and that is why Robert Gates said the other day that he is open to suggestions. That should prove right there that we currntly have no real options. So to me, we either get out and get out now or we stay and fight but we MUST have fresh, well-trained, well-armed troops and we're not going to get them from among the Iraqis. >>How long do you think it would take to put those draftees into the frontline? The answer to that would be termed in months not weeks.<< That's atually very fast. With Iraqis, it will take years. At least 5 years of struggle must pass before any Iraqi officer or enlisted leader would be considered savvy, experienced and trustworthy enough to be followed. We don't have that time to wait. We have to do something NOW!! >>How effective would they be? Absolutely bloody useless, they would be a bigger danger to your "professional" troops than the insurgents those "professionals" are currently fighting.<< Professional armies historically don't work any more effectively. Ask Egypt, Rome, Greece, Assyria, IRAQ and countless other nations of the past. They all had professional armies. They all fell. Professional armies are notorious for a can-do attitude no matter what the odds are. "We can do it" "we don't need help" "We're soldiers and we rely on ourselves" is all you'll ever get out of them regardless of what the truth is. They don't care about the truth. All they care about is being a soldier. Once there is a war, they generally don't want it to stop because it might mean being cashiered once that war ends. It's their livelihood--they have nothing to go home to. The longer a war goes on for a professional soldier, the better--it's his job. Professional armies are bunk. >>Please note that while a largely "civilian" think tank suggests an increase in troop levels, not one single military commander on ground has asked for more troops. I would rely more on their judgement of the situation than those of any damn committee sitting in Washington.<< You would be an idiot to do so because, as a veteran and as someone working inside the defense industry, military people do not speak their minds to the public and they do not get in the faces of the people whose policies they are assigned to carry out. They do what they're told and, by my own military experience, they are told to do it and shut up. And they do. That's why generals retire before they speak out against Rumsfeld. They just can't do it when they're in an active capacity or they would have. Generals aren't clamoring for more men because they have been ordered not to and a good soldier NEVER disobeys an order unless it is illegal. >>US with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Vietnam by a far weaker foe.<< I never said we would win. We are going to lose. But it is the only chance we have to score some kind of victory. If we leave without drafting, it will always look like we chickened out--in fact, if we leave before we draft we DID INDEED chicken out. It would show the rest of the world that we're just a pack of stupid asses who start shit and then expect everyone else to finish it for us because we're weren't prepared to make the sacrifices necessary for a victory. Not acceptable. We must make EVERY effort--EVERY EFFORT--possible BEFORE withdrawing. That means we HAVE to draft. Will we win? Fuck no. Of course not. It's too late for that. But we have to be the example not a coward who starts a fight and then hides behind others. Every other option has been exhausted. This is the only one left before withdrawal and it MUST be implemented before we can leave. >>The Soviets with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Afghanistan by a far weaker foe.<< It doesn't matter. We MUST draft BEFORE we can leave or we will have cut and run. It is the ONLY option not yet exploited and it must be exploited before we can leave. >>The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo.<< It doesn't matter. We are losing the war and so we MUST draft or we will be cutting and running. We will be cowards in the eyes of the world. >>Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters - again they are facing professional troops, not conscripts, not draftees.<< It doesn't matter. We are losing the war!!!!! THEREFORE we MUST draft before we leave or we will be cowards who cut and run. We MUST exhaust EVERY POSSIBLE OPTION before we can leave. Period. And if that means a draft then so be it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Folkiedave Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:32 PM If a draft is the only answer then I reckon the draft dodging that went on at the time of Vietnam will be a mere nothing compared to the dodging that will go on to avoid fighting in Iraq. Needless to say it will be the sons of the poor who will be drafted and the sons of the rich will be getting out of it. Did someone say "Bush"? Currently the cost of the war is over $348,000,000,0000. Mind it makes it great for us Brits to visit the USA. Almost like visiting Eastern Europe with hamburgers and cars. Place is such good value for money as the $ collapses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:23 PM What confused me,and still does to some extent is the cultural background he is coming from . Married to a lefty lawyer, liberal education, he's even a guitarist for godsake....yea I know Heydrich played the violin quite well. Do you know that bit in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, where they ask the culprit why he did it - betray England. He said, well after Suez, it was impossible to think of England as anything except America's streetwalker. perhaps that's it. Written on the desk as they walk into the PM's job is something to the effect - whatever happens you go along with American foreign policy, to the extent that you can. Wilson, despite howls of protest from Heath at the time, kept us out of Vietnam but he offered tacit support to America in that war. Perhaps Blair simply wasn't that savvy. If someone like Blair is the scoundrel that you say he is, what bloody hope is there? Any more left wing and anti establishment won't be elected in the marginals. I don't understand. I don't pretend that I do. I hope you're wrong Ake. I suppose what I'm saying is that I hope he is really stupid, rather than evil. Perhaps though there is third alternative we can't see. Look at all the people who said, why didn't Bush Senior finish off Saddam after the famous 'Turkey Shoot' as Iraqui troops left Kuwait? Well we can see now what a dumb idea that would have been. Sometimes the truth is not pure, simple, or self evident. And I'm not dumb, but I am puzzled by this situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: freda underhill Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:35 PM "I don't understand. I don't pretend that I do. I hope you're wrong Ake. I suppose what I'm saying is that I hope he is really stupid, rather than evil. Perhaps though there is third alternative we can't see." When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:36 PM LOL! You might be onto something there, freda. Nothing gets male blood pumping like a good, lively military campaign. Remember Bush on the aircraft carrier? Those are the moments a lot of men live for. 282RA - I do NOT think of Americans as cowards, and I will not think of them as cowards even if they should precipitately pull out of Iraq. I think of your government as misguided, irresponsible, and idiotic, but do not think of Americans as cowards. Not for a minute. Americans are tough people, and they have always shown great courage and independence when times are tough. The reason I want to see America leave Iraq is simply because I don't think they had justification for going there in the first place. No matter when or how they leave, it's going to be a very tough time for the Iraqis, but anyone who thinks ordinary Americans or their soldiers are cowards is just plain lost in his own delusions and anti-American rhetoric. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:36 PM >>If a draft is the only answer then I reckon the draft dodging that went on at the time of Vietnam will be a mere nothing compared to the dodging that will go on to avoid fighting in Iraq.<< That's called "when the war hits home" and no one has any business whatsoever supporting a war without supporting the draft. If they're not prepared to accept a draft then they need to shut the hell up about starting a stupid war. >>Needless to say it will be the sons of the poor who will be drafted and the sons of the rich will be getting out of it.<< Of course. But nevertheless, we will draft at some point. There's no way out of it because if we're going to lose, we'd better lose having tried everything to win it because this loss is going to sting very, very deep. >>Currently the cost of the war is over $348,000,000,0000. Mind it makes it great for us Brits to visit the USA. Almost like visiting Eastern Europe with hamburgers and cars. Place is such good value for money as the $ collapses.<< That is one of the things that will happen when we pull out--the incredible shrinking dollar. Again, that's the gamble you take when you decide to go to war. If it isn't worth it, then don't do it. Now, the American people can be forgiven for this war because Bush was not elected in his first term, he stole it with some electoral hocus-pocus and started the war at that time but his reelection was something I still cannot forgive the American people for and I don't think I ever will. I am extremely disappointed in the American people and if I had another country to flee to, I would. I am ashamed of my American citizenship and really don't want it anymore but I'm stuck with it. The midterm victories, I'm sorry to say, were far too little far too late. What kind of a nation are we? Bunch of fucking stupid asses who deserve everything that's coming. Assholes!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: bobad Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:44 PM "Almost like visiting Eastern Europe with hamburgers and cars." Yeah, well, you have to put up with some hardship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:50 PM >>282RA - I do NOT think of Americans as cowards, and I will not think of them as cowards even if they should precipitately pull out of Iraq.<< Talk is cheap. America's defeat will not be cheap for anyone and that includes you. So you remember what you said because I will be here to hold you to it once you finally realize how utterly self-absorbed, delusional and arrogant Americans really truly are. >>I think of your government as misguided, irresponsible, and idiotic, but do not think of Americans as cowards. Not for a minute. Americans are tough people, and they have always shown great courage and independence when times are tough.<< Let's see, when times got tough in WW2, we sent to the Russians to die battling Hitler so we wouldn't have to. As for WW1, we spent a whopping 6 months fighting in that one. When times got tough in Korea, we fled and North Korea is STILL a threat as a result. When times got tough in Vietnam we fled. Now times are tough in Iraq and we are getting ready to flee. No one's talking about Afghanistan but that one is worse off than Iraq and we are going to flee from there too. And we'll leave the rest of the world trying to sort it out while we blame the whole mess on them not helping us (after we told them we didn't need their help). I guess I was born in a different country called the United States of America because I haven't seen any of this "great courage" in my lifetime. What specifically are you referring to? >>The reason I want to see America leave Iraq is simply because I don't think they had justification for going there in the first place. No matter when or how they leave, it's going to be a very tough time for the Iraqis, but anyone who thinks ordinary Americans or their soldiers are cowards is just plain lost in his own delusions and anti-American rhetoric.<< This from someone who said in an earlier post that he wants to see America leave Iraq in disgrace. Get that straight. George Bush wasn't truly elected by the people in his first term but he sure was in the second and so was that unbelievably corrupt 109th Congress that allowed him to do anything and everything he damned well pleased. I am sick to death of seeing morons defending a country that desperately needs to have its stupid ass kicked for fucking up the world and thinking it has every right to and no one else has any right to complain. That is not a country I could or would EVER defend and I'll kill myself before I ever do. America taught me that in school. We're not supposed to be doing the things we are doing. That's not supposed to be what we stand for. And when I find out it's all a dirty, cheap lie I'm supposed to the Little Chicken way out and say, "But I still love you" For what???? You tell me--for what?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,petr Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:38 PM IRaq Study group, (as Jon Stewart says) the test was 3 years ago. Robert Gates has pointed out that frankly 'there are no new ideas' and rearranging the old ones will not work. Train more Iraqi and Police - they are divided into sectarian units - and will not fight against their own sect. Talk to Syria and Iran ? why should they talk after being painted as rogue states. The middle east will not fall into chaos like some reverse domino theory if the US withdraws, although a lot more Iraqis will die probably for quite some time. Regarding Bush; I think its more stupidity than evil, after being presented with the Iraq Study groups 79 recommendations he did not ask one question. heres one point of view |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:02 PM Not only is Bush "incurious"--by far the most charitable interpretation to his attitude. But--from a recent column by that wild-eyed leftist, George Will, under Bush the US now displays to the world "the fatal new combination of arrogance and incompetence". I think that puts it nicely. The same column also pointed out that Halliburton hired Pakistanis and Indians for the "Coalition" food service. Iraqis need not apply. Why?--fear of poisoning the food. That's how much the Bush regime trusts its budding democrats. And on top of it all, as I said earlier-- listening to Bush, he still imagines himself as Churchill. Nothing like a whining fake Texan accent rolling faux-Churchillian cadences, I always say--it adds that I don't know what--(certainly nothing French--that won't make it with the macho sheep who voted for him). Twice? How could any thinking individual do that? Roll on, 2009. And in the meantime, start the investigations of the propaganda campaign that got the US into Mr. Bush's war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM 282RA, I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying... You said of the modern American that they are, as a nation in a general sense, "self-absorbed, delusional and arrogant". Yup, I'd agree with that all right. Your media and educational system have accomplished that. You assert that the Congress is corrupt. Yup, I'd agree with that. But I would not call Americans cowards for ending the Korean War fighting when they did (it had ground into a bloody stalemate, and neither side could gain ground). I do not blame them for getting out of Vietnam when they did...they should have done so a lot sooner, because it was a mistake in the first place. They should not even have helped the French stay there! I do not blame anyone for stopping a war that is a mistake or that offers nothing but a bloody stalemate. It's wise to stop a profitless war. What I meant was this: Americans, as individuals, have a long history of pugnacity and willingness to fight. Look at the history of your country. Look at how many people own guns, fer chrissake! Look at how many people are willing to use them. That is not a nation of cowards, it's a nation of people who will fight when they see that something geniunely valuable is at stake. The Vietnamese HAD something genuinely valuable to fight for...national sovereignty and an end to colonialism...but the Americans in Vietnam didn't. That's why the Americans lost heart for the whole thing, and why they finally left. It isn't "courage" to continue a pointless, profitless war...it's sheer stubborness, false pride, and stupidity. I was speaking of the American national character, not of your wretched excuse for a government, which is in truth just a handmaiden for a bunch of huge corporations like the oil companies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:17 PM >>What I meant was this: Americans, as individuals, have a long history of pugnacity and willingness to fight. Look at the history of your country. Look at how many people own guns, fer chrissake!<< Apparently, you don't live in America and have never been here. Your basic gun-owner--I'm not talking about hunting enthusiasts, I'm talking about gun enthusiasts--is a freaking moronic mistake of nature. These are BY FAR the BIGGEST cowards currently to pollute planet earth. These people are SO fearful of everything that doesn't "think" exactly like them that they have to arm themselves and mutter stupidity like: "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers" but these great defenders of our constitional right to own firearms have absolutely NOTHING to say when they learn Bush is wiretapping without a warrant. They also say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and then say, "Shut the fuck up, you asshole liberal!" when you ask why America is ONLY nation on earth whose peacetime death count due to guns far outnumbers other nations in the midst of violent, bloody wars. We must have an awful lot of people who want to kill other people. >>Look at how many people are willing to use them.<< Yeah, look at that. How brave! How courageous! >>That is not a nation of cowards,<< I'm afraid that's exactly what it is. >>it's a nation of people who will fight when they see that something geniunely valuable is at stake.<< Such as what? When terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center where were the long lines of outraged patriots standing outside of military recruiting offices? Nowhere as evidenced by the military's inability to meet even reduced recruiting goals. Here's what one courageous individual said to me when I asked how real men could stand by while more and more women are willing to serve in Iraq: "If the dumb bitches want to get themselves killed, why should I care?" No joke. When I asked how long we should keep sending the SAME people to fight this war over and over again, this was what another brave hero said, "If they don't like it, they shouldn't have volunteered." Wow, makes me want to salute that ol' red, white & blue. No, Americans will not fight when something valuable is at stake unless it's the latest lottery jackpot--which is frankly more important to them than what's happening in Iraq judging from the huge numbers of Americans that play the lottery everyday as opposed to the ones that join the military to help win this war. I've had it up to here with asshole Americans and their self-centered shit. At least I served in the Middle East. At least I did that much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:23 PM Hmmm. Well, that's a pretty strong argument, 282RA. Good points you make there. I did live in New York State for 10 years, and I spent much time in Nevada in the 80's. From the angle you're speaking, as to how you go about explaining it, I'm basically in agreement with what you say. Yes, that kind of attitude is cowardly, although it poses behind a lot of aggressive intolerance and bluster (which indicates deep paranoia and extreme lack of confidence at some level...plus simply not giving a damn about other people). The attitudes you describe are among the many reasons I'd far rather be in Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:58 PM GUEST282RA, I don't know where you conjure up your revisionist history of World War II -- 7:50pm this date. Hitler and Stalin had signed a non-aggression pact in 1939 allowing Hitler to pursue his maniacal ambitions in Europe, and ceding hegemony to USSR in eastern Europe. Hitler invaded Poland, causing the official start of the War. Without having to worry about Russia to the east, Germany overran most of western Europe. But in 1941 Hitler took his eye off the prize and broke his treaty with the USSR and invaded Russia. Russia, now the enemy of the English enemy, became the Allies ally. You invalidate your argument with false premises. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:03 PM It was Realpolitik, as usual. The Germans and Russians had much to gain by cooperating in '39 and '40, and much to lose by not doing so. So they temporarily put aside their mutual loathing and cooperated with each other. That's typical of the strategic maneuvering that competing nations engage in. Great powers do not have friends, they have interests. Hitler was an idiot to attack Russia in '41. He should have left them alone. They would certainly have left him alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:42 PM >>But in 1941 Hitler took his eye off the prize and broke his treaty with the USSR and invaded Russia. Russia, now the enemy of the English enemy, became the Allies ally. You invalidate your argument with false premises.<< I said we let Russians incur the costs of doing battle with Hitler and you just affirmed it. I'm not sure what your point was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 09 Dec 06 - 12:11 AM Don't be disingenuous, 282A. You said, "...when times got tough...we sent the Russians to die battling Hitler so we wouldn't have to." That is not a factual statement. What part of Hitler attacked his Soviet ally don't you understand? The Allies fought Hitler in Western Europe and Africa; the USSR fought in the east, a sensible logistical decision forced on all parties. Using your logic, I could say that Stalin sent England and the Allies to fight in the west so he wouldn't have to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 01:56 AM Churchill, the French, and the Americans all hated the Soviets and wished them no good at all....UNTIL the Germans attacked Russia. Then, all of a sudden, the Russians became "our friends and allies". Amusing, isn't it? More cynical Realpolitik. But the Allies did not "send" the Russians to do any fighting for them...Hitler delivered that situation on a silver platter, doing the Allies the biggest favour he could have done short of an immediate surrender! What a fool. Churchill's hatred for Soviet Russia was positively visceral, both before the war and very soon after it was over. He detested them, and they detested him. He simply rescinded that hatred for the duration of combat against Germany. More Realpolitik. It's all so predictable. I think that if Hitler had left Poland alone, gone around them to the south (with alliances in Hungary, Rumania to provide access to the Russian border), and simply attacked Russia in 1939 or 1940, the rest of the west would have stood back and cheered the Germans on, and waited with great enthusiasm for Moscow and Russia to fall. They trusted the communists far less than they did the Nazis, truth be told. Hitler's grave error in '39 was this: He simply did not believe Britain and France would declare war over Poland. He thought they were bluffing. It was a tremendous failure of diplomacy and strategy on his part, but his military was innovative enough to turn that error into a spectacular victory in France the following year anyway...against all expectations. The French Army was generally assumed to be the most powerful in Europe at that time, and they did have darned good tanks...better than the German tanks, in fact. They just didn't use them very effectively, because they scattered them around piecemeal for the most part in a defensive posture. Their air force was also very poorly organized. That was not the way to go if you wanted to win. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:45 AM Foolestroupe - 08 Dec 06 - 06:13 AM "The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo." Sorry, I musta grown up on a different planet... OK then Foolestroupe - The "War of the Running Dogs" 1947 to 1964, a Communist backed insurrection that attempted to exploit the grievances of the Chinese-Malay community against the majority indigenous Bumiputra Malays. So on the planet you inhabit the Chinese-Malay insurgents won did they Foolestroupe? On the planet I inhabit Foolestroupe they didn't. Tell me Foolestroupe in what was known as the Borneo Confrontation which ran from 1964 to 1968 when Dr. Sukarno, President of Indonesia, decided that he was going to take over the Eastern Malayan provinces of Sarawak and Sabah plus the Kindom of Brunei. The UK responded to a request from the Malaysian Government for assistance under the terms of the bi-lateral defence treaty between the UK and Malaysia - That treaty still stands good to date. Tell me how many Indonesian insurgents made it from the border to the coast? Tell me how many successful insurgent attacks were carried out? Both questions are rhetorical Foolestroupe answer to both questions is NONE - what happens to be your criteria for successful defence on the planet you inhabit Foolestroupe? Tell me Foolestroupe do the provinces of Eastern Malaysia exist today as part of the Federation of Malaysia or are they part of Indonesia? Does Brunei exist as an independent Sovereign Nation or is it part of Indonesia? Paul from Hull - 08 Dec 06 - 11:12 AM Teribus,...."...a considerable number of the British troops deployed in the 'Malayan Emergency' were National Servicemen. I think we have therefore to look elsewhere for the reasons for the title of this thread." You are partially correct in what you say above Paul, British National Servicemen did serve in Malaya up to 1956/57, when National Service ended in the UK, from that point onward all operations were conducted by Britain's professional armed forces. "Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters..." While I can believe the above, do you have a source for it? "BBC There has been a four-fold rise this year in the number of people killed in the conflict in Afghanistan, according to a report on the insurgency. It suggests that more than 3,700 people have died so far this year - about 1,000 of them civilians." Now according to my maths that makes 2,700 people have been killed who were not civilians, they were insurgents actively engaged by UK/NATO troops. In the run up to UK taking over Helmand Province the BBC gleefully reported on a Taleban conference where local Taleban Commanders stated that they were going to combine forces and crush the British troops sent to the province - looks like they are having a tough time of it. akenaton - 08 Dec 06 - 01:15 PM "America saw Saddam's Iraq as a soft target, an easy way to gain the political initiative and grab a bunch of oil." Well Akenaton if you actually believe that to be true can you tell us how much Iraqi oil has been grabbed by the US in the last three years? Perhaps you could tell us how many American Oil Companies operate oilfields in Iraq? "In the UK this conflict was indeed "Blair's War" single handedly he convinced a willing party and many here that he was fighting for freedom. He lied and lied again.....For personal glory. I remember arguing with wld years ago over this point. wld excuses Blair, but most now believe that he should be tried and imprisoned......." So Akenaton, "most now believe that he should be tried and imprisoned"??? Now that is not exactly true is it Ake? Instead of most people believing that he should be tried and imprisoned, most people relected him - didn't they?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:23 AM So Guest 282AR believes that the Draft will save the face of the US in Iraq. OK let's take a look at 282AR's Drafted Troops shall we? I asked how long he thought it would take to put his draftee's into the frontline - He didn't respond, but later states that it would take at least five years to make units of the new Iraqi Army combat effective. He's wrong of course, the new Iraqi Army and Police Force are currently responsible for about 50% of Iraqi Territory, and in most counter-insurgency operations taking place in Iraq today the new Iraqi Army lead, they are the ones that are receiving the information from Iraqi civilians. Now the new US draft programme that 282AR believes is the US's only chance: - Currently no infrastructure exists to implement this draft and train the draftees and it would take time to set it up. - How well motivated will these draftees be, compared to someone who volunteers to serve knowing full well that the likelyhood is that he will be sent to a combat zone? - Do the same as you did in Vietnam? Just run these draftees through boot camp (once you have them organised) and ship'em out? In Iraq or Afghanistan they would die in droves, this, of course, would further improve their morale and motivation? 282AR says - "So to me, we either get out and get out now or we stay and fight but we MUST have fresh, well-trained, well-armed troops and we're not going to get them from among the Iraqis." If he really believes that the new draftees could be considered as fresh, well-trained, well-armed troops, he is deluding himself - They would be what every conscripted force in history has been - pure cannon-fodder. The only source of the troops that he says are required are from the population of Iraq, it is after all their country, and they are more likely to win the active co-operation of the civilian population than any drafted US Force. Guest 282AR believes that the US will not only lose the "war in Iraq" but he believes that they are incapable of winning the "war in Iraq". This as WLD has pointed out is simply not the case. If the US Forces currently serving in Iraq were at war they could crush the opposition within 30 days, loss of life amongst the insurgents/militia's/etc and the civilian population would be horrendous. However the fact of the matter is that the US Forces currently serving in Iraq are NOT on a war footing, but make absolutely no mistake whatsoever the military power of the US could very easily conquer Iraq, it would be both counter-productive, highly undesireable and the consequences of following such a course of action would be wide reachingly negative, but it could be done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:17 AM >>Don't be disingenuous, 282A. You said, "...when times got tough...we sent the Russians to die battling Hitler so we wouldn't have to." That is not a factual statement. What part of Hitler attacked his Soviet ally don't you understand?<< What part of "we let the Russians die fighting Hitler so we wouldn't have to" don't you understand? >>The Allies fought Hitler in Western Europe and Africa; the USSR fought in the east, a sensible logistical decision forced on all parties. Using your logic, I could say that Stalin sent England and the Allies to fight in the west so he wouldn't have to.<< But in the end, it wasn't Stalin writing the lies you read in school about the great USA beating up all the bad guys was it? We ended up with all the power. Now how do you think we managed that and Russia got nothing for all their sacrifices? Because Russia wasn't in a position to manipulate anyone. WE did the manipulating and we're still doing it. The enemy was us all along, wasn't it? Don't be disingenuous, pal, look at Iraq and tell me with a straight face who the enemy of the world really is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Black Beauty Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:31 AM Boys boys this is getting nasty. Can we not just agree that American aggression is the problem and some have trouble accepting it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:34 AM >>I asked how long he thought it would take to put his draftee's into the frontline - He didn't respond, but later states that it would take at least five years to make units of the new Iraqi Army combat effective.<< That isn't what I said at all. Go back and read it. You won't, of course, but you should. >>He's wrong of course, the new Iraqi Army and Police Force are currently responsible for about 50% of Iraqi Territory, and in most counter-insurgency operations taking place in Iraq today the new Iraqi Army lead, they are the ones that are receiving the information from Iraqi civilians.<< And what a grand job they're doing. Maybe you didn't notice but last month was THE DEADLIEST month for Iraqi deaths since this war started. But, of course, you ignore that because it doesn't fit your delusional world-view. Besides, who cares about subhuman towleheads, right, Teribus? It's only fucking Americans that matter--just like always. >>Now the new US draft programme that 282AR believes is the US's only chance: - Currently no infrastructure exists to implement this draft and train the draftees and it would take time to set it up.<< So if we're attacked on U.S. soil again, we'll just surrender because--gee whiz--we can't start the draft up now. That would be too much trouble. And you know what? That probably is what would happen. By your "logic" we shouldn't accept any new people into the military because it takes too much time and money to train them. >>- How well motivated will these draftees be, compared to someone who volunteers to serve knowing full well that the likelyhood is that he will be sent to a combat zone?<< He'll be extremely motivated because he wants to come home. Professional soldiers don't. That's why so many of them get wounded and still want to go back. They have nothing else. >>- Do the same as you did in Vietnam? Just run these draftees through boot camp (once you have them organised) and ship'em out? In Iraq or Afghanistan they would die in droves, this, of course, would further improve their morale and motivation?<< It's what's happening now but at least we won't be running the same guys out there 3 or 4 times until they finally get killed. >>282AR says - "So to me, we either get out and get out now or we stay and fight but we MUST have fresh, well-trained, well-armed troops and we're not going to get them from among the Iraqis." If he really believes that the new draftees could be considered as fresh, well-trained, well-armed troops, he is deluding himself - They would be what every conscripted force in history has been - pure cannon-fodder. The only source of the troops that he says are required are from the population of Iraq, it is after all their country, and they are more likely to win the active co-operation of the civilian population than any drafted US Force.<< They are NOT trustworthy and everybody with a brain knows it, which is why you don't know it. They are tied to militias and sects and most of them hate us. By training them, we are teaching them how to beat Americans. That is extremely stupid. We have to get our troops oout of there BEFORE we train them or they will use our own tactics against us. But if we leave right now, you know damned well what will happen. And your boy Bush won't do it because the blame will go on him--where it belongs. >>Guest 282AR believes that the US will not only lose the "war in Iraq" but he believes that they are incapable of winning the "war in Iraq". This as WLD has pointed out is simply not the case.<< We're not losing. We have already lost. There is no chance we can bounce back now--not without a massive influx of new troops and that's not going to happen until it is far too late to matter. >>If the US Forces currently serving in Iraq were at war they could crush the opposition within 30 days, loss of life amongst the insurgents/militia's/etc and the civilian population would be horrendous. However the fact of the matter is that the US Forces currently serving in Iraq are NOT on a war footing, but make absolutely no mistake whatsoever the military power of the US could very easily conquer Iraq, it would be both counter-productive, highly undesireable and the consequences of following such a course of action would be wide reachingly negative, but it could be done.<< This rant of your is SO utterly ridiculous that it disproves itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:43 AM I understand full well you are saying. Your use of the verb 'let' betrays your argument. If Stalin had not participated in the Russo-German non-aggression pact, Hitler probably would not have attacked west. In that sense, for 2 years Stalin 'let' the west fight Nazis. And you're correct, Stalin did not write the lies I read...he wrote the lies the Russians read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Dec 06 - 12:39 PM No point arguing about conscripting young Americans into the army would make it possible to carry ion the warin Iraq to some kind of victory. It won't happen. Assume that it is true that a massive increase in the size of the occupation army would succeed over a number of years in bringing about a regime in power in Iraq that wouldn't collapse as soon as the troops were pulled out. Even assunming that, the impact on America at home rules it out. It'd tear the country to pieces. It'd be the anti-war movement from the Sixties, but multiplied many times over. No politician is going to risk it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 09 Dec 06 - 04:27 PM Well, if a proposed draft tears the country apart, that says all we need to know about whether the country at large really wants to fight this war. As I said earlier, so far the sacrifice the country at large has been asked to make to fight the war is to---go shopping, so the economy doesn't falter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Cruiser Date: 09 Dec 06 - 04:53 PM Q stated: "Democracy has to evolve, not be imposed at gun point on cultures used to different ways." That one statement is worth a billon other statements regarding war. Reflection on such profundities could have saved countless numbers of lives, destruction, and misery throughout history if democracies that profess democratic doctrine would have considered such statements before imposing their views through aggression. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM OK 282AR start your draft to fail and face defeat in Iraq, but done to save US "face", start it on Monday - How many hundreds of thousands of people turn up? Where do you send them? Where do they report to? Who trains them? Who decides what specialisations they are trained in? Conscripts = Cannon Fodder in modern warfare they are completely fuckin' useless. They are more motivated because they want to get home quick, you have got to be kidding right? Quickest way home is to drop your weapon and run like fuck at the first opportunity. Oldtime motto of the US armed forces in the Vietnam era when up against it - "Let's get the fuck out of here" - The Australians in Vietnam would rather be surrounded by Viet Cong than supported by US Conscript Troops - That is a measure of how good your draftees would be. Your conscript troops got their arses kicked and were totally defeated in Vietnam and the same would happen to them in Iraq, now tell me that wasn't the case, and tell me why you think your daftees would do better in Iraq. When it comes to gathering intelligence information on your enemy in a counter-insurgency situation the "local element" is essential. Now America has never faced this sort of enemy before, and at present you are not doing very well, you do not have a clue how to win the local populace over to your side, but the locally recruited volunteers of the new Iraqi Army does. Believe me 282AR the average Iraqi civilian would sooner talk to one of his own than to any body-armour bedecked US Army or Marine Corps squaddie armed to the teeth enclosed in his Humvee, kitted out in Kevlar Helmet and sunglasses. Your comment - "who cares about subhuman towleheads, right, Teribus?" are YOUR WORDS NOT MINE - I would NEVER subscribe to such a view, and I would very much doubt if any serving member of HM Forces would either. Your comment - "By training them, we are teaching them how to beat Americans. That is extremely stupid. We have to get our troops oout of there BEFORE we train them or they will use our own tactics against us." Has got to be the most ludicrous thing I have EVER read. Are you really that idiotic "We have to get our own troops out before we train them" - utterly fuckin' ridiculous, your statement makes no sense at all. Believe me if attacked on US soil again, if left to most people on this forum you would roll over and surrender. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 10 Dec 06 - 05:46 AM This thread would benefit from people talking about one issue at a time - namely the one at hand. The whys and wherefores Russia and America got into ww2 are not germane. I only said that our war effort was greatly aided by a lot of Russians putting their lives on the line, which I think is fairly undeniable. The guest with a number that sounds like an airfix kit opined that a blood sacrifice of drafted soldiers would be a way - albeit totally unacceptable - to wage this present ongoing war. I think you would be surprised who would fight for your country. My father fought and he had known little except starvation and bad treatment in the 1920's and 1930's. The Oxford Students who said in debate that they would not fight for their country all did. I used to teach in the inner cities of Nottingham, Derby and Birmingham. I have heard the people (young men) who have recntly emigrated into our country say quite without any prompting they would gladly fight for England. This is in some schools where the National Front arseholes have been picketting outside giving out hate literature to the white kids. You see, the recent immigrants appreciate the freedoms that our country offers them more than people who are used to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:25 AM I half way agree with you, T-Bird, that trainin' Iraqis probably won't increase the attacks against Americans but it sho nuff will increase attacks against their fellow countrymen in what has become a civil war... That is why I have repeatedly come down hard on this approach as component of of any possible action that the US/UK should consider in Iraqmire... They don't need more folks with military training... They have enough allready... I mean, lets get real here... Iraq has fallen into civil war, just as I and many other Catters predicted would occur during the lead up to the invasion... Training and/or equiping one side or the other right now is like pouring gasoline on a fire... But given Bush's history of making very bad and grave decisions that have backfired he probably will keep his streak alive and endorse this very stupid idea... BTW, in endorseing it, guess who wins??? (Clue: Eisenhower's farewell speech...) Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 10 Dec 06 - 09:52 AM The situation in Iraq is far from simple, as Bobert would like us to believe. Point 1: No one is currently "at war" in Iraq, be that civil war or otherwise, if there was a civil war in Iraq at the moment everybody and their dog would know about it - widespread large scale operations - extremely heavy casualty figures - clearly identifiable sides, those sides or factions having clearly stated aims. None of these are present in Iraq at the moment, there is no cvil war in Iraq. Point 2: What you do have in parts of Iraq is an insurrection by a number of disparate, disaffected groups with widely varying agendas. These groups can only be combatted by effective intelligence and with the help of the local communities in the areas that these insurgent groups operate in. It is far easier for Iraqi Army units to implement this, rather than MNF units. This is the tactic that is increasingly being used. The other means of combatting these groups is by education, you show the people in the conflict areas how people in the more peaceful parts of the country are progressing - give them something to compare their situation with along with the message get rid of the insurgents and your lives will improve dramatically. Point 3: What you have in parts of Iraq is sectarian violence and out-and-out criminality (7 out of 10 kidnappings in Iraq are criminal aimed at obtaining ransom). This can only be countered by the Iraqi Police Forces because you are dealing with the crimes of murder, kidnapping, extortion, etc. Remember Saddam emptying all the prisons just prior to the invasion (He didn't let his political prisoners go though - He had all of those executed). Now MNF troops can train and provide as much support and technology as required but it will be the Iraqi troops and policemen that will deliver the goods. They will not do that unless the firmly voiced commitment to stand alongside them is given time, after time, after time. You have got to realise that this will take a long, long time, unacceptable and unpalatable as this may be to the left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Blair camp who tend to have the attention spans of goldfish - Oh and Bobert if you check you will find that that is what I have always said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Arne Date: 10 Dec 06 - 09:56 AM Teribus: Where on earth did you get this figure from Bobert? Could 500,000 of those be from the, by now, widely and totally discredited Lancet article? "[W]idely and totally discredited"? Where? How so? Do tell. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 10 Dec 06 - 10:21 AM Hello there Arne Langsetmo, my little Viking, nice to see you back. From your question I take it that you have not looked at Wolfgangs posted information relating to the study that was published in the Lancet which stated that 500,000 Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE DIED. I would advise you to go and read the links supplied by Wolfgang. I take it that you would agree with me that something that says that, "500,000 Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE DIED", cannot be translated by any stretch of the imagination into, "500,000 Iraqi civilians HAVE DIED" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Arne Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:05 AM Wolfgang: link to pdf of just one paper critical of the Lancet study Webpage of one scientist critical of the Lancet study So where's the rest? One scientist (or group of such) isn't "widely and totally discredited" as Teribus puts it. The paper Wolfgang cites above is based on false assumptions, promarily that the sampling was biased towards main streets. The authors of the Lancet study have responded to this mischaracterisation of their study. See here for more discussion on this. In addition, the critics, in their paper (which, AFAIK hasn't been peer-reviewed or published) make up their own numbers out of thin air, rather than actually measuring them, in pretending to show the amount of bias due to the non-existent 'bias towards main streets'. Here's the Lancet paper. As they state, they selected region, town, neighbourhood, and then house using random numbers. Wolfgang's web site reference is just a rehash of basically the same stuff as the paper cited, which, as I pointed out, itself has two major flaws (aside from apparently being unreviewed). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Arne Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:11 AM Teribus: Sorry Bobert, but I forgot to add - The Lancet article at no time ever said that 500,000 Iraqi civilians had died. What the article actually said was that up to 500,000 Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE died. Ummm, no. They said the best estimate of the excess deaths that did occur is 600K or so. That is the mean, with a confidence interval of 426-793K (95%). So perhaps as many as three quarters of a million "may have died". Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Arne Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:41 AM Teribus: Yes exactly Guest TIA, it is a method used by pollsters, "Batch Sampling" does not and cannot EVER give you anything other than the roughest of estimations - It cannot in any way be treated as any sort of serious study or attempt to quantify civilian casualties. Except that it is same method used for casualty figures in the Congo and Darfur, which are accepted because they don't have the political implications of the Iraq numbers (see my link to discussions above). This garbage about "the roughest of estimates" is just that. Statistical sampling is an "estimate" (in fact, that's what it's designed to be; if you wanted the actual number, you'd count everything and wouldn't sample ... be my guest, Teribus, go over and count 'em all). You can use various methods to reduce the uncertainty (narrow the "confidence interval"). Increasing sample size does that. If you do totally random sampling, you reduce it the most, but if that's not practical, you can reduce it by counting a "cluster" (as they did the the study) of houses physically adjacent. This reduces variability, but you can account for that as well by looking at "within-group variance" and "between-groups variance" to estimate by how much the variance is reduced (and thus the effective sample size). This they did. It's a perfectly legitimate methodology, used in situations where the costs (and risks) of completely random sampling are too high (such as in war zones where your researchers are in danger of getting killed just to get your data). And it increases the sample size over just looking at the first home selected (albeit not as much as selecting the same number of houses completely at random). IOW, you're just ignerrent of statistics ... and science, for that matter. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Arne Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:44 AM Wolfgang: You mean you have not read the critique in SCIENCE? You have not read about the influence of "main street bias"? Yeah, and I've heard the JH folks say that this claim of "main street bias" is bogus. As for the "critique in Science", would that be a LTTE? Cite, please. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Arne Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:57 AM Teribus: Akenaton, there is no "War" in Iraq, there is a duly elected Government and a duly mandated UN Force in Iraq both of whom are currently combating an insurgency, but there is no "War" civil or otherwise being fought in Iraq other than the ongoing war on terror. Terminology regarding the Senate hearings can be accredited to those participating in those hearings do not attribute them to me. Tell that to the soldiers coming home. When those that still have all their legs left get done with you (and perhaps even those that don't, but they'd at least piss on you if you got close enough), let us know how many teeth you have left. 'Kay? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ebbie Date: 10 Dec 06 - 04:08 PM Dianavan asks how we're doing, let's see by the end of January 2007 more than 50 % of the 18 regions that make up Iraq will be under sole control of the Iraqi Authorities including all police and security matters, which in comparison to Greece at the end of the Second World War means that Iraq is slightly ahead of schedule, by about a year. Probably by March next year Iraq's second largest city will be handed over to full Iraq Authority control. My best guess is that in the South the British will have withdrawn apart from training and support duties by summer 2007. Teribus T, have you noticed a curious discrepancy between what is forecast and what the situation is right now? It is easy to say that a month or two from now the Iraqis will be able to do thus and so. But the whipped up expectations wane somewhat when it is admitted that the count of those trained and ready to go is going DOWN, not up. "The last bit of effective US military planning was WWII D-Day, and don't forget that the English refused to let 'the bloody Yanks' have total charge of that, you know... In the Pacific, the tactic was mostly just an inevitable "roll up the carpet with concentrating superior force on a weak spot". Foolestroupe FT, keep in mind that the "English" installed a US general as overall commander. Not as dismissive as you make it sound. I've been listening assiduously the last few days to speeches and hearings and interviews with major players, both singly and in tandem. The attitude that comes across is absolutely amazing. Anyone who does not see that the US and 'coalition' believe that their 'cause' is lost is not paying attention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST Date: 10 Dec 06 - 04:17 PM "by the end of January 2007 more than 50 % of the 18 regions that make up Iraq will be under sole control of the Iraqi Authorities including all police and security matters, which in comparison to Greece at the end of the Second World War means that Iraq is slightly ahead of schedule, by about a year" Even if true, so what? Hows about compared to what we were told by our governments before and during the ilegal invasion. The people of Iraq were supposed to welcome us with open arms. It doesn't even matter if it all finshed here and now. "We" would still be years behind schedule. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ebbie Date: 10 Dec 06 - 05:15 PM Teribus obligingly and optimistically gave his "best guess". My best guess is that the current elected Iraqi government will be overrun and disbanded. You have no idea of what pain that expresses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:28 PM Teribus-- The "Iraqi Police Forces" will solve civilians' problems?. Unless you happen to be Sunni. But of course, according to you, a Sunni--any Sunni-- is the equivalent of a hardcore Nazi in 1945. And as I said, your attitude, shared as it is by some prominent Shiite politicians, is what's responsible in large part for the worsening civil war. Sunnis don't trust the "Iraqi Police Forces". For good reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:33 PM You are absolutely right Ron Davies, and the rest of you who subscibe to the inevitability of abandoned hope. Demographically Iraq is composed of 26 million people of whom Shi'as make up 60%-65% and the Sunni's, that Ron Davies is so concerned about make up 32%-37%. So let's follow the general concensus of this forum: - US and MNF forces must pull out immediately - Accept that Iraq will descend into civil war - Insurgency problem will dissappear because by and large so will a very large proportion of the Sunni population of Iraq ( Hey Ron it's an absolute bastard when for the last 24 years you have been top dog and all of a sudden you have to descend to being content with the level of equality - But what the fuck it's called pay-back, richly deserved for tacitally supporting an insurrection that targets innocent supposedly fellow citizens - don't tell me Ron that you don't believe in cause and effect) - Possibility that Iraq will disintegrate into two separate states one Kurdish and one Arabic Shia state. I have no problem with that, have you Ron? After all you left-wing, anti-war, anti-bush. anti-Blair types have been droning on about the borders of Iraq being artificially drawn by those evil bastard Brits for ages - this would seem a perfect time to put matters to rights - Perfect. At least in the future we will know who to fight and know that they have defined the boundaries. It also gives us a chance to eliminate the Turks from EU membership as we would probably have to fix their wagon when they attempt to have a go at the newly emergent Kurdistan, Iran might be involved in this stramash as well, but what the hell the more the merrier. Now let's have a look at the good ol' US of A: - Osama is still your enemy, he can appear in some form or other and publically declare to the world that he has defeated the major super-power in the world and that his intention is still aimed at destroying you. - All future attacks will now take place within the United States of America, because your government and your military have got absolutely no credibility outside your own borders, having shown your propensity to "cut and run" in any given situation, your on-the ground intelligence stream will just dry up, no matter because since the days of Peanut Farmer Jimmy Carter you have only believed in electronically gathered intelligence. - Your government no longer has the confidence to send US troops abroad, and those troops themselves will not go on what they see as being a fools errand. After all why go abroad and risk being killed when all those back home do not believe we should there in the first place, far better to stay at home and let the enemy come to you, than at least you have the comfort of fighting shoulder to shoulder alongside such stawlart believers of truth and justice as Ron Davies, Arne "Viking" Langsetmo and the redoubtable Bobert - frightening prospect, why indeed should Islam tremble, Arne and Ron on their own could bore them to death. - Of course this will result in another of the dearly held beliefs of those on this forum - the creation of a drafted armed force to defend the United States of America, only problem is they won't defend you even if all the action takes place on your own doorstep. Yes, listening to most contributers to this forum maybe it is time you all curled up and accepted the inevitable - I don't for one second thing that you will relish, or enjoy the result. You all take great pride in the past achievements of The US - great pity that none of you are prepared to fight to actually maintain those rights and freedoms against a person who has singularly identified you, your freedoms and your way of life as his target. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:42 PM I do not call the failure of an unjustified, illegal war of aggression "abandonment of hope". I call it a just and well-deserved conclusion. Of course, Hitler abandoned hope finally, didn't he? But that was a just and well-deserved conclusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:46 PM Teribus. If the US founders were to see the US (government) today. They would say thier principles were already lost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:36 AM Teribus-- "Truth and Justice"---spelled S E N S E. Too bad it's a foreign concept for you. Your "payback" will result in permanent civil war--or total ethnic cleansing. Both obviously fine with you. Despite what you may think, it is a reasonable requirement that Sunnis should be able to trust the police. And they can't now. Some Sunnis are the equivalent of hardcore Nazis in 1945. Most are not. When will you get that into your giant brain? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ebbie Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:04 AM The image I'm getting is of a purple-faced kid with a stick, swinging widely, weeping, his eyes tight shut. On the other hand, that is just about the image I'm getting of Bush too. Does that mean that the T is in good company? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 11 Dec 06 - 10:44 AM "If the US founders were to see the US (government) today. They would say thier principles were already lost." Damn right they would!!! The first thing that those Founders, who scribed all that high moral stuff about equality and freedom", would notice is the fact that their slaves had been freed. Agreed Ron Davies the concepts of "Truth and Justice" are completely foreign to most Arab States, particulary Iran, where both are dictated to the entire population by 12 Old Gits who occasionally gather together and agree as to what exactly constitutes "Truth and Justice" for that particular week. "Your "payback" will result in permanent civil war--or total ethnic cleansing. Both obviously fine with you." It might, it might not. Oh and remember Ron I am one of those wishing that the MNF troops stay to complete their task in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. You on the other hand are part of the crowd who would like nothing better than to see the MNF withdrawn in ignominy, all just to shout at Bush - "We told you so" - that is what it is all about for most on this forum - Please do not for one minute attempt to portray yourself as a person who gives a toss for the people of Iraq or the middle-east region as a whole - you don't, it's all about getting Bush. Now as you want the troops withdrawn, and you don't think that the Iraqi Army is up to much. You believe that civil war, with it's almost inevitable period of ethnic cleansing would be the choice of the people living in Iraq? Well they were given the opportunity of living peacefully and chose different - their affair, not ours right? After all you don't want to do anything about it, so let'em get on with it, not worth the life of a single MNF soldier. I do not for one minute believe that it would be permanent - The French, Russians and Chinese would step in to protect their investments. The Sunni's of Anbar and Salahadin Provinces might have a bit of a shock, the Russians could show the Residents of Fallujah, Samarra and Ramadi television coverage of what they did to Grozny. It would be most enlightening for them. I agree Ron it is a reasonable requirement that Sunnis should be able to trust the police. And it's about high time that the bulk of the residents of the predominatly Sunni Arab Provinces started getting behind the forces of law and order. Their choice entirely, support the insurgents and take the consequences, or provide proof positive that you are prepared to live peacefully in Iraq with exactly the same rights as anybody else. "Some Sunnis are the equivalent of hardcore Nazis in 1945. Most are not." Then it is high time that those who are not started acting like Iraqi's first instead Arab Sunni's first Iraqi's second. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST Date: 11 Dec 06 - 10:48 AM Wrong Teribus. They would see similarities between what they fought against and what the US does now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Dec 06 - 12:09 AM Teribus-- So, you finally admit that not all Sunnis are latter-day Nazis--some are vicious criminals, but most are ordinary humans. Thanks so much. Does this also mean that your "payback" which you so enthusistically endorsed recently, is not in fact the best idea? Again, a big concession to civilized behavior on your part--do you really think your masculine self-image can take it? But it sounds like there may be hope for you yet. One more thing--you seem to live on false dichotomies and red herrings--(what a diet!). You want Sunnis to provide proof that they are willing to live in Iraq with the same rights as others. I submit that most already do so-- and would only like to have jobs, electricity, running water etc.-- the same desires as other Iraqis. However the Sunnis would also like to not be arrested or killed for having a Sunni name. Now are you willing to admit that Shiite religious militias should be purged from the Iraq police? Keep in mind this may impair your "payback". Can you live with that? So sorry it has bothered you so long that I support minority rights (for Sunnis, in this case)--you certainly have chastized me for this heinous crime enough in the past year. As I said, it's called S E N S E. And F A I R N E S S. Still foreign concepts to you evidently. But maybe in capital letters you might begin to understand. And maybe--in a few eons--make them part of your own approach. We can always hope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:22 AM "enthusiastically" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:54 AM "chastised" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 12 Dec 06 - 10:08 AM OK Ron let's recap shall we? On any specific points please tell me where I am wrong: Ron Davies - wants the troops of the Multi National Force out of Iraq as soon as possible. Teribus - wants the troops of the Multi National Force to remain inplace until such time as the Government of Iraq asks them to leave or they are ordered to leave when their UN Mandate expires. Now taking into account that the vast majority of acts of violence being perpetrated in Iraq today are sectarian bombings, kidnappings and murders, does anybody think that reducing the forces of law and order would be beneficial at this point. When was the last time anybody heard anything about Al-Queda-in-Iraq? When was the last notable insurgent strike against "the-forces-of-the-oppressor"? Ron Davies - Gravely concerned about the ARAB SUNNI minority, who in general are currently backing the insurgents, albeit in various degrees in terms of active support, passive support or in mainting a sort of strict neutrality. Ron's concerns are centred on how this ARAB SUNNI minority might be treated by the newly elected Iraq Government operating under the terms of the new Iraqi Constitution. Teribus - Not concerned about the ARAB SUNNI minority in the slightest. They have exactly the same rights under law as any other Iraqi citizen. Teribus believes that it is up to the ARAB SUNNI minority to demonstrate to the entire population of Iraq that they actually want to live peacefully as Iraqi citizens. For them to do this they have to abandon ALL support for the insurrection, they must provide the forces of law and order with ALL necessary assistance in order to establish rule of law and order in their country. "Payback" is what the ARAB SUNNI minority fear, the prospect of it causes them to distrust the Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army. OK Ron, where does this collective concern come from? Could it possibly be "collective guilt" for past behaviour towards the majority of Iraqi citizens during the period 1979 and 2003? Unfortunately in looking at this Ron employs his American mindset and outlook to the problem. So "most" ARAB SUNNI's had nothing to do with the excesses of Saddam's regime, Ron, don't look to the ARAB SUNNI man in the street to jump up and proclaim that. The ARAB SUNNI man in the street does not even have an opinion, or if he does he knows full well never to express it if it runs counter to what he was told to think and how he was told to behave the previous Friday at the Mosque. Because his local tribal chief, his local Sheik, his local Immam do his thinking for him. Politically the ARAB SUNNI minority are not a mass of individuals they are basically a flock of sheep, the same can be said for the ARAB SHIA, they will blindly do what one or two people tell them to do, irrespective of whether or not it happens to be in their best interests. This is true throughout the region. Ron Davies - believes that their way forward is to carry on as they are doing and just sit back and demand rights and privileges, whilst blackmailing the country at large with insurrection and terrorist attacks. Ron's way supports their boycott of the political process and complete lack of political dialogue Teribus - believes that their way forward is to actually take a step of faith in their new government. Get behind the forces of law and order. Actively engage in the political process. All of this is demonstrated in one of Ron's posts: "You want Sunnis to provide proof that they are willing to live in Iraq with the same rights as others. I submit that most already do so-- and would only like to have jobs, electricity, running water etc.-- the same desires as other Iraqis. However the Sunnis would also like to not be arrested or killed for having a Sunni name." Now have a good read of that. With regard to JOBS: Plenty of jobs in Kurdish areas, well paid jobs too. People from Anbar and Sallahadin Provinces go there to find work. Why is there no reconstruction work in their own Provinces Ron? Anything to do with a bunch of terrorists telling them that any work on any reconstruction project will be regarded as collaboration with the "enemy", and that the penalty for collaboration is death? Don't they need Policemen and Army Recruits from those Provinces Ron? Surely the ARAB SUNNI minority would trust their own kind wouldn't they Ron? Who, or what is stopping young ARAB SUNNI men from applying for those positions? With regard to ELECTRICITY, RUNNING WATER, ETC: Who is it that is attacking and sabotaging the power grid and generation capacity of Iraq within those areas Ron? Shia or Sunni Kurds? - No. SHIA ARABS? - No. SUNNI ARABS? - YES Who is it that is attacking and sabotaging water supplies in these provinces Ron? Shia or Sunni Kurds? - No. SHIA ARABS? - No. SUNNI ARABS? - YES Are the bulk of the SUNNI ARAB population in these provinces doing anything about that considering Ron's contention that they want electricity and running water, etc - NO. "However the ....... (Insert name of whatever ethnic/religious sect) would also like to not be arrested or killed for having a .......(Insert name of whatever point of distinction that identifies anyone as belonging to that ethnic/religious sect)" The bulk of the violence in Iraq today is sectarian both and is largely restricted to the ARAB population both SUNNI and SHIA, both sides have their concerns that I am sure they can fully justify, but somebody somewhere along the line has to take that first leap of faith, in today's Iraq that has to be the SUNNI ARAB section of the population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST Date: 12 Dec 06 - 02:56 PM Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Dec 06 - 11:36 PM Uh, Teribus--will you ever start reading your own questions? Even when you provide your own answers, you don't seem to notice. Don't have much time now. But just to pick one question of yours that actually makes sense--a major step forward: Why aren't young Sunnis signing up for the Iraqi army or police? As you noted yourself, even trying to do so would be very dangerous. Do you by some chance recall the attacks on young men lining up for such jobs? It shouldn't take you long to find such references. And just think, if you wait a little while, it may well happen again. You are falling into the old military trap (being one of the old military, it's not surprising)--you think every problem can be solved by military means. It should be obvious to anybody with a modicum of sense--might that possibly include you?--that the Iraq situation is at bottom a political question. As long as the political issues are not settled, it won't make any difference how big the Iraq army or police is. At this point, Sunnis in general want no part of either. As much as it annoys you- it really breaks my heart to tell you--for the n th time---I wonder how many more times it will take until you start to understand--- Iraq will have to take Sunnis' interests into account. In fact, it appears the US military may finally be realizing what it will take you a few more centuries to grasp---that actually one of the best counterinsurgency techniques in Iraq would be to provide civilian employment. The army is now trying to convince US firms to set up shop in abandoned or underused facilities. With unemployment at 70% in some areas, and breadwinners responsible for up to 15 dependents, some heads of household are taking insurgents' money to set up bombs, etc. As well as being so discouraged and infuriated as to strike out against anybody. Both of which could be addressed by employment. And not by your favorite solution--a bigger military and police. So sorry--but maybe you'll realize this eventually. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Dec 06 - 11:44 PM Teribus-- One more thing--no matter what you say--and it's fascinating how after a full year, you still have no sensible counter-argument--the 2 issues I have been noting MUST be addressed: Sunnis must: 1) be able to trust the police--which means purging it of Shiite militias 2) be guaranteed more oil revenue than would accrue to them from just the "Sunni areas" of Iraq. Perhaps you might want to do some reading on the federalism plans now being discussed in the Iraq parliament--plans which are precisely the reason for Sunnis' concern on this score. Who knows, if you start reading, you might learn something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 13 Dec 06 - 03:28 AM Ron Davies - Point 1: Ron Davies - 12 Dec 06 - 11:36 PM "Uh, Teribus--will you ever start reading your own questions? Even when you provide your own answers, you don't seem to notice. But just to pick one question of yours that actually makes sense--a major step forward: Why aren't young Sunnis signing up for the Iraqi army or police? As you noted yourself, even trying to do so would be very dangerous. Do you by some chance recall the attacks on young men lining up for such jobs?" In ALL reports of such attacks on Police or Army recruitment centres Ron the attacks were carried out by insurgent groups - SUNNI ARABS. From the same post: "You are falling into the old military trap (being one of the old military, it's not surprising)--you think every problem can be solved by military means." Just demonstrates your propensity to read what you want to read - In actual fact I have stated exactly the opposite on many occasions - Ron you really should work on your english comprehension skills. Of course at bottom it has to be a political solution, and one in which the USA has no say. The Arab Sunni's, or more correctly those "leaders" who instruct the Arab Sunni's in what to say and think, decided very early on to have no part in the emergent political process. Those same people now complain that they have been left behind - their choice then, it's their choice now, what they have to do is catch up, what they have to do is actively engage. They cannot do that, Ron, with any degree of credibility if they are going to talks during the day and making bombs for insurgents and sheltering them and their activities by night. It is one of those things where a decision has to be made, same thing happened in Ireland, where Bertie Ahern stated that Sinn Fein would never form any part of government while the IRA remained under arms, because you cannot have anyone engaged in a democractic process who maintains a private army. What they are doing at the moment is they have issued a list of what the Government must do to get them to the table - That Ron is blackmail, and no Government should submit to it. They want employment in the Arab Sunni provinces of Iraq? Then they should turn their backs on the insurgents. Last bomb went off in the Kurdish area of Iraq which is mixed (Both Sunni and Shia) two years ago - Erbil is now a tourist destination, there is no shortage of jobs in either the Kurdish North of the country or in the predominantly Shia South - Only in the Arab Sunni Provinces where the insurgency has it's base. As far as I am aware activities relating to purging the Iraqi Police Force and Army of Shia Militia members is already underway. Has it been completed? no these things take time, but it is incorrect to say that the problem has not been recognised and that nothing is being done about it. As for the revenue from Iraq's natural resources, the deal struck meant that the Arab Sunni provinces got whatever share of the oil revenue that they received before (the bulk of Iraq's oil coming from existing fields). New fields and exploration would be subject to a different division of revenue as the "Federal Areas" would take a share in the costs of exploration and development in partnership with the oil companies. All of that can be up for negotiation at a later date, at the moment that is not a priority, nor should it be. What the "leaders" of the Arab Sunni minority need to hoist onboard and quickly as possible is that if they do not engage in the political process (difficult as it is for those "leaders" as it will involve a bit of a U-turn with subsequent "loss of face") they will be left astern, with no other hope save their doomed insurrection, which in the ensuing "civil war" will be crushed. It is entirely their decision and they must accept the consequences of whatever it is they decide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,UP AP AND THE BEANO. Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:28 AM Big news, Bush has posponed his address to the nation, his excuse is he hasn`t it prepared yet, so far he has go to, my fellow citizens, we are now much closer to winning the war in Iraq, eh, er, er,. Will leave that until the new year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,Ramsey Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:53 AM Five hundred to one thousand people die each year in the United States from aspirin, usually from internal bleeding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 13 Dec 06 - 07:22 AM Ah yes, another point for you to ponder. "Payback"--which you again seem to be endorsing--so much for your edging into civilized behavior--appears to have been a feint--is not in fact what Sunnis in general fear. Why?--since it's a misnomer. Most Sunnis did not participate in Saddam's torture and killing of political opponents. So there is no ""payback" in which they should be involved. But despite this they are being targeted by the Shiite militias, inside and outside the police--and sometimes their own neighbors. If you look for a parallel try this: Most whites in the US did not participate in the lynching of blacks. Yet according to your analogy, it would be perfectly understandable for whites to be killed by blacks--and the only solution would be for whites to flee. Or if you want a closer analogy, perhaps the end of apartheid in South Africa. According to you, when the black majority took over, it would be perfectly understandable for black policemen to torture and kill whites--after all, some blacks had suffered that under apartheid. Instead of that, there was a real attempt at reconcilation---very imperfect, but the process in South Africa is still going on. One major difference in the South Africa situation--after the fall of apartheid, whites could still trust the police. This is absolutely essential. It appears you've never heard of the old saw "An eye for an eye--and soon everybody is blind". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 13 Dec 06 - 07:30 AM Teribus-- If you claim to actually be aware that the Iraq situation is at bottom political, let's have a CLEAR statement from you REJECTING your recent favorite buzzword "payback". Otherwise I'll have to say you're trying desperately to straddle the fence. Must be a bit painful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 13 Dec 06 - 12:24 PM Ron, let's just stick to the situation we are discussing, no need to transpose things to other places and othr times. What I have said is perfectly clear - the Arab Sunni's have to catch up to the political process and get involved, they have to renounce support for the insurgents, they have to demonstrate that they are Iraqi's first and Arab Sunni's second. By the way Ron I do make the distinction between Arab Sunni's and others of the Sunni faith in Iraq as it has generally been the Arab Sunni's who: - were given preferential treatment during the reign of Saddam Hussein. - made up the numbers of The Republican Guard. - made up the numbers of The Special Republican Guard. - made up the numbers of The Feydaheen Saddam. - have given material support to the insurrection - have given material suport to Ba'athist hardline elements Elsewhere in Iraq those of the Sunni and Shia faiths seem to living together quite peacefully. Only in the Sunni triangle does there seem to be any great problem. It is entirely down to what the people who live there choose to do, back the government and get onboard politically, or continue to support the insurgency, either way the have to accept the consequences that go with their choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 13 Dec 06 - 11:44 PM Teribus-- If you do make a distinction between ordinary Sunnis and hardcore Baathists, this is a change. I can cite you chapter and verse from your own postings--so don't try to allege that you have not not lumped all Sunnis together as equivalent to hardline Nazis in 1945. But you're making progress towards sense, anyway. Now, how about that CLEAR statement rejecting "payback"-- though "payback" is your most recent favorite buzzword? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 14 Dec 06 - 02:25 AM Some previous questions of mine for you to answer first Ron: 1. You want the troops of the Multi National Force out of Iraq as soon as possible. Now taking into account that the vast majority of acts of violence being perpetrated in Iraq today are sectarian bombings, kidnappings and murders, does anybody think that reducing the forces of law and order would be beneficial at this point. 2. "Payback" is what the ARAB SUNNI minority fear, the prospect of it causes them to distrust the Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army. OK Ron, where does this collective concern come from? Could it possibly be "collective guilt" for past behaviour towards the majority of Iraqi citizens during the period 1979 and 2003? 3. Why is there no reconstruction work in the Arab Sunni Provinces Ron? Anything to do with a bunch of terrorists telling them that any work on any reconstruction project will be regarded as collaboration with the "enemy", and that the penalty for collaboration is death? 4. Who, or what is stopping young ARAB SUNNI men from applying for employment and positions in the new Iraqi Army and Police Force? 5. Who is it that is attacking and sabotaging the power grid and generation capacity of Iraq within those areas Ron? Shia or Sunni Kurds? - No. SHIA ARABS? - No. SUNNI ARABS? - YES 6. Who is it that is attacking and sabotaging water supplies in these provinces Ron? Shia or Sunni Kurds? - No. SHIA ARABS? - No. SUNNI ARABS? - YES 7. Considering your contention that the ARAB SUNNI population simply want electricity and running water, etc. Are the bulk of the SUNNI ARAB population in these provinces doing anything about the attacks on the people of Iraq and their essential services? Are they behind the forces of law and order trying to stop these attacks? Or are they actively or passively assisting those carrying-out those attacks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Wolfgang Date: 14 Dec 06 - 05:46 AM Arne, Science 20 October 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5798, pp. 396 - 397 you and Teribus seem to read in my posts what is not in there. I have said nothing yet about which side I find more credible. (Though I must admit that the statement of the Iraq body count scientists made an impression on me. They are against the war in no unclear terms and at the same time criticise the Lancet people. That's a welcome change from right wing people always believing the lowest number of dead and left wing people always believing the hightest.) My links simply refute the wrong statement by TIA: The figure has been publicly challenged, but not by scientists. To this aim, whether these scientists are only two small groups or whether their arguments are convincing is completely irrelevant. BTW, that a group of scientists whose methods are criticised say that the critique is wrong means nothing at all. One very rarely sees another reaction. Wolfgang |
